2011-08-08
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for today be pursuant to Standing Order 90A.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of a change in administrative arrangements for the opposition as follows:
Terry Mills - Leader of the Opposition, shadow Chief Minister, Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Public and Affordable Housing, Major Projects and Economic Development,
Asian Relations and Trade, Defence Liaison.
That is for the information of the House. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, in relation to changes in the opposition shadow ministries, I was advised about an hour ago that the opposition wish to change seating, which I have agreed to. This may have some issues in relation to Hansard because some people have louder or softer voices than the person who had previously used the chair. Over the next few hours we will be adjusting those things. We may need to get a sound consultant in to check that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): We place on the record, Madam Speaker, our thanks for your indulgence.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 28
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No 28 notifying assent to bills passed in the June sittings of the Assembly.
TABLED PAPER
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – Letter of Thanks
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Jamie Lowther Pinkerton Esq, MVO, MBE, Private Secretary to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, from St James Palace thanking honourable members for the gift we gave for their royal wedding.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Anula Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Tracey Lewis and Mr Richard Lees. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 140)
Continued from 2 December 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset this will be one of the shorter debates on the legislative instruments that pass this House. This one will pass, I presume, unopposed. This is one of those dotting of the i’s, crossing of the t’s bills, which is part of the review of legislation which occurs from time to time in accordance with good housekeeping practices. This changes a raft of legislative instruments in small and technical ways, creating no substantive change to the law of the Northern Territory and, consequently, enjoys the support of the opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member for Port Darwin. I did try to make some effort. It was easier to go through the explanatory notes than the actual legislation. I have a question. I noticed this under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The explanatory notes say:
The issue I raise in relation to that is - and I have not had time to go through all these acts so I thought I would ask on the floor - did that mean any police officer originally? Does it mean any police officer because, originally, it said ‘member of the Police Force of the Northern Territory’? Now you are substituting ‘a police officer including the Commissioner of the Police’. Does that mean any police officer? Does it also reflect the discussion that was held about how the Commissioner of Police is categorised by the government? Is the Commissioner of Police a policeman or, by putting it in this terminology, does it ensure there is no doubt about his role?
There is also section 10(4) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which says:
Do the words ‘the police officer’ mean any police officer in Australia? You have gone from using the terminology ‘member of the Police Force of the Northern Territory’ which, obviously, describes the police officer as being a member of the Northern Territory Police, to just the words ‘police officer’. I know I might sound technical, but does it leave it wide open for meaning any police officer in Australia? It is just another issue as well.
Another interesting area which made me laugh - and I am just trying to find it - it was under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. I know we were changing things because of gender bias and various matters, but it mentioned the definition of ‘sexual reassignment surgery’. I looked at that and thought to myself: ‘What the heck does that mean?’ I have been told what that is about, but I was not sure what that whole area was about, and whether that was important or not. There are many sections in this act that deal with gender. The words are not only current drafting style but are in relation to gender bias terminology. I did not know whether it had anything to do with that as well.
The issue of police is an area I thought needed some clarification, if the minister could come back to us with that.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support on, essentially, what is tidying up legislation, as the SLRs tend to be.
In the clarification sought by the member for Nelson, I am going to have to get back to him on that. I do not want to make a comment on my feet that could be wrongly interpreted. Obviously, Parliamentary Counsel introduce current and contemporary drafting practices in their updates. I am sure that is what is behind that. It may be, in current and contemporary drafting practices, that we recognise that there are members of the Australian Federal Police who operate in the Territory as well. So, to have a Northern Territory police descriptive in there would not be as encompassing as we could be.
The gender bias terminology does not have a direct link to the gender recognition you refer to in the other legislation.
I will have to get back to you on the contemporary drafting practices of the description of police. It is an area outside my direct administrative responsibility. As Attorney-General, I capture all contemporary drafting practices in statute law revisions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
The problem members on this side of the House and I have is that one of those industries in particular has signalled quite clearly concern about this national framework which is being brought into this House. Once this legislative instrument is passed, it is my understanding this framework will then be used for future occupations. Yet, one of the first seven to be identified already is receiving resistance from various real estate institutes across the country.
I have been written to by five people: Mr Greg Troughton, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of South Australia; Quentin Kilian, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory; Tim McKibbin of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales; Mark Berry of the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania; and Michael Wellsmore of the Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory. I will table this letter shortly, Madam Speaker. It raises issues and, having contacted Mr Quentin Kilian through the Leader of the Opposition’s Office this morning, the e-mail he sent to me on 22 June remains current. That e-mail said:
In essence, there is a vast disparity in this country between different jurisdictions as to what the base requirement is for people operating in the industry. If government chooses to legislate for an industry, expecting certain standards to be met and to be followed, then that government should make certain those standards and benchmarks are capable of protecting the people those legislative instruments protect.
The first threshold question for any government is: do we move to create a legislative environment around a particular industry? In the case of the real estate industry, such legislative instruments exist here in the Northern Territory through several different legislative instruments, including the Residential Tenancies Act, Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, Stamp Duty Act, and Unit Titles Act, just to name a few.
The problem the real estate institutes have is that with this disparity of standard across the country, it is my understanding that in Queensland, which is not a signatory to this letter, the requirements for a person to call themselves a real estate agent are surprisingly low. The concern these other real estate institutes have is that such a jurisdiction becomes the benchmark by which other jurisdictions are met. If I understand it correctly, the real estate course in Queensland can be done quickly – it is a matter of days – whereas the real estate course in the Northern Territory, if you are doing it part-time, can take up to three years and, even if you do it full-time, it still takes well over a month.
The concern I have is what the government, essentially, wants us to do in this House today is create the legislative instrument which enables it to go down the path of occupational licensing, whilst these other real estate institutes remain unhappy and unsatisfied with the scheme as it is currently proposed.
I prefer - and I am sure many members of this House would prefer - to leave this matter sitting on the Notice Paper until these issues are ironed out and we can be reassured that in the other areas such as refrigeration and plumbing, these matters have been ironed out to the satisfaction of the representative organisations in the Northern Territory.
What I do not want to see is a lowering of the standards required for real estate agents in the Northern Territory now we have gone down the path of legislating for their occupation to a standard which will be bad for consumers in the Northern Territory, and the purchasers of houses. These legislative instruments are what I expect people would see faith and trust in.
As a consequence of this, I ask government to leave this on the Notice Paper, do not force passage of this bill today, speak to the various industries so when I speak to those various industries I can be reassured they are happy with what government is proposing. Once it leaves this House, we will not get to speak to those industries or, more importantly, raise those issues in this House.
It would be reasonable, considering there is no requirement for this legislative instrument to be passed even this year - it could be done early next year and preparations can still be made for the first tranche in July 2012. I would prefer to see this matter remain on the Notice Paper.
There are other members who wish to speak to this, and I believe we should afford them an opportunity to do so. I encourage the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at the end of her contribution today, to move an adjournment of this bill so we can come back to it at a later date.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will speak briefly to this bill and seek points of clarification. The purpose of the bill is to accommodate national uniform legislation to harmonise licensing required to work in a number of occupations in the Territory. There are further occupations to be included in 2013, and I am curious to hear from the minister what some of those would be.
My first query is in relation to transport. I seek clarification that dangerous goods should not be included because they are already regulated. Asbestos is excluded because it is covered elsewhere. Given I am talking about asbestos, I am interested to know where the government is proposing to dispose of asbestos. I have written to the Minister for Lands and Planning seeking advice and clarification that the government is proposing to put an asbestos dump adjacent to the proposed gaol at Howard Springs. However, I digress.
It may be difficult to get amendments through, given it has been agreed nationally. However, I want to make a few points. In reality, licensing provides only an identification system - it is not a competency assessment or assurance system as inferred where it said it was providing appropriate protection for both the community in general and consumers.
It might be about government - or some would say big brother - knowing or better being able to control its citizens under whatever guise suits. Laws about licensing in the various jurisdictions already exist, and trying to get rid of barriers and make it easier is beneficial. I would like to know the detail.
Another comment is the fines are pretty steep for a first offence; albeit I realise it is focused on those carrying out the activities for money. However, you could have a situation where you help your neighbour fix their plumbing or lights and he gives you a thank you package. Yes, an offence, but $50 000 is a steep learning curve for someone trying to help a neighbour. Second offence, perhaps yes; however, if the regulator decides to be unreasonable in the first case, it seems to offer free rein to an unfair regulator or someone who is on a mission. I have no problem with the second offence being hit hard because they have not learnt from the first - or multiple offenders - but first offenders should be given a lesser penalty than the second.
The ability to demand requested information should be tempered by a right not to self-incriminate, and be relevant to licences or investigating alleged offences only.
The other issue that concerns me - and I seek clarification from the minister - is where it says if an authority fails to make a decision on a licence application within 120 days, it is deemed to be refused. I believe that is not very good, or acceptable. It also can get worse. If the internal appeal process is not given notice after 28 days, the original decision is deemed to be upheld. That means an authority can simply ignore an application for at least 148 days before the applicant has the right to take the matter to court for a decision, with all the costs that could possibly entail. That is, if the authority does not ask for additional information or, perhaps, seek intervention by some other means - possibly an Ombudsman. I seek clarification in that regard from the minister.
As my colleague, the member for Port Darwin said, I ask that the minister put this bill to the side and adjourn it for a later time until we get clarification on a few of these questions I and my colleague have raised.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I cannot see that too many people would have too much opposition to national uniform legislation to do with occupational licensing. It is something I imagine business would want. Australia has become a small place; people move between jurisdictions. Streamlining something like occupational licensing is - I think every person in this Chamber would agree - a good idea.
However, there are questions. The member for Port Darwin raised a few of those questions in his brief presentation, as did the member for Goyder. It is concerning that standards can slip. This is something that is concerning the Real Estate Institute, and something, I have to say, I have been concerned with for a long time, particularly in the area of real estate agency licences in the Northern Territory. The concern I have in relation to real estate agents is some of the investment advice real estate agents are giving.
For people who work in the financial services industry around Australia, there are some quite stringent regulatory requirements as to who can and who cannot operate, and the means by which they do operate. Over a long period of time in Australia, we have been reforming the financial service industry. Basically, anyone giving advice on securities needs to be licensed. There are some pretty rigorous requirements involved in attaining that licence. Then, to give advice, there are pretty stringent requirements in relation to knowing your client, understanding their risk profiles, understanding the type of advice they are giving in relation to areas such as negative gearing, risk and returns, and all of those type of issues.
The real estate industry is exempt from that legislation. I can understand the argument that when someone is purchasing a home those considerations might not be particularly relevant. However, when someone is purchasing investment property, those considerations become relevant: you need to understand the risk profile of your client; you need to understand what your client is trying to achieve through that investment. In that regard, real estate agents are definitely dealing in securities and should be licensed as such.
Time and time again, you see - certainly in the Northern Territory - the white shoe brigade coming up from the Gold Coast marketing real estate down there, giving all sorts of misleading advice. It seems we are powerless to stop it. If it was happening in the share market, listed property market, or other areas, the regulations would be in place to stop that type of carpetbagging of real estate interstate.
Madam Speaker, I have concerns about this. I am very interested to hear what the deputy leader has to say in regard to it. I am cognisant of what my colleagues, the members for Port Darwin and Goyder have said, and I am very keen to see this adjourned and debated at a later stage as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. I thank the government for its briefing. I have a series of questions which I would like to ask during the committee stage, because there are some questions that need to be answered by the government.
As the member for Fong Lim said, this is very important national legislation, although it is not actually Commonwealth legislation. My understanding is it is called national law, and it is then covered by each state. If you go through some of the explanatory statement, you will understand this is not legislation we are signing up to through the Commonwealth government. I must admit that I would not mind the minister explaining the concept. My understanding is it is the concept of so-called national law where states use the Victorian government’s legislation as the basis of their legislation to sign up to this particular national legislation. The explanatory statement says:
Yet, you get this idea of a national law through this whole document. It is something I had not heard about before, so I am interested to know where this concept has come from, and whether it applies to anything else the Territory has put its name to. It will be interesting to see what the basis of this process is.
I believe it is good that the occupations people have to get a licence for a national standard. When you read the costs that are required for people to be either re-licensed in another state, or to upgrade their licence because the legislative requirements for that licence in another state are different, it costs the industry and the people who are going for those licences a considerable amount of money.
I also believe it makes sense, especially where people live and work on both sides of the border - and it would apply more so to Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia - to make it much easier for them to undertake their work without extra costs. Of course, there are dangers that this type of legislation cannot allow for the special requirements that apply to different parts of Australia for whatever reason. It could be simply because of the climate that some things that are required in the Northern Territory may not be required in southern Tasmania. My understanding from reading this is this has the ability for the Territory to change things where it sees it to be appropriate. As long the legislation has in it that the Territory has the power to change those things, I believe that is a guarantee we will not be necessarily locked into things that may not be suitable for the Northern Territory.
The other issue - and I will probably raise this more in the committee stage - is that with the possible arrival of INPEX to the Territory, there needs to be a quicker approach to what has been put forward. The government has said there will be two tranches for the introduction of certain occupations. The area of building will be in the second tranche. The date mentioned is 1 July 2013, although I see somewhere else that date is not exact. If INPEX is coming to Darwin and government is serious about making sure we are working under the best possible schemes, those issues could be sorted out for those people who are licensed in the building and construction industry before 2013. Theoretically, if INPEX makes a decision at the end of this year, one would expect by July 2013 they will be up and running. The government should look at that area.
There has been some discussion that, for me, popped out of the blue in relation to some issues - and I have not had a chance to really look at this matter from the various real estate institutes. There are five real estate institutes and, with seven states, there are a couple missing. I wonder whether all states agree with what is in that letter. The point is when I read through the explanatory notes - and I have to take on face value what I read here - there were discussions with many stakeholders, not only on one occasion, but quite a number. I would have thought that for any important legislation like this, the national body - I presume there is a national body of real estate agents - would be submitting their concerns to the people who were putting this consultation together.
Page 10 of the explanatory notes mentions consultation. It says there was a July session which was to provide preliminary information on the COAG decision of 3 July 2008 and to gain stakeholder feedback on aspects of the system. Stakeholders were invited to submit written comments on the proposed submission, and 15 submissions were received as a result of the consultations. In October, there was more feedback. It says the sessions were attended by 425 people and 55 written submissions were received. There were also workshops that were well supported with 215 participants in Adelaide, Melbourne and Adelaide again. They were also held in each capital city between 25 November and 8 December 2009.
It surprises me today to hear the Real Estate Institute has some issues with this particular legislation. I am not expecting the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales to write to me, but I would have thought our local Real Estate Institute would have written to the Independent saying they had some concerns. For me to get this letter now, and then be asked to make a comment on it is a little rich. I spent quite some time going through this legislation. I thought the guarantees in it would cover concerns if people thought the system which was being put forward was going to be detrimental to Northern Territory occupations, including the Real Estate Institute. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about this letter.
Can the minister gives us some guarantee that if there are going to be changes to what is required of people who need to get a licence, those changes would come back to this parliament if there are substantive changes? I understand the concern the member for Port Darwin has that if there are to be some changes we will not see them. I am interested to know what the minister has to say in relation to that.
This is not an easy bill to get through. I had a briefing on it, but the feel of the bill is that because it comes under this concept of a national law - there is a section called ‘Sufficient regard to the institute of parliament’:
It goes on to say:
I am interested to know if we can see that. Will that disappear into the ether of regulations as sometimes happens, or can we be guaranteed, if there are some amending regulations in relation to this bill, they will come before parliament to scrutinise? There is a danger when you say yes, we will scrutinise these regulations. Many regulations disappear to committees and never see the light of day. If there is a concern from the opposition that we will not have the ability to do that in a fully open and transparent way through the parliamentary debate, I am interested if the minister could guarantee these regulations - minor regulations might not have to; however, if they are substantial regulations - come back to this House.
I spent quite a bit of time going through this legislation; it is not easy. One of my concerns is as much as everyone likes to have everything uniform, Australia is not uniform. Its geography is not uniform, the people are not necessarily uniform, and the conditions in which people work are not uniform. If we do not have the ability to change legislation to suit our circumstances, that would needed fixing. My reading of the explanatory notes and the second reading is we have the ability to do that. However, I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
I understand the opposition may have some concerns – this has come at the death. If the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory is concerned it was a big issue, I do not know why the Independents could not have been notified earlier because this legislation has been around a long time. This is the first time we have had a full parliamentary sittings since Alice Springs. It was introduced into parliament quite a long time ago and, only now, I am being asked whether I would support an adjournment. My feeling is no; however, I am willing to listen to what the minister has to say.
Madam Speaker, I have read the explanatory notes. I am comfortable with what is there. I would like to hear what the minister has to say in relation to some of the issues I have raised.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate today. This legislation has been sitting on the public books since November last year when it was introduced. At no stage during that period did the opposition come to the government with any concerns about the legislation and place them on the public record. I see this move by the member for Port Darwin today for what it is - a stunt. I will talk through the checks and balances in the process we have in place to ensure the interests of the consumer in the Territory, as well as the person undertaking their trade or profession in the Territory, is assured in the quality of the profession.
Bearing in mind this move to national consistency in trade qualifications is about reducing red tape, I listened intently to the member for Fong Lim, who is now back as shadow spokesperson for Business. You would have thought a party that lauds itself as the friend of business would understand the inherent advantages in having national consistency across its trades and professions in licensing. If we genuinely want to reduce red tape across our nation, and the mobility of that all-important trade workforce to be captured in the Territory, then you would be standing up and supporting the legislation here.
The member for Nelson was spot on in his understanding and grasping of the contextual nature of where we are in the Territory. We have a major project on the horizon in INPEX and the Total Ichthys field. If you want to be well placed to capture the mobility of that trade and professional workforce, you need to remove the regulatory and red tape barriers which currently exist there. That is what this national licensing scheme is all about.
Clearly, there are enactment dates in this which are approximately a year hence. The first tranche of professions and trades picked up get moved over to the national consistency on 1 July 2012. Why would you do that? Because, clearly, there is more work to do in the drafting of the regulations for the licensing, and more consultation, as well as a regulatory impact statement which will form the base of those consultations.
In process, oversighting these reforms are the Treasurers of our nation. It goes to the responsibility of the federal Financial Relations Ministerial Council, which I commonly refer to as the Treasurers’ Conference. This is not being oversighted at a low functional level, this comes back to the Treasurers of our nation, and it is about driving economic reforms which means we are a productive and competitive nation, where we capture the movement and mobility of workers in our nation without a great deal of disparate red tape barriers.
It truly is surprising and amazing to be in the Chamber today, where this legislation sat on the books since November of last year, and the party which lauds itself as the business-friendly party has been silent and comes in today with a stunt to try to adjourn this matter.
I will go the actual aspects of this legislation in my wrapping up. I look forward to any committee stage debate there is. I place on the record that there are two categories of trades within that first tranche which is due to come into effect on 1 July 2012, which will take a significant body of work and consultation in the Territory, before we get a landing point on where they should be. There was absolute silence from the opposition in the unlicensed category - the refrigeration mechanics out there who will be captured by this scheme. If you were on the ball and understood the impact on trades this scheme is having, you would have picked up the fact it is the refrigeration mechanics who are currently unlicensed in the Territory, who would be scoped into this first tranche from 1 July 2012.
There is a responsibility of government, and the government officers involved in these reforms, to get out on the ground between now and then and ensure we have a very clear view, for the refrigeration mechanics of the Territory who currently require a lower level of electrical trades experience and licensing, whether or not they are happy with where any proposed national licensing scheme would land.
I am happy to say, as the responsible Treasurer oversighting this legislation, I will not sign off on any regulatory scoping of an industry body unless there is acceptance by that industry body in the Territory of where they land; particularly the refrigeration mechanics, quite obviously, because they are currently not licensed in the Territory and they are proposed to be licensed under this scheme. If the fridgies in the Territory do not want to step up to that national licensing requirement then, as Treasurer, I will not scope them in and sign them in.
I get that we have particular needs in the Territory and I believe, with goodwill, understanding, and working through the licensing requirements and issues with the refrigeration mechanics out there, we could actually meet the licensing scheme. However, that work is yet to be done. I will absolutely guarantee to this Chamber that I will not sign off on any regulations scoping them in unless we have reached a landing point which is good for the trade and for the fridgies in the Northern Territory - bearing in mind and going back to the sense that this is about removing red tape and the inherent barriers across state and territory jurisdictions which prevent the easy flow and mobility of that all-important trades workforce.
The member for Nelson hit the nail on the head when he said if you are genuinely looking at major projects on the horizon, why would you not be supporting this national scheme of licensing, and actually try to facilitate the different tranches of it, bearing in mind some come into effect on 1 July 2012, and some come into effect on 1 July 2013. I guess it is whether you want to bury your head in the sand - which, essentially, is the argument of the opposition - and say it is all too hard, we will do nothing; or whether you set in place very clear scopes around a national scheme, then do the consultation on the regulations, which, as a matter of course, happens with legislation.
You bring the legislation in, it sets the parameters, it gives people certainty in the parameters, then you move forward with your regulations, your consultation on regulations, and then your regulations come into effect. We have set the certainty in the legislation and the parameters of the scheme; we are going to set the certainty of the timing of when different trades come into the scope of the scheme. The guarantee from the Territory Treasurer is we will not be forcing, for example, refrigeration mechanics into it unless they can accept and understand the national licensing and whether that meets our Territory requirements.
Regarding real estate, there is a genuine and live debate amongst the real estate agents of our nation as to what that licensing requirement should be. It is the case there are two jurisdictions which have very low entry requirement levels in their industry ...
Mr Elferink: That is right. And you want to make those low requirements transportable.
Ms LAWRIE: You had your turn. A little listening and you might start to understand this, John.
The training requirements proposed by both Queensland and Victoria would set minimal entry requirements for licensed real estate agents. That is not acceptable to me as the Treasurer of the Territory. We have a robust real estate industry here, with very good training and entry level requirements. I am very supportive of their concerns, and the concerns of other jurisdictions, about not having this licensing be a race to the bottom in qualifications, but an opportunity to raise those qualifications in, say, Queensland and Victoria, up to the norm experienced in other jurisdictions.
That is an ongoing debate which is not yet finalised. As I have given a commitment regarding refrigeration mechanics, who seem to be missing in action with the opposition, I will give this commitment: we will not diminish the licensing requirements for real estate agents in the Territory. I am not interested at all in diminishing the licensing requirements for our real estate agents in the Territory. We are satisfied their industry is robust. We are satisfied that holds the consumer in good stead. The member for Fong Lim talked about the impact on the consumer and the confidence the consumer wants to have in their real estate agents. This is not about a race to the bottom. This is about trying to move to national licensing standards whereby you reflect the one set of licensing requirements. You will know, whether a real estate agent enters into being a licensed real estate agent in Victoria or in the Northern Territory, that they meet the same robust set of standards.
I point out that I did receive a letter from Quentin Kilian in June. I responded to Quentin Kilian from the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, letting him know this matter was still in train; that the Northern Territory had not made a final decision on this. I pointed out - and this is germane to the debate in the Chamber in understanding just how spurious the arguments from the member for Port Darwin are - that under current law it is possible for applicants for registration to obtain their entry level requirements anywhere in Australia - in the jurisdiction that has the lowest level requirement. So, they can entry level into the lowest common denominator in our nation. Surely, inherently, that is an argument for trying to get to an acceptable standard of entry level requirements right around Australia? Under current law, it is possible for applicants for registration to obtain their entry level requirements in the jurisdiction that has the lowest level requirements.
In determining any future vote the Territory has on this - bearing in mind this is a vote at the Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations, the Treasurers of our nation - we will take into account the views of the profession. I have said there needs to be detailed consultation with the profession. That has started, but it is by no means finished. There have already been forums held in the Territory, and there will be more. The regulatory impact statement needs to be finalised as a part of those consultations. The regulatory impact statement will be finalised in September of this year. It will form the basis of the debate and engagement with industry sectors, professions, and trades regarding those licensing schemes.
In short, in this occupational licensing - the national uniform legislation - in the Territory context, there are two industries where we do not yet have a national landing point: the refrigeration mechanics, who are currently unlicensed in the Territory, who would propose to be licensed as of 1 July 2012 going forward; and second, the real estate agents, because there are varying degrees of entry-level requirements in their profession around the nation.
I have categorically said, on the Parliamentary Record, we will not sign both refrigeration mechanics and the Real Estate Institute into regulation until we have an agreed landing point in the Territory with those professions. I have no intention of participating in a race to the bottom of licensing skills and requirements in either of those.
The refrigeration mechanics are likely to come up in their requirements because they are currently unlicensed. However, the real estate agents are robust; they have good professionalism and training in the Territory. I am not interested in racing down to the bottom where Victoria and Queensland are currently. If we are not satisfied with the Territory’s position, in protecting our industries, we will use the disallowance provisions within this legislation and scope them out.
Picking up on a request from the member for Nelson, which is a legitimate issue he raises, if there are substantive changes in regulations - and substantive would be scoping the refrigeration mechanics out and significantly changing the licensing requirements for the real estate agents, how does this parliament see and debate that? My commitment is this government, once we have a landing point on those - bearing in mind we have six months of significant consultations once we have that regulatory impact statement in September. We should know by the end of the first quarter of next year at the latest where they have landed. We will have had the regulatory impact statement in September, the next round of consultations with the industries, and we should know by the end of first quarter next year where they are standing in relation to the Treasurers’ Conference and the detail coming back.
I will write to the opposition and the two Independents and advise them of consideration government is making in the final landing point on the regulation regarding both the refrigeration mechanics and the real estate agents because they are the two key areas for the Territory that do not naturally fit within where the licensing systems sit within the nation. Our fridgies are not licensed, and real estate agents have a good licensing requirement here which is not so good in Victoria and Queensland.
I will write to the opposition and the two Independents advising them of the proposed landing point on the regulations, prior to the regulations being enacted. I want to ensure we have a parliamentary sitting period in between my writing to the members of parliament and any proposed enactment date of the regulations, so there can be debate in this parliament, through motion or otherwise, of those regulations and where they are going to sit.
This is not about trying to hoodwink anyone. This is about saying let us reduce the red tape that currently sits out there amongst our trades in our nation, and make our workforce mobile so we can, in the Top End, draw in a skilled workforce to deal with the major projects. Also we can, in Central Australia, know that with a licensed tradie working in Alice Springs, going across those borders into South Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland - and vice versa - we have consistency about their qualifications and skill sets and the consumer, ultimately, is going to be the beneficiary. Employers will also be a beneficiary because they are able to more easily and aggressively capture the skills we need in the Territory. Listen to any employer group in the Territory; the biggest issue they have is a need for a skilled workforce - that is their No 1 issue.
Here we have a national licensing scheme that will make it easier for our Territory employers to hire qualified tradespeople from other Australian jurisdictions, and the opposition is saying: ‘Do not do it; put the drawbridge up and do not do it because the Real Estate Institute of the Territory has some issues’. I get it. I get the Real Estate Institute of the Territory has some issues. I have said on the Parliamentary Record we will work with them, we will see where that is. At the end of the day, I have no intention of diminishing the qualifications required to be a real estate agent in the Territory.
We get to decide, as a Territory, whether we use the disallowance and pull them out of the national scheme, or whether we are satisfied with where the qualifications land and keep them in the national scheme. We have the advantage of whether we want them in or out.
The national scheme will operate on a delegated agency model where the Ministerial Council and the National Occupation Licensing Authority determines the development, maintenance, and performance of licensing policy, while state and territory regulators will continue to provide administrative functions and retain responsibility for regulating licensing conduct. This will allow a sufficient degree of flexibility to deal with issues specific to the Territory.
Initially, this will cover seven economically important occupational areas introduced in two waves, commencing on 1 July 2012. The first tranche will include air-conditioning and refrigeration installers currently not licensed in the Territory who we want to see licensed, electrical, plumbing and gas fitting occupations, and property-related occupations such as real estate agents. Currently, consideration is also being given to staggering these commencement dates between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2012. For example, if it takes longer to deal with the issue around real estate agents licensing nationally they would become, I dare say, staggered into the later tranche. It does not take Einstein to work that out.
The building and building-related occupations - land transport, commercial passenger vehicles, dangerous goods drivers, maritime occupations and other property-related occupations such as conveyancers and valuers - will join the scheme from 1 July 2013.
The national law provides the general framework for the establishment of the scheme; it does not provide all the detail in relation to the licensing regime. That detail will be set out in the regulations. It is the regulations where the rubber hits the road. As I have said on the Parliamentary Record, if there is substantive change to the regulations I will write to the opposition and the Independent members prior to approving the regulations, ensuring there is a sitting period for a debate in this Chamber providing parliamentary scrutiny of where those regulations land. Obviously, if there is very little change, there is no need to go through that additional consultative process.
Our bill provides that the regulations will be subject to disallowance in the same way as any other regulations made under Territory legislation; that is, we are the masters of our own destiny in the Territory. We can determine, through disallowance, who is in and who is out. That is our call, quite reasonably, quite appropriately, as the Territory.
Further amendments to the national law should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and our disallowance powers in the Territory. That is why I am more than happy to give that commitment regarding any substantive change to regulations going to members of parliament prior to any approval and sign off by the government and the relevant minister, so there can be a parliamentary sitting for debate, scrutiny and consideration around it, if there are substantive changes.
As Treasurer, I am hopeful that with this process being run through the federal Financial Relations Ministerial Council - I know how robust that is - with a regulatory impact statement underpinning the next round of consultations from September onwards, there can be a degree of maturity taken towards this debate by our industry groups in the Territory. I have seen that maturity in the past, and I am quietly hopeful and confident they can be mature in how we debate where that licensing sits in relation to regulations. I have said - and will restate it - I am not interested in seeing the professionalism of real estate agents in the Territory diminished through a national licensing scheme. I will not sign up to that, and I am quite happy to say that on the Parliamentary Record. That is the third time I have said it in this debate.
In regard to the Territory in a functional sense, I have established a multi-agency implementation working group of senior officials from the Departments of the Chief Minister, Business and Employment, Justice, Lands and Planning, and Treasury to coordinate the implementation of the national licensing scheme. I will ensure we do not, holus-bolus, sign up to introducing any licensing for an occupation just by virtue of that occupation falling within the scope of the scheme. I will be paying attention to the detail of where those regulations land, and I will be insisting on full consultation with the Territory industry bodies right down to the level of, for example, we have to write to every refrigeration mechanic telling them what has been proposed because they are currently not licensed, and this would bring them into a licensing regime. The question is: are they up for it or not? I suspect they very well may be, and see the advantages to them of breaking down those jurisdictional barriers, removing the red tape, and being able to work proactively in drawing those all-important skill sets from other jurisdictions into the Territory at a time of traumatic and economic growth where we are seeing major projects on the horizon, and real advantages and opportunities in the growth of Central Australia as well.
I go back to where I started. This has been on the statute books since November of last year. The opposition members walked in here today and said: ‘Oh no, we have a problem. The Real Estate Institute has a problem with this, so pull it up, hold it up, pull up the horse, pull up the drawbridge, do nothing’. That is not the way a responsible opposition should go about its business. If you were genuine in any issues that any industry has, bring it forward, and let us have the discussion prior to the debate. This is a good scheme; it will reduce red tape and provide advantages to the Territory’s employers to attract skilled workforce into the Territory. That is the No 1 issue any small, medium size, or large business in the Territory will tell you they have.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to members and look forward to any further discussions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a few questions. They are not in any particular order, but they are relevant to what we have been discussing today. I gather we have licensing authorities already existing in the Northern Territory. Under the national scheme, will those authorities still exist or will they be replaced by a national authority?
Ms LAWRIE: The Territory authorities will still exist. Essentially, during the summing up, I tried to explain the national licensing scheme. It will operate on what we call a delegated agency model whereby the ministerial council and the licensing authority determine the policy, while the states and territories will continue to administer and enforce the licensing functions. The policy functions that will remain with the Territory include conduct requirements, consumer protection, public safety, consumer complaints and remedies, and appeal mechanisms. Essentially, those authorities remain in place.
Mr WOOD: Will they have a direct role to the licensing authority in relation to policies?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they will be providing advice through the National Licensing Board. The membership of the National Licensing Board is not yet established. We have a Territory representative on the short list. The final board decisions that will be voted on by Treasurers have not yet occurred.
Mr WOOD: The next question is related to property-related occupations. I might have asked this question during the briefing but we need to have it on record. What exactly are property-related occupations? There is no definition I can see within the bill. I was asked by landscape and irrigation people. They are property-related occupations. What is the range of property-related occupations that come within the scope of this act?
Ms LAWRIE: The property-related occupations are conveyancers and valuers.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the second reading speech, you say on page 1, the bottom paragraph - I hope it is the same as in the smaller versions of the speech:
I know you were referring to that a short while ago; however, on one hand it says the national licensing system will cover those seven but, at the end of that paragraph, you are saying that has not quite been decided. Is there an anomaly in what you say, or will it happen?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they have been included in the scope of the scheme. What I have said is whether we will use our disallowance to scope them out in the Territory; I will make that decision based on consultations with the industry representative in the Territory. Currently, they are unlicensed in the Territory. It is proposed that they be included in the national licensing scheme, and that would be in the first tranche to come into effect on 1 July 2012.
My view, as the Treasurer in the Territory, is we need to consult locally with our affected refrigeration mechanics. I know they have some entry requirements now in an electrical certificate, but I want to hear directly from our refrigeration tradies in the Territory, especially to do with air-conditioning and refrigeration, as to whether they see themselves able to meet any national licensing requirements. If they cannot, I do not believe in pushing them into the national scheme; I would use the disallowance to scope them out. Currently, they are scoped in. We need to consult with them about where they sit and where those national licensing requirements would require them to have professional development improved. If they do not believe they could genuinely do that, I am happy to disallow them. I place that on the Parliamentary Record.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Just a clarification: do some of your plumbers and gas fitters do air-conditioning and refrigeration under their licences?
Ms LAWRIE: I would have to seek advice on that, but I do not believe so. It may be that they have multiple skill sets, and so they do that work as well because they have, I believe, an Electrical B Grade licence which you have to have if you are practising as a refrigeration and air-conditioning tradie.
It may be that some have done their plumbing or gas fitting trade requirements and have picked up an Electrical B as well, so they have scoped that into their business and what they are doing. That would be an individual’s business call as to whether they have picked up those additional skill sets and have added that to their business.
My understanding is that, in the main, the air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics in the Territory are specialists in those fields; they truly are air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics. I know one I am going to have to consult with very closely who does my air-conditioning.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, before you ask your next question, I will acknowledge our visitors in the public gallery. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Anula Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Kim Bond and Mr Jim Schofield. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Minister, in relation to licensing, if a licence is to be renewed every five years, will there be a requirement by the licensing authority to send out renewal notices and, if not, why?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised the local licensing authority will be required to send out renewal notices.
Mr WOOD: That is good because I remember when someone who had a gun licence was not notified his licence had run out. He missed the Arafura Games and was struggling with the national titles. I hope common sense applies, especially if you hold a licence for five years. There is a fair chance you might forget you had to renew it, so it is good. Is there a section in the act that actually says that, if it ever comes back?
Ms LAWRIE: There is not a section in the act that requires that. It would be one of the operational requirements of the licensing authority. It is on the Parliamentary Record that I am happy to ensure it. I was provided the advice that they would be issuing notification of licence renewal requirements so, operationally, it has already been captured. However, if you require anything further, I can give you a letter.
Mr WOOD: Minister, in relation to clause 19, Personal probity, which deals with criminal history, can you say what sort of criminal offences would stop you getting a licence?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised they are intended to be occupational specific. For example, if a real estate agent has a history of fraud, they would not be licensed.
Mr WOOD: If a person had been to gaol for a violent offence, it is not going to stop him being able to drive a truck when he gets out?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. Bearing in mind what you said, is there any chance that a person presently holding a licence, who may have had an occupational offence but is allowed to hold a licence presently, would be stopped from having a licence when he renewed his licence under the new scheme?
Ms LAWRIE: I advise you it is unlikely because many of the provisions that currently exist within the various licensing requirements will go into the national licensing requirements. If someone is not likely to be licensed under this new national scheme, they are not likely to be licensed under existing Territory law. However, there are appeal provisions.
Mr WOOD: I raised that question because I will be raising this matter in parliament later on. Without being too specific, there is a person who has had an occupation for umpteen years and had ‘an offence’. When reapplying for the position, even though he had that offence all this time, he was told he had an offence and they were reluctant to renew. That is a long story which I will raise in parliament later. I was concerned that the same issue this person has just had to go through might apply to someone who had an offence before and, when the new legislation came through, they might have been stopped from renewing. I know that might be a rarity, however, the person who came to see me on the weekend could say it was a rarity too, but it did actually happen.
I mentioned INPEX in relation to concerns about the second tranche. I presume many of the people who are going to work on INPEX are going to be people from the building industry. Is there any reason why the building industry occupations cannot be part of the first tranche, considering that would make it easier for people to have a national licence before work started?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised there are far more complex differences in the licensing in the trades in building industries across the jurisdictions, therefore it is going to be much more complex to achieve consistency across the jurisdictions for the building trades. I am advised that will require significant consultation with the particular trades within the industry. That is why they are targeted at 1 July 2013.
Depending how we go with the first tranche of consultations, there may be scope to bring some of those forward but, at this stage, I am advised there are highly complex differences across the jurisdictions that will require significant consultation; hence 1 July 2013. However, in relation to time frames, that is not highly problematic for the Territory in the expected uptake in construction.
Mr WOOD: My last question is something I mentioned during earlier debate: the concept of national law. I realise this is probably not necessarily specific to this legislation, but it is founded on this concept of national law. In fact, the heading is ‘Occupational Licensing National Law’. I am interested in where this concept comes from and how it varies from existing procedures where we try to normalise legislation between states.
Ms LAWRIE: The concept came from the view, essentially, of creating a national licensing scheme to regulate across trades and professions to ensure we are reducing differences across the states and territories that create the red tape and barriers to a more mobile national workforce. It is to capture the intent of our nation being a productive nation, of a mobile workforce with a common set of skills and entry-level requirements into their trades and professions. It is about the view that we are a productive nation, rather than a collection of somewhat disparate states and territories which happen to carve up the federal dollar, as best we can, of the nation’s revenue - bearing in mind the Commonwealth has the largest revenue capability once we gave income tax over in World War II. However, that is another debate.
It is to recognise we want national productivity, national consistency and an understanding there is a national benchmark in these trades and professions. No one is under any illusion; you have to get there in tranches, and you have to work through and consult at the base level.
South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have all taken the same approach on this. We are ensuring we have the disallowance and levers to pull that suit our particular circumstance within our jurisdictions. Clearly, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have similarities of strong economic jurisdictions with significant growth through the next five years. Deloitte Access Economics predict we are the strongest growing economies in the nation. However, we both have those pressures of the need for the skilled workforce so we want to ensure we are protecting our own skills base and also take advantage of the national scheme.
In relation to your question about whether I am aware of any others, no, this is it. It is about a nation of productivity; it is fitting in with what all Treasurers around our nation want to achieve through these industry-based reforms, which is a skilled and mobile workforce of Australians who can build our nation, bearing in mind there is going to be significant growth across the north of our nation, particularly the top end of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland.
Mr WOOD: I understand national law from a lower-case point of view; however, this is distinguished from being a Commonwealth law. This is a concept of a law and – am I correct? - is somehow attached to Victoria. Can you explain how this works in practice?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, Victoria is the host jurisdiction. That has been their role.
Mr WOOD: What hangs off that? Were you required to talk to Victoria for any reason in relation to this bill? It is new and I am not sure my understanding of it is clear.
Ms LAWRIE: We were required to talk to Victoria in regard to this legislation.
Mr WOOD: Why is Victoria mentioned at all? Why is it not simply an agreement to come together with laws in each state which are uniform or national? Why is Victorian mentioned?
Ms LAWRIE: It is quite common in major reforms across the jurisdictions to create a host jurisdiction. In this range of reforms it was Victoria.
Mr WOOD: It probably does not explain a lot. Perhaps I can get some references, in simple terms, as to how it actually works in practice. It is something I do not think I have come across before.
Ms LAWRIE: They draft it. It is actually quite common in national reforms. In the negotiations of the relevant ministerial council, health legislation reforms have done it, so have other major national reforms. In negotiations in ministerial councils, you choose a host jurisdiction. That host jurisdiction spends its time, effort, energy, and money in doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the drafting of the legislation. They then drive it through to the discussions of the ministerial council level. You do not get a resolution to all until all the jurisdictions are signed up and happy with the drafting.
We never put our hand up to be the host jurisdiction because it takes an intense amount of resources of the public service which is the host jurisdiction. We are a small jurisdiction; we let the large jurisdictions carry the host responsibility. As I have said, in this case, we come in and have a look at it. We have followed Western Australia and South Australia in putting in our disallowance provisions so we can pull our own levers, albeit we have taken the work of the host jurisdiction.
Mr WOOD: Thank you; that is a better explanation.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I say at the outset I have had no comfort at all from the minister in relation to this. Honourable members were told by the minister that we have suddenly manoeuvred to pull a political stunt at the last minute. The minister well knows we were advised this bill was going to be brought before the House as a matter of business late yesterday; that is, Sunday afternoon.
This matter has already been postponed once at the request of government because they were having problems with it in March. We, on this side of the House, acquiesced to that request. I invite members to look at the Parliamentary Record and you will see a short entry in March, I think it was in Alice Springs, where we allowed this matter to be postponed.
If you look at the last Notice Paper issued before today’s Notice Paper, you will see this particular bill had shuffled down the agenda items to about Item No 8. Whilst it is up to government to readjust the Notice Paper as they see fit, to readjust item No 8 up to Item No 2 on a Sunday afternoon looks less like an opposition stunt and more like government entrapment, because it is now trying to push through a bill which it knows it is having trouble with - at least in one area of industry.
The minister …
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question in all of this ramble?
Mr ELFERINK: I have 10 minutes to ask this question, and I will ask the question putting the case that needs to be put ...
Ms Lawrie: You will get there eventually. Weird conspiracies again, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is right. I am involved in a conspiracy, and that conspiracy involves five real estate institutes of this particular country, including the Northern Territory jurisdiction …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, this conspiracy, as she so names it, still has not seen those real estate institutes satisfied. This is a race to the bottom. Small wonder Queensland has not signed this letter which I tabled earlier; the reason being they get to run the two-day courses and then export their new real estate agents who have two-day courses under their belts. The minister’s answer is? ‘Trust us. Trust us and we will make this work’. The fact is I do not trust this government when it comes to these types of things. I have no qualms about saying I do not trust this government when it comes to these things, because this government has proven itself to be untrustworthy.
The government still has not satisfied the issue with the real estate institutes. It knew it had the problem in March; it still has not resolved it. As a consequence of that, it wants to now push this through after giving us less than 24 hours notice it was bringing this bill from No 8 to No 2 on the Notice Paper on the first day of parliamentary sittings. And we are the ones who are playing games? Not very likely!
The real estate institute remains unhappy. We heard the minister herself say this. Why the urgency, I ask? Why? Because this government knows it is not going to be able to satisfy the real estate institutes, I suspect, so it wants to push it through as quickly as possible. Then: ‘Oh, we will bring it back in later when the regulatory instruments have to be passed, you can wait. You have waited once, you can wait again’.
Madam Chair, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, unless government can resolve these issues with industry, then it is duty bound to sit on this for a little longer and finish the process it promised to undertake now, and then explain to this House before this legislative instrument is passed, that that can be done.
The Attorney-General said we are a business party: ‘I am really surprised the party that supports business would not support this’. We do support the concept; what we do not support is hasty legislation pushed through whilst industry is still complaining about it. She said it is going to be good for industry because we will get this high level of transportability of qualifications. No, it will not be good for industry if the qualifications that are being transported into this jurisdiction are substandard. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Madam Chair, I move that debate on this matter be adjourned to a later date.
Madam CHAIR: I will confer with the Clerk. You need to move to report progress so the Speaker can return.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, all right, I can do that. I move that …
Ms LAWRIE: Just a point of clarification from the Clerk on that. We report progress, we deal with the motion, then we go back into committee?
The CLERK: Yes, if it is negatived.
Ms LAWRIE: And the ability to put the motion a number of times?
The CLERK: Not by you. The motion is that the committee report progress.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I move that the committee report progress.
The committee divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Motion negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Gayle Cann, Miss Pauline Haeberer, and Ms Nicola Hanssen; and Casuarina Secondary College German exchange students accompanied by Ms Paula Simeone. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we continue the committee stage.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am not going to divide the House again. We have made our point on this issue.
I am curious about the member for Nelson’s approach on this. The member for Nelson said he had not been contacted by the REINT and that was not a reason to postpone this legislative instrument.
There are good reasons to postpone this legislative instrument. One of those good reasons for the postponement of this legislative instrument - I am not talking about its defeat, merely its postponement – is so the member for Nelson could have become more informed than he was when he walked into this place. That is a good reason to postpone. For him to come into this place and say he has not been spoken to by the industry body, therefore, he is not interested and he is going to continue to allow for passage of this bill is not good form. For someone who prides themselves on knowing everything required for a legislative instrument, that is a surprising turnaround in the way the member for Nelson approaches these things: ‘They did not talk to me so I am not interested in the argument no matter how legitimate that argument may be’.
In relation to the government’s approach to this matter, we heard from the Attorney-General in relation to this and now it is basically: ‘Trust me. Trust me; I know what I am doing. Do not worry about it guys, I will get it sorted for you’. This is the same Attorney-General who said ‘trust me’ when it came to the liquor licensing legislation saying: ‘You must provide an ID, but when it comes to implementing it I will change my mind; it is just common sense’. It is not what the law says. This is the same Attorney-General who interfered in a court case and had a prosecution pulled against Red Rooster in Tennant Creek ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Do not lie.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the same Attorney-General who walked into this House and said: ‘By the way, I have not read that legislation. I have not read it but trust me; I know what I am doing’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! First, this is legislation under my portfolio responsibility as Treasurer – but you have missed that, member for Port Darwin. Second, the third reading debate is not to raise new matters. It is to deal with the matters that have already been dealt with. This is all a new, bizarre conspiracy from the member for Port Darwin.
Mr CONLAN: That is not a point of order, Madam Speaker! If the Attorney-General wants to make a personal explanation she can do so later.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Member for Port Darwin, can you contain your comments, bearing in mind …
Mr Conlan: For crying out loud! She gets up and makes a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Member for Port Darwin, remember what a third reading is, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I do, Madam Speaker. The point is this legislative instrument only needs to be adjourned. We do not disagree with the intent of what is being tried here, but when industry bodies are telling us they have problems with it we are saying please adjourn it. You have already adjourned it once because you have had problems with industry bodies; you could have continued to do so. Yet, the Attorney-General said: ‘Trust me, we are going to sort it out. We are going to force it through the House today; we are going to take it from No 8 on the last Notice Paper and push it up the agenda to No 2 so we can ram it through today’.
Then, the government is saying we are pulling a stunt! It is engaged in political entrapment in this House, ably assisted by the member for Nelson - ably assisted because his position is whatever you do, do not question government. The member for Nelson said: ‘I trust government; it makes all types of promises to me’. Where is the pool in Humpty Doo, member for Nelson? The government made promises to you before. The member for Nelson has to realise this government likes to sell him pups and he takes it every single time.
All this side of the House has asked for is to bring this back when industry groups have signed up to it. Industry groups have not signed up to it; it is that simple. For the Attorney-General to say ‘trust me’ when she has proven herself to be untrustworthy tells me again this government is pushing this through because it knows it will meet industry resistance. When it meets industry resistance, the last thing it wants is to come back into this House and debate this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is lucky we have the Darwin Festival at the moment because we now have a new act called ‘The life and times of the member for Port Darwin’. He has given a classical piece of theatre. He is saying to the minister: ‘Trust me’. I ask if I should trust him. He dumps this on my desk, apologises by saying: ‘I should have spoken …’
Mr Elferink: No, I did not apologise.
Mr WOOD: Let me speak, member for Port Darwin …
Mr Elferink: Then, do not put words in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: You said many things in the third reading speech which were putting words in my mouth. I am having my turn, member for Port Darwin. You seem to think you run this show. This is not your side of the parliament; it is our side of parliament. I do not have to agree with you all the time. I will put my …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, you like to bully me. That is your tactic; that is your game. That is the way you play it. You get up and …
Mr Elferink: I like to protect industry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: It is not about you; it is about Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: The member for Port Darwin said it is not about me. Did you just hear the very end of that conversation? It was about me ...
Mr Elferink: It is about Territorians and failure to protect them …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, he continually personally attacks me because he does not like the agreement. He goes on and on like a cracked record ...
Mr Elferink: They are lying to you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: He should move from cracked records to iPods; it might help him.
Madam Speaker, this issue has been around a long time, as I said. This issue has been there for industry to debate. This industry has had adequate time to talk to me about it. Just because a letter is dropped on my desk does not mean I say: ‘Oh, fine’. Imagine the precedent that sets for every bit of legislation that comes into this parliament.
The CEO of the Real Estate Institute knows me quite well. He discussed issues about conveyancing, and issues which were brought before this parliament in relation to the bill regarding how land is sold. I have met the gentleman a number of times. If this industry in the Northern Territory was concerned about this bill, you would have thought it would have brought it forward to me …
Mr Elferink: All hail you! Waffle, waffle, waffle.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr WOOD: Just because occasionally I say a few things which upset the member for Port Darwin, he gets touchy, touchy, touchy ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning!
Mr WOOD: I looked at this bill, as I said, and I gave it due consideration. It was around - even in discussion form as they minister said – for a long time. It had its first reading in Alice Springs, so it is not something new.
I have received no other letters from any other occupations telling me they have concerns with this - until 10 seconds before this bill was introduced, I got a copy of this via the office. I had not seen it before. Then I am asked to comment on that, and am criticised for holding up this bill. What? Because someone has dropped this in front of me 10 seconds before the legislation is to be passed, I am expected to believe this is all true and accurate, without even being able to debate it? If someone wanted my support for a bill – anyone - you would think they would give me a few days. Give me a break! If you are serious about this issue ...
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t they give us a few days and tell us you were bringing this on? You told us last night.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: If the opposition was serious about this issue, even they would have given it to me more than 10 seconds before the bill was debated. No! I am not silly, either. I know the stunts and the playacting that goes on in this place. I have been around long enough to know the methodologies used: ‘We can cover up these tactics with sweet words and expensive language’. We can do all that type of thing but, if people are serious - and I am serious about the legislation which goes through this parliament - then people will come to me and the other Independent, in due time, in proper time, and say they have some concerns and I would take those up with the government; I would raise them in parliament.
The member for Port Darwin has a dig at me about supporting everything the government is doing. Well, where is the Public Service Commission Act? What about the issues on flooding at Pelly Road …
Mr Elferink: Tell them to bring it in the House.
Mr WOOD: No, no, no! Just because I do not fit the agenda of the member for Port Darwin, I am, somehow, the enemy ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will stick to the facts. The facts here are simply that I brought this legislation before the House as Treasurer. The member for Port Darwin is so confused he keeps referring to me in my responsibility as Attorney-General. I get that he is a very confused mind; we just saw that in his third reading response – an incredibly rambling and confused contribution from the weird member for Port Darwin.
The fact is this legislation is to introduce a national scheme to provide for the reduction of red tape for the mobility of workers in our nation, where we have a certainty around their trade and professional licensing so the Territory can benefit from the economic boom times we are starting to be in and will enjoy. It makes so much sense when you look at the context and movement of workers, particularly in Central Australia where Alice Springs is, essentially, the regional hub across the bottom end of Queensland, the top end of South Australia, and Western Australia. We have to put in place complex agreements all the time with other governments to manage the service delivery out of Central Australia, out of the hub of Alice Springs.
The national scheme around trade and professional licensing makes so much sense, particularly for the Territory around where we are placed geographically as a regional hub in Alice Springs, but we are also increasingly becoming a regional hub for the Top End of our great nation in relation to the top end of Western Australia, where we have the emergence of a major project on the horizon with the Ichthys field for INPEX and Total. If we can get to a point where we have national schemes and consistency across those trades and professions, it is absolutely in the Territory’s best interests.
It is interesting that many furphies get put into debate, and that the member for Port Darwin leads with his chin. He said he would table a letter. We are still waiting for that to be tabled. I look forward to …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was tabled during the debate and has been circulated.
Ms LAWRIE: We have checked with Table Office; they do not seem to have it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I table a letter showing that …
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot table that, you do not have the call. Resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the tabled letter.
Madam SPEAKER: That is good. Resume your seat!
Ms LAWRIE: We look forward to getting a copy. During the debate, as I explained, the Territory will consult locally with the air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics. We will also consult with the Real Estate Institute. They are the two areas with the first tranche of the national licensing scheme due to come into effect on 1 July 2012. They are the two professions where we need more localised consultation. I did say I did not want to see a diminution of the skills sets amongst our professionals in the real estate industry. I recognise Victoria and Queensland have a lower entry-level requirement than we do, and we want to see a strengthened and enhanced situation across our nation, not a diminution.
My office contacted the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory during debate in the Chamber this morning. Interestingly, I have been advised that, when a representative of my office spoke to Quentin Kilian, the CEO of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory this morning, he said REINT supports the national licensing scheme. REINT and their national representatives are meeting in Canberra with government to provide their input into the drafting of regulations to support this national scheme ...
Mr Elferink: That is right.
Ms LAWRIE: That is appropriate. I will pick up on the interjection. The member for Port Darwin said ‘that is right’. If you had listened to his entire contribution during debate this morning, he was saying something entirely different. You are too tricky by half for your own good, member for Port Darwin. You have been discredited, you have been oopsed, and you have been sacked previously as the shadow Treasurer. You have been brought back because the shadow Treasurer, the member for Katherine, was sacked. It is a revolving chair for shadow Treasurers over there, because you do not understand productivity and the economic requirements of our nation, and you consistently get it wrong. Your nickname is ‘oops’ when it comes to the economic debate ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw the minister’s attention to that letter, and ask her who signed it. I wonder if Mr Kilian signed that letter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Blain for the remainder of the day. It is signed by the two Whips.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the NT government for its profound failures highlighted in the Johnson report into Indigenous expenditure and, further, that this House censures the NT government for failing Indigenous Territorians by pursuing policies that are based on race.
Those who are in glass houses! I find it deeply disturbing as a citizen, as a member of this parliament for 12 years, that those on the other side of this House can repeatedly take the high moral ground and be completely blind to that which is occurring around them, and not take one step towards accepting any responsibility.
I found today something that confirms even further why I have Indigenous Territorians speaking to me and to our members. We listen, and we have heard. I cannot believe government has not heard the deep concerns across the Territory and in the bush that you do not effectively care for Indigenous Territorians and you have demonstrated that by your actions. You have talked about money and responses that are, effectively, meaningless. You have consulted Indigenous Territorians to death, and they, as a result, recognise that you do not care. You care more for your ideology than you care for Indigenous Territorians.
That is demonstrated by your language in this Chamber, even today. To have a simple issue such as a swimming pool that does not contain water responded to in such a bizarre way is exactly the problem that is on every front. Every Territorian living in remote area has an expectation that a government would respond in a meaningful way to a real problem. Instead, we have something called – what? - a working group on swimming pools that are remote, which is the response to a pool that is empty. Why don’t you put water in the pool? If you have asked someone to do something, if you have given them some money to do that, and they have not done it, ensure they do it. That is an action, a response, that will be meaningful to those who are looking to us for leadership.
They looked to the Labor Party for leadership. They had an expectation which you fostered to your political advantage year after year in opposition. Now it has come home to roost. You do not care for Indigenous Territorians, and it is demonstrated by your failure to produce a meaningful response in education, health, law and order, and economic development in the bush. Some of you will smirk and sit in the proud castle of your own thinking - you are deluded. Go out and take a look. You have missed the mark and missed it seriously. There are lives at risk and lives have been lost because you have raised expectations and have failed to deliver.
We will go back to some of the history, and it is important because we are talking about a Labor Party that is not interested, it does not care. It confects care; it pretends to care. It speaks the language of feelings but has no interest in standards or in changing behaviour. It will respond with convoluted language, it will consult people, then consult again at colossal expense, and confuse people. People’s spirits fail them because of this Labor Party’s failed approach of generating real care and delivering on the expectations you have traded on politically, year after year. They are deserting you and for good reason: you do not care. The signs of this are clearly evident.
On the other side of this Chamber, on that proud day you came into parliament and thought this is a whole new era - it is not a new term; it was a whole new era. You had been milking this for all it is worth politically year after year, then you came to government. You were going to deliver on the expectations you had raised.
What were you more interested in under Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister? Making sure you secured and maintained your political advantage and used Indigenous affairs to your own political advantage. Evidence? There was growing disquiet; concern was generated by horrific reports through the Little Children are Sacred report. It gained national concern and anxiety. People across this nation were appalled at what they saw communicated into living rooms across this country. Who was in charge of this? Who was meant to respond to this? The great, caring Labor Party was to respond to this. How did it respond? It responded politically. What was its reaction? It was one of embarrassment. How did they manage this political situation? They managed it with a review: ‘We will manage it and we will get some people together and make a big play of this’. The government had a response which was a review. It conducted a review which kept the dogs at bay for a time. It stretched that as far as possible and we finally got the report – after many announcements waiting for this thing, managing the political process - but it sat on it and considered it. We waited and waited while the problems were beamed into people’s living rooms across the country - civilised people thinking: ‘My God, what is happening in our country?’ This great Labor Party we expected to respond and demonstrate care showed its greater interest was in managing the political process.
Then, Mal Brough weighed in and responded - he reacted. Yes, there were issues around that; however, there was a response just as you would lend help to someone in need. That was a response; there was some relief. It was then put into the hands of this Labor administration which, essentially, did not care.
The problem was that behind the scenes - they are very good at managing the appearance because that is most important to the Labor Party - they were trading very heavily and politically on the fact they had five Indigenous members. It had the member for Arafura; the member for Arnhem; the member for Stuart, Elliot McAdam; and Alison Anderson, the member for Macdonnell, a member of the Labor Party at that time. There were five of them: Arnhem, Arafura, Stuart, Macdonnell, and Barkly. They were all there and, behind the scenes, they were growing increasingly concerned about two things articulated very well by Matthew Bonson, the former member. What did he say? He said he was concerned.
This is what was happening behind the scenes. It was plain for all to see what was happening. It was horrific for those who were living out in the bush. The Labor Party does not care! In a memo from Matthew Bonson, he revealed what was going on. He revealed why the member for Macdonnell is now no longer a part of the Labor Party, because she has seen what you were really up to. We have seen the evidence in the bush: you do not actually care.
There are two issues that were the nub of the concern: ‘That we are not actively working towards addressing social disadvantage’ - this was in 2006. Here is the telling point, No 2: ‘If we do not respond it could have a detrimental effect at the next election. We must respond because politically it could be damaging’.
You have a driving responsibility. I am sure your party platform, or that which you believe in, requires you to make an actual move that makes a real difference. There must be a requirement within your own world view that you need to actually do something, not talk about issues. This memo was sent to Marion Scrymgour, Elliot McAdam - interestingly, I would rate Elliot McAdam as a conscientious objector who has walked away and turned his back on the Labor Party - Barbara McCarthy and Alison Anderson. She has walked away from the Labor Party because of what she had seen. There were copies of the memo sent to Syd Stirling and Paul Henderson, who was not the leader at the time.
There was an expectation that this issue would be attended to by the now leader of the Labor Party in the Territory parliament. There was an expectation: you have an obligation, you have a responsibility. You can fob off, at your peril, that which was reported nationally last night. It has been the commentary and concern expressed right across our nation. Yet, the Chief Minister said: ‘I have not had a look at that report yet’ ...
Mr Henderson: I have not seen it.
Mr MILLS: He has not seen it yet, but it has been communicated all around the country. Once again, there is deep shame - national shame - that falls at the feet of this Labor administration. It has let down the very people it has used for political advantage, but not served their interests in a genuine way.
I cannot believe, after 12 years in this parliament, I still hear talk of money as though it is an outcome. I cannot believe I have been to places where the Indigenous people, proud and quiet, have just had enough of being repeatedly consulted. They want someone to do something; say exactly what they mean and say it in a meaningful way. They are concerned about their children; they want to see a system that actually works. Those good, quiet people in the communities want to know that someone actually cares.
How would you demonstrate that? You would talk about all types of fluffery, all types of programs you would announce and do a media conference about, and issue glossy brochures of all types. In fact, what they are wanting is for you to do something meaningful for them; that is, for those good parents who do the right thing and send their kids to school in remote communities - and I believe that would be a hard thing to do - to back them up, to support them. If they do the right thing, back them up by penalising those who do not do the right thing. Send that money to the school to benefit those who do the right things and encourage others to do the right thing – stand up for the good people in the Indigenous community and show some leadership. Some people will not like that, but it is doing the right thing.
Set a clear standard and ensure when an Aboriginal community - and I have been out to Baniyala and I have seen what …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, there will be smirking and laughing because there is an ideology behind all this. Yes, it is all politics. What I saw there is not contained just within that community. It is a quiet aspiration being expressed across the Northern Territory. There are Indigenous communities wanting to take greater control over what happens in their schools. They want to work in genuine partnership. Yes, they are up in the islands, in Arnhem Land, in the Centre. There is any number of schools waiting for someone to provide genuine leadership.
The aspirations of parents should be supported in this situation, where the desire of Indigenous families is respected when they ask for something, and you actually work in a meaningful relationship. After all, parents have responsibility for the education of their children. They do not have a responsibility to the Education department; the Education department has a responsibility to support those parents. There are parents who have called out for help to work in a meaningful relationship so they can deliver a meaningful education for their kids. If you can scoff at this and explain it away, you are captive to the Education department and you are not serving the interests of families who want their kids to receive a quality education.
You may think this is a particularly difficult proposition, you may even think it is ridiculous. If you on the left have a view that no one is actually responsible, and just talk about nice stuff and things like money and programs, it has become ridiculous to the extreme. The language from the left of the Labor Party may appear to be nice, it may appear to be good. However, it hides a deadly poison. You do not care for Indigenous people because, if you did, you would speak the truth ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, what rubbish!
Mr MILLS: You would speak the truth and you would respond in a meaningful way Indigenous people could understand. If you think that is rubbish, you obviously are listening only to those around you - and that is a smaller and an increasingly reducing group.
There are people who want clear leadership from a government - a government that stands up and says what it means about what standards are required, and not fluff around and spend huge amounts of money that feeds a problem rather than sets a standard and reinforces the strength of a community.
As I said before, you will find this difficult, but I honestly believe the approach that has been taken, the duplicitous standards that have been set - the standards around Indigenous education in particular - and the aspirational goals that have been communicated but never enforced, with no meaningful policy response required of you - you can just keep saying the same thing – is a thin mask that is slipping away. It reveals that the heart of the left of Labor is racism. You do not actually deal with people on their true merit. You think of issues such as this in relation to politics. Even the communiqu from Matthew Bonson reveals that. That is after all these years. You can scoff all you like about this, but the reality is plain to see. The results and standards are plain to see; the evidence is there. You are still caught up in this idea - and I am sure we are going to hear a lot about money and convoluted programs that are, frankly, meaningless. You have been in power for a long time, and the results today are worse - truly, they are worse - today than they were when you came to office. They are worse now …
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: Yet, you hold on to this ridiculous notion that you have done something because you have spent ever-increasing amounts of money ...
Mr Henderson: That means that you are going to cut the budget?
Mr MILLS: This means there will be decisions made and we will take an entirely different approach. You are totally misguided if you believe it is the expenditure of money. It is not what they tell you here. It is not about the money. It is about the program and the quality of that program.
I have not heard you talk about how your policy frame has resulted in a problem and how you are going to fix it. You talk about the extra money, and reassure everyone there has been a fix. Okay, perhaps a policy response could be that there would be some kind of working group to address remote pools and, somehow, people can swim in them. The reality is we need to be very plain about this. If you are going to spend money, because you are responsible for spending money, make sure you get a result for it. Make sure the kids turn up, make sure you back up those good people who are doing the right thing. Do not feed confusion by consulting and thinking: ‘We are going to have to consult again’.
Madam Speaker, I honestly believe it has come to the end of the cycle for this Labor administration. I believe this Labor administration’s greater concern is its image and fixing its brand to try to have some desperate attempt - at taxpayers’ expense - to find out what they need to say and do, how they comb their hair, and what they make their letterheads look like so people will like them once again. The evidence is plain to see and, sadly, I honestly think you guys cannot see it. You are in a position where people are not listening to you anymore. You cannot see what is actually happening and you are going to now resort to - let me predict - saying that report was 18 months ago but, since then, everything has been fixed. This is a weird argument from the Labor Party if they say 18 months ago, they had this report, it has all been fixed, it is okay, and everything is on track. Money has been spent, working groups, reviews, etcetera.
You will then reach back into the past and you will start to defend yourself with ancient history, as though that somehow justifies the failure that is there for all to see. The whole nation can see your failure to deliver and to do what a serious and real government would do. Frankly, it has become embarrassing, members of the Labor Party. I know privately some of you care and are concerned. You will be embarrassed about this because the brand you represent has failed to deliver - simple as that. Some of you will grab hold of your ideology and think you will just muscle your way through this. You will not make it. While you hang onto it, the result will be a further damaging of the aspirations of those who are holding out for some hope; that is, our Indigenous Territorians.
You may think it is ridiculous. Laugh if you like, but they are looking elsewhere now for solutions. We have that responsibility because they have tasted and have seen poison from the Labor Party. You have not delivered. If you cannot read the words that are contained in that report and be embarrassed, we have a problem. It is over, effectively; you have lost the plot. You are going to hold onto this, battle your way through it, but you have lost it. You have missed it. People are not listening anymore.
Give it your best shot and defend this censure. You have, effectively, taken a position that has caused great damage. You have not delivered on the expectation. Your approach is effectively racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of teachers and students of the Sanderson Middle School Night School Program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what a bizarre contribution from a man sitting opposite me, who would purport to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Once again, all we heard was his conspiracy theories and convoluted political theories about closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Did we hear anything about what a CLP government would do to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage? Nothing - an empty vessel. An empty vessel that can knock, complain, and trudge around in conspiracy theories, but with no policy agenda and no commitments to funding. In fact, the complete opposite. By saying we should not be spending this money because we are not getting the outcomes means these funding commitments we have made to the bush would be axed under a CLP government. If you follow the line of argument that we ‘are not getting any outcomes, why would you spend the money?’, you would not spend the money. You would cut the budget and that is what CLP governments have always done.
Let us go to this particular report. As I said, the first I knew of its existence was news reports last night. I will have a look at the report today. It is 18 months old. It is a report conducted by the department of Finance in Canberra that talked about education and housing as examples. In those 18 months, as I said in Question Time today, we have met or exceeded all the targets the federal government has set for the construction of new houses and the upgrade of existing houses. We have met or exceeded all the targets set.
In regard to education and health, under the new national partnership agreements we have met or exceeded all the targets we have signed up to because we have been given reward payments for meeting or exceeding those targets. I am getting the details coming through. This report is the history of 18 months ago looking backwards, not acknowledging the very significant gains achieved going forwards in the last 18 months.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about Aboriginal people in the bush not seeing anything happening. Wherever I go in the Northern Territory - and I travel regularly to bush communities - I have seen enormous improvements in housing, schools, health clinics, jobs being created, and infrastructure being built. To say nothing is happening out there and everything is going backwards belies what is happening in the bush.
Tell the 2000 families who have either a new or an upgraded home they have not benefited from SIHIP, with 324 new houses completed, 191 under way, and nearly 1600 upgraded across the Northern Territory. It is our government, with the Commonwealth government, that has committed funding to a $1.7bn national partnership agreement over 10 years to address the chronic shortfall of housing in remote communities - the most extensive funding commitment ever.
I follow up my colleague, the minister for Housing, by asking why the CLP hates this program so much. Why does it hate it so much when it is delivering thousands of new houses across the Northern Territory? Why does it hate people getting a new house? Why does it hate people getting an upgraded house? Why does it hate people getting jobs? I point out it is this government that has committed close to $140m to this program over the first five years.
The CLP cannot point to, in governments past, let alone in funding commitments into the future, that it would spend $1 on remote Indigenous housing. It certainly did not whilst in government. It went to the last election with not a single dollar funding commitment for new houses, yet has the audacity to criticise the government for shortfalls in a $1.7bn program.
I find it astounding that the opposition would criticise this program when it is not prepared to commit any funding going forward to new housing in remote communities and, for their 27 years in government, never built any houses because housing on remote Indigenous communities under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act was the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. It was totally hands off; it is all up to the Commonwealth government. The gall to come here with crocodile tears over this project is ridiculous.
As I have said, since that report was completed we have met or exceeded all the targets for delivering that housing. It is fantastic to get around the Northern Territory and see new subdivisions being delivered under this project.
Of course there will be trials, tribulations and challenges. The logistic effort required to build a new subdivision at Maningrida, or new housing at Ngukurr, with the supply chain, all the materials that are required, the challenges over the Wet Season - the enormous Wet Season we had last year – are enormous. If people are without a few cable ties, they cannot pop down to Bunnings and buy a bundle.
With the ongoing carping criticism and negativity around this program, the opposition is criticising Territory businesses. It is criticising very significant large and small Territory businesses that are very proud of what they are delivering in the bush. They are very proud of working to develop Indigenous jobs in the bush. I am not going to mention the names of those business people and opinion leaders in this community, but they are absolutely beside themselves with the ongoing criticism of their efforts in delivering this program with the challenges in the remotest parts of Australia. Anyway, if they want to continue to criticise their own - or their supposedly own - heartland regarding the construction industry and some very significant people who are part of delivering this program, well, they should hear what those people say to me about the ongoing criticism of this program.
Since that report was written, we have met or exceeded all of the targets for SIHIP. It is obvious the CLP hates that program. Goodness knows what would happen to the national partnership agreement if they got into government, because I am sure we would not see a continuation of investment of the likes of $140m from this government into new and upgraded houses in the bush.
I go to the pet topic of the Leader of the Opposition about failings in education. I will point out again - because the hypocrisy is astounding - their own policy document, Early Education for a Strong Future. Every practitioner in education understands that investment in the early childhood years is absolutely crucial in a child’s life journey through the education system. There has been a great lack of early childhood education facilities, infrastructure, and teachers in the bush for a whole range of funding and logistical reasons. Those are being attended to now by the Territory and the Commonwealth governments. We have mobile preschools, the Families as First Teachers program, and Commonwealth commitments as well.
Yet, in this CLP policy document - it proudly says policy – there is not one word about the challenges and commitment to improving early childhood education in the bush - not one word. The reason why there is not one word is because they would not commit $1 - not $1 - of the Territory budget to those initiatives. As my colleague, the Education minister said in Question Time today, where is your policy? Where are your funding commitments for additional teachers, teacher housing, and better facilities?
We know you campaigned against the National Broadband Network. Given you are opposed to the National Broadband Network, what is your solution to connecting those communities to broadband, and where are your funding commitments to that through what you would put together in a budget? It is just not good enough to sit there and criticise. As the supposed alternative government you have to put forward solutions. What we have seen so far is absolutely nothing in commitment to education.
As I said, we have established secondary education in remote communities. We have had over 150 students graduate with a Year 12 leaving certificate from remote communities, compared to the CLP, when in government, of none, zero - absolutely nothing at all. We have built secondary facilities in seven communities, and we have rolled out hundreds of additional teachers to support education.
The Leader of the Opposition complains it is all about funding. Well, how do you run a school without teachers? How do you give those kids access to the Internet without committing to funding with Telstra to run fibre-optic cable all the way from Darwin through Jabiru, up across all those Top End communities over to Nhulunbuy? It all requires funding. In education outcomes, I guarantee if Indigenous kids in remote communities attended school at the same rates as non-Indigenous kids, they would get the same outcome in education. I guarantee that - absolutely guarantee that - because Indigenous kids are just as smart as non-Indigenous kids, and the teachers we have out there in the bush are first-rate teachers. The schools are there, the teachers are there, the facilities are forever being upgraded, despite the campaigns against Commonwealth funding from those sitting opposite.
I give Indigenous parents an ironclad guarantee: you get your kids to school 90% of the time, on time every day, your kids will travel through their life journey of education and achieve to the same levels as kids in Darwin, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Sydney, or wherever else. I am absolutely confident that will occur. As we are seeing, with the 150 kids who have graduated with a Year 12 leaving certificate, that can be done.
The CLP and the Leader of the Opposition, talked about aspirations never being enforced. I point out that when the CLP was in government, those kids were never even tested, such was their level of commitment. More kids are being tested, there is more transparency in the system, and the reality of the deficiencies and outcomes is stark and for all to see. If you really want to get to the brutal truth about all of this, yes, we have been in government for 10 years or 11 years, but we have had to turn around two generations of neglect. There were two generations of Indigenous people who had no education beyond Year 7 - none at all. Over those 27 years, the average education outcome for Indigenous people in remote communities was a Year 3 education outcome ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true. You are not telling the truth.
Mr HENDERSON: That is the truth; those kids were never tested. The CLP did not care, and those kids were never tested, those results were never published, because it was absolutely out of sight, out of mind.
We have seen fabulous new schools. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the new school at Baniyala. I am advised by the Education minister and the member for Nhulunbuy they were out there to officially open that school this week. It is a very remote community with, previously, just a tin shed for education on one of the homelands out in northeast Arnhem Land. We spent $2m on a brand new school, two full-time teachers, with 30 students. That is the level of our commitment. I also opened the brand new school in Utopia, a fantastic facility for middle school and high school students. We have also opened seven new secondary schools across the Territory as well.
It is hard for kids to get an education if there is not a school there to start with. It is also hard for kids to get an education if you have a policy - an absolute policy - of not providing education beyond Year 7 level …
Mr Elferink: Not true!
Mr HENDERSON: A policy of not providing education in remote communities beyond a Year 7 level - that was the policy of previous CLP governments.
In regard to the national partnership agreement and the targets we have signed up to - post the report that is now 18 months old from the Commonwealth Department of Finance - we have received $3.4m of national reward payments for achieving literacy and numeracy first-year targets. This is a journey. You do not go from 40% to 100% in year one with the argument that, somehow, things are going backwards and not forwards. The National Productivity Commission is oversighting the national partnership agreements, the COAG reforms, and has given reward payments for all of the transparency targets of the NT government. I congratulate the minister and his department for succeeding in gaining $3.4m for achieving literacy and numeracy targets. The facts speak for themselves in this report and what it is commenting on.
Regarding the broader delivery for Indigenous people across the NT, and the ridiculous spin and assertion the Leader of the Opposition has put forward that, somehow, we do not care, I find that offensive, but I am not going to rise to the bait. I know this silly little political game he is trying to play.
Let us look at delivery of health services and health outcomes for Indigenous people across the Territory. We have opened new renal dialysis units in Alice Springs, Gap Road, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Palmerston, and remote areas - and this is not an exhaustive list; there are many more than this - Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Umbakumba, Galiwinku, and Maningrida.
I will never forget the images, because I was shadow Health minister at the time, when the previous Health minister, Stephen Dunham, who was the member for Drysdale at the time, was trying to defend the fact that the CLP was not prepared to commit to renal dialysis outside of Darwin or Alice Springs. I will never forget the Lateline episode where he was either very tired – I will not conjecture on what might have been happening - or under the weather, and he stated that if Aboriginal people did not want to travel to Alice Springs from Tennant Creek to access renal dialysis, then if they wandered off into the bush and died, that was their choice. I will never, ever forget that interview because it was defining in the attitudes that were dominant in the CLP government at the time …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: He said we had perfectly good facilities in Alice Springs and, if renal patients in Tennant Creek could not be bothered or did not want to go to Alice Springs, if they wandered off into the bush and died, that was their choice.
People who are on renal dialysis now across the Northern Territory live as long as renal dialysis patients across Australia. We have seen a massive increase in primary healthcare for remote areas with more doctors, nurses, and health workers in chronic disease, child and maternal health, health promotion, eyes and ears health. We have new remote health services at Milikapiti, Daly River, Yuendumu, Nguiu, Minjilang, Kalkarindji, and Maningrida. We have signed up to the national health agreements they said they would not sign up to - would not have signed up to the national health agreements that have shown $60m for brand new health clinics in six of our remote towns. That is six communities which would not have received a new health clinic because the opposition would not have signed the national health agreements. They pretend that, somehow, they are committed to Indigenous people in the bush. What an absolute crock!
If you look at health outcomes, there has been a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women, from 65.2 years in 2000 to 69.8 years in 2006. I am sure that has improved since 2006. Indigenous infant mortality rates have fallen by 37% from 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 to 15.7 deaths per 1000 in 2006. Anaemia rates for Aboriginal children have fallen by 20%. There has been a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women, by 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003. As I said before, patients on renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia; an improvement of seven years.
I know the ridiculous little political game the opposition is trying to play; I did not come down in the last shower. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are they would not have committed to the BER reforms that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars spent on remote schools. They would not have signed up to a health agreement that is seeing $60m in new health clinics across the Northern Territory. It is just an opposition that is leaderless, drifting, has no policies at all - certainly no policies about closing the gap on Indigenous people that are real policies with serious strategy behind them and funding commitments to drive them forward.
Let us look at the jobs outcome in the Northern Territory. Delivering a strong economy is not about profits for shareholders or bigger profits for companies; it is about jobs for people. Over the period 2005 to 2010, Indigenous employment has increased in the Northern Territory from 13 100 to 18 400. That is an extra 5300 Indigenous people employed across the Northern Territory because of the work my colleague did in the preparation for this year’s budget in securing additional funding for our shires - a $30m three-year jobs package to support an additional 5300 jobs in shires, with the Territory government contributing $25.2m.
These are real improved outcomes in education, in kids getting to Year 12; improved outcomes in achieving reward payments for achieving and exceeding literacy and numeracy targets in the bush for the first year; real outcomes in improved health service delivery and outcomes in Indigenous health; and real outcomes in jobs in the bush with 5300 Indigenous people sharing in the 22 000 jobs which have been grown across the Northern Territory.
I am happy to talk about other infrastructure. These are not mirages; these are funding commitments we have made through the last two budgets delivering our A Working Future policy. It is my understanding this Department of Finance report commends the Northern Territory government for its policy framework. Since that report was written, the policy framework has been underpinned by two budgets. Budget 2010-11 delivered $980m for infrastructure to support A Working Future in the bush.
I challenge those opposite. Go back through the budget papers for your 27 years in government; go back through the regional highlights papers of those budgets over 27 years and, proportionately, show me anywhere near that commitment ...
Mr Elferink: You will see schools being built, roads being built, health clinics being built, and you will see police stations being built ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: ... anywhere near that commitment - nearly $1bn for the bush. Show me anywhere near that. Other people are going to pop up in this debate. A few of you have only been here for one term, very few were here for the dying days of the previous government. Go back and show me anywhere near the commitment to infrastructure in the bush. There is absolutely nothing ...
Mr Elferink: I can show you more health clinics than you have built, more schools built, and I can show you more police stations than you have built.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: … to see in that commitment to the bush. Also budget papers now, in relation to transparency, break that budget down into the 20 towns so people in those towns can see firsthand the commitments that are being made. As well as through the A Working Future policy, my colleague, the minister for Indigenous Development, will speak next in the debate about the local implementation plans being rolled out across the Northern Territory; plans that have been worked through with the community, and jointly signed up to by the Territory and Commonwealth governments and the communities.
It is just a cute piece of political rhetoric. I know what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. He is too cute by half to try to state we are not delivering anything on the ground in remote communities. Nothing could be further from the truth. We still have a long way to go to close that gap and have equity of service delivery in these remote communities. Every day we are making progress.
I share with the Leader of the Opposition my commitment to education. I am certain that, by and large, we have first-rate schools in most of these places with first-rate infrastructure I believe you would be hard pressed to find in Queensland or Western Australia in very remote schools. We have great teachers there. While we have attendance rates of around 40% because Indigenous parents are not sending their kids to school we are going to struggle. If there was a simple solution to that, it would have been enacted. However, there are no simple solutions to that issue. We are working as hard as we can. It is great to hear from my colleague, the Education minister, about the compulsory conferencing that is taking place.
Another thing taking place is there are up to 80 - I stand corrected if I am wrong - kids who are not going to school where there is a definition of neglect under the income quarantining arrangements in place. Up to 80 additional families have been put on to significant income quarantining as their kids are not going to school on a daily basis.
I have been very clear tonight in demonstrating our commitment to the bush in transparency through our A Working Future budget papers and process. Our commitment has been absolutely highlighted by the National Productivity Commission which has assessed our expenditure on Indigenous programs - independently of the Territory government. We have had two assessments. The Auditor-General has been through this, and we now have the National Productivity Commission saying we spend 53% of our budget on delivering services to 33% of our population, and we actually spend more than we were allocated by the Grants Commission in delivering those services. You can see that across the Northern Territory.
Regarding the so-called shame the Leader of the Opposition was trying to whip up in comments about housing and education, since that report was concluded and reported almost 2000 families are now benefiting from new or improved housing under SIHIP. All of the targets that were set by the Commonwealth have been met or exceeded. In the education agreements through the national partnership agreements, we have achieved $3.4m for achieving those and exceeding those targets in year one.
The Leader of the Opposition came here with cute political games, trying to stir the possum, I suppose, on an issue all of us on this side are absolutely committed to in closing the gap on that Indigenous disadvantage. The fact that houses are being built, roads are being upgraded, new health clinics are being rolled out, schools have been upgraded, hundreds of new teachers are out there, 5000 new jobs have been created, and Indigenous health outcomes are improving belies the nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion this evening.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to work hard to improve service delivery to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We are committed to it, we are transparent about it, we have the policy framework to deliver it, and we have the funding commitment. All the CLP opposition has is hot air and crocodile tears.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion of the Chief Minister brought forward today.
I listened in Question Time today, particularly to the minister for Housing and Education, and to the Chief Minister just now. All he talked about was money - money going in, a little here and there being built. He does not actually talk about outcomes. He did not say anything about the suicide rate amongst Indigenous Territorians right now. Could not care less about the suicide rate of people in the Northern Territory - Aboriginal Territorians who are killing themselves every day because of the situation they find themselves in.
He did not talk about shires and how the shire reform has taken away the voice of Indigenous people in the bush. He did not talk about that at all. He has not spoken about the loss of voice, the erosion of self-determination, the stripping of assets and infrastructure of people who do roads around their communities. He did not mention that once.
On 1 June 2006, a piece of wise advice came forward to Labor, to this current government. It spoke about part of the problems in the Northern Territory with Indigenous affairs. That advice spelt out a problem with communication, with the results being achieved on the ground. That advice came in the form of a letter from the then member for Millner, Matthew Bonson. I will read it out. It was from Matthew Bonson to Marion Scrymgour, Elliot McAdam, Barb McCarthy, and Alison Anderson, and copied to Syd Stirling and Paul Henderson.
Just taking a second, this advice formed the basis for getting rid of the previous Chief Minister. It was advice trying to round up the Indigenous MLAs on the Labor side of government for an uprising to get rid of Clare Martin. It said:
I step aside for a second. I do not think anything has changed. I believe we are back in the same position or worse. It went on to say:
I have to say I agree that they are not speaking up on these issues. It said:
Well, it is going to happen again. It says:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think they got the message. It is not about money that goes in; it is about outcomes. They are losing support, which is not of concern to me, but it is important that we get achievements for people in the bush.
I spoke about suicide rates. The government does not even talk about suicide rates. It talks about building schools. Let us talk about schools. Let us talk about the BER. I have photos of the schools in Maningrida, as an illustration of the BER projects. People around this Chamber who can see this or are watching the footage will see that this school building at Maningrida looks like some sort of Asian prison. How are we supposed to attract children to this school? That is not a derogatory reflection; that is exactly what it looks like. Why would you want to go to that school if you were a kid? I would not want to go there if it was work. It is a disgraceful looking building. Sure, it might work, it might be functional, but there would be no way I would want to go to that school at all. I can understand why kids at Maningrida might have reservations. I seek leave to table those photos.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is just one example of the inept approach. We have not even looked at how much the government sucked out in administering that construction project - the same way it bled SIHIP and continues to bleed SIHIP.
I listened quite intently to the minister for Housing when he answered some questions in Question Time, particularly on SIHIP. I am not going to preach about SIHIP all day. I will say he may either have been wrong or misleading - I am not sure either way. When he made reference to the houses at Wadeye - Senator Scullion raised this in the federal estimates, and I raised it in the Territory estimates - they were all rebuilds, not refurbishments. You need to look at how much money was actually spent on those and come clean on those figures. I know you will not, because you will see the embarrassment and the shame of the gouging you have taken out of that.
The Chief Minister talked about a $3.4m bonus received for achieving some targets. I would like to see how much the alliances have received in bonuses for achieving the targets the government set. I would like to see who signed off on them. Was it you, or did you delegate it down so you could have a hands-off approach on all of this?
Refurbishments are supposed to meet the standard that has been set in the Northern Territory. I would like to know why those standards are not being met in the bush. This is where the Leader of the Opposition is right; it is a two-speed policy: it is one thing for blacks and one thing for whites. Go out to Santa Teresa, where you are not allowed to get your house painted, you are not allowed to get your tiles painted, you cannot put cupboards in the kitchen, and you cannot have a little verandah that goes over the dirt so you can stop walking dirt in the house - the dirt that ends up making the kids there sick. You cannot do that. You do it in town, like in the town camps such as Hidden Valley, in the display houses. Sure, they look all right. They look good, because that is where the cameras can get to. Out in the bush there are no display homes. There is just rubbish. These are your electorates, bush members.
Matthew Bonson was right. This is why people are starting to hate you. It is time the Indigenous MLAs formed another uprising. Maybe they can get behind the member for Barkly, who is never in Barkly. The member for Johnston seems to have had his day; I think he might be leaving. There has to be someone else over there, someone who shares passion. You sit there quiet. They sit there quiet. At least, we speak up on this side of parliament - we care.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: We care. You talk about money that goes in, yet you are not talking about the outcomes you are supposed to achieve.
It seems the only way this government can actually house Indigenous people is by building gaols and putting them in gaols. We have nearly a 90% rate of prisoners in gaol who are Indigenous; 77% of them have been there before. Compare that with non-Indigenous. What is occurring is just disgraceful. Now, we have all these people becoming criminals because they drink alcohol. Rather than trying to rehabilitate people who have alcohol problems we are forcing them to become hardened criminals - unlike the CLP’s policy.
Back to education: it is interesting when you look at this year’s budget. The government talks about how it has achieved so much in education. It would be interesting to have a chat to the Children’s Commissioner and see what he thinks about education and school attendance rates. I understand that earlier this year he gave a presentation to a bunch of school practitioners where he said words to the effect of ‘school attendance is at an all-time low and it has never been that bad’. Going back to CLP years, it has never been that bad.
You only have to look at the budget. In Budget Paper No 3, 2011-12, have a look at primary education. This is where this government is racist - institutionalised racism where it accepts second best, which it targets for. It says in the last budget it targeted for non-Indigenous students in primary education to achieve an attendance rate of 100%. For Indigenous, it wanted Indigenous people to turn up, 80% of the time or more, at 33%. That was the target: 33%. The government expects 33% of Indigenous Territorians to turn up at school 80% of the time. Was this achieved? It should not be too hard, but no - 32%.
This year - hold the phone – the government has decided to notch it up a level. To appreciate the outcomes it is trying to achieve under COAG, it has now gone from 33% to 34%. Big increase! We have had an intervention in 2007 - only a four-month intervention by Mal Brough in the Howard years. It has all been Labor since. You like to call it Mal Brough’s intervention; it is all Labor’s intervention. We had four months. We did not even have it set up - four months. It is four years now of Labor. That is the reason the money has come in for dialysis, for housing, and for BER.
It is not from your doing! It is not because you have spoken up about anything. I do not think I have ever heard the members on the other side stand up and preach about the need for reform - apart from the member for Arafura who walked out and came back. At least she had the gumption to say something. I have not heard anyone else say anything. You just talk about: ‘This is how much we spent because we are told to by the feds’. You keep getting it wrong.
Look at the Johnson report, page 14:
We have had that concern for a while. It went on to say:
However, it is not just primary education. You can go on. If you go to middle years education, this is where the failures are really reflective. Students attending middle years education is over 80% for non-Indigenous, 99%. Keep in mind, we are talking Territory-wide, not bush versus urban. The target for Indigenous students to attend over 80% of the time, in last year’s budget, was 21%. They targeted for 21% of Indigenous kids, including urban and remote, to attend school 80% of the time. To the media listening: 21%. What did they actually achieve? Did they achieve 21%? You would expect to get something like 60% or 70%, some real improvements. They got 15% of kids attending middle years education over 80% of the time – 15%. This year, they have tried to be bold; they have actually gone back to the same target as last year of 21%. They achieved 15% of middle years.
When they say things are changing, things are not changing. Have a look at the senior years. Senior years had a target of 31% and they got nearly 25%, so they have gone back to the same target of 31%. The 2007 COAG agreement, under the Closing the Gap Policy, talks about halving the Indigenous Year 12 gap by 2020. Well, let me tell you, if you count back from 2020, they are the kids who are in Year 5 now - and the Year 5 kids are not going to school. They are not achieving the outcomes.
So, it is failure. Education is appalling. You can build all the BER schools you want, but you are not achieving. You are not even getting the kids to school. When they are there, nothing is happening. You have achievement rates of 33% of kids who are turning up to school, then you have the performance of those kids at school only reaching 33%.
Let me explain that. Last year, you had 15% of Indigenous kids attend middle years education. Of those 15% of students who turned up, only 31% actually met the Year 9 writing benchmarks under NAPLAN. It is 31% of 15%; you are not anywhere near 100% - not anywhere near it. This needs fundamental reform.
There is talk about the second intervention in the Northern Territory. Let us look at what the Territory does; what it is fully responsible for. It is responsible for housing and education in the full. And they are the two things it gets wrong. I was at Ramingining a week-and-a-half ago expecting to see SIHIP houses being built and refurbished – not one. I was fortunate to see teacher housing being built in Ramingining ...
Mr Conlan: He is proud of that.
Mr GILES: He will be proud of it because it only costs $387 000 to build houses for teachers in Ramingining, including the land servicing costs.
I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: That is unlike the SIHIP houses which the minister claimed cost $450 000 but, in fact, is probably about $800 000 or $900 000 for a three-bedroom house. We do not know.
In Ramingining, the teachers get housing, but not the kids. I would love to have a teacher’s house myself, but we in this parliament are not beneficial enough to be living in teacher housing. None of us can live in it, just like Indigenous Territorians cannot live in teacher housing. We would all like to live in teacher housing but, instead, they have to live in places like this in Oenpelli, where families are forced to live in tents because they cannot get into the SIHIP houses because the work is not happening.
The Chief Minister said he is proud of SIHIP. If you like the old man and the old woman living in the tent at Oenpelli or Gunbalanya - well done. It would be good if they could have a teacher’s house, because teacher housing is so important.
I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: They are in a tent, Madam Speaker.
We heard today the minister for Education, standing next to the proudly-supporting-SIHIP Chief Minister, talking about the outcomes they have achieved. I draw your attention to this photograph of structure No 365 in Oenpelli. I was there quite some time ago around the Earth Alliance debacle by the minister for Education and the Chief Minister - another debacle by this government. As we know, the recently released Johnson report talked about the capacity of the Northern Territory government being a particular concern. This is illustrated here: House No 365 is this house here. Most people would believe this probably has not had SIHIP work done on it – but it has. You might like this, member for Nelson, you support the government. House No 365 actually has eight units in it. I am very keen to find out if that is counted eight times. I reckon it might be. This was only done 12 months ago. House 365 was the identifier, minister. I had a chat to the residents last time I was there, and again when I was there a week-and-a-half ago. So, 365 is the double counting that goes on.
I have seen plenty of SIHIP houses; I have seen some good things - they are very hard to find. I have seen plenty of failures such as at Santa Teresa where you cannot replace the tiles because the department of Housing says you are not allowed to paint the tiles. You cannot paint the rooms because they say you are not allowed to. The contractor gave the paint to the tenant, without Territory Housing knowing, because they would get into trouble and have financial implications on their contract - gave it to the tenant and said: ‘Can you paint it when the contractors and Territory Housing leave?’ So, they have painted it themselves. I hope I do not get anyone in trouble for painting their own house because SIHIP would not, even though it cost $75 000 for three floor tiles, a couple of fluoro lights and no paint.
I found another house whilst driving through Arnhem Land recently. It was not a political visit for media; just go out there and see what is happening and get some understanding and learning. I found this house in the middle of the day locked up. The SIHIP house getting a bit of work done on it, fence put on it. I thought, that is just emblematic of SIHIP. It just reminds me of the Northern Territory government’s maladministration and failures in SIHIP. I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: It is just a picture of a house. It has a bit of temporary fencing around it and clearly looks like there is going to be work done. Whether there has been $200 000 spent on this house or not - who knows? It is good for people to have an illustration of how SIHIP actually works. I am sure people will be interested in seeing that fence.
I support the Leader of the Opposition in his censure motion, as we all do on this side of the parliament. It is not about inputs, it is about outcomes. Kids are not going to school, people are homeless, Indigenous teenagers are committing suicide across the Territory as we have never seen before, and 75% of the child services issues in Little Children are Sacred and Bringing them Home are all Indigenous.
This government is failing. I expect the Indigenous members and the rural members on the other side not to play their political games, but stand up and show some guts! Stand up and come up with ideas about change. This is complete failure, and the Chief Minister should hang his head in shame. I believe the Chief Minister should pull out of it; he has done his dash in Indigenous affairs.
When you have a federal government Cabinet report - kept confidential except for FOI by Channel 7 - that says ‘the capacity of the Northern Territory government is of particular concern’, it illustrates to me they cannot do the job. They are running two different policies for Indigenous Territorians and non-Indigenous Territorians when it comes to education: institutionalised racism. Racism, at its heart, is driving your educational targets and your outcomes and that is an absolute disgrace. You have two standards for people living in bush and in town …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in these debates.
Mr GILES: Two standards in bush and in town for Indigenous housing is just racist in itself. This report highlights how incompetent and how much of a failure you are. The racism at the heart of your policies ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words on this issue. It gives us an opportunity to talk about something about which I do not quite agree with the member for Braitling. Regardless of your political perspective or whether you think the government has failed, all of us know the state of affairs in the Northern Territory is pretty disappointing. Some on this side might argue the government is not doing well enough. Of course, the government will argue it is doing well enough. To be honest with you, in some of the areas I see, I do not believe the government is doing well enough. I have been out and about and seen some of the issues that face Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
I will still say to this day - and I cannot blame the Northern Territory government completely for this because it is a federal issue - that while we continue to have welfare as something that is just handed out, we will continue to have a situation in the Northern Territory which will never improve. Unless people have a job, there is no need to be educated. Unless people have a job, they do not see any future in living. I believe that is one of the major areas that has to change.
I am not the only one saying it. Galarrwuy Yunupingu was getting headlines in the paper this weekend about it. The member for Macdonnell has said it for a long time. I also know the Coordinator-General for Remote Services in all his reports – there are three reports issued by the Coordinator-General for Remote Services, Bob Beadman, and all those reports talked about welfare. This government has to start to talk to the federal government more seriously about the connect between welfare and the demise of many Aboriginal communities.
I had a chance to catch up with Ms Macklin, even though we had tried to get an appointment with her in Canberra. When I went to the Palmerston meeting, I had an opportunity. I went over and spoke to her for about 10 minutes. The first issue I raised was the issue of welfare. I believe, as Bob Beadman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and the member for Macdonnell and others have said, time and time again, that has to change. Yet, there is no reaction from either governments in relation to doing something about it.
The issue of unemployment is no more highlighted than when you go out to communities - and we talk about SIHIP houses; the member for Braitling had a bit of a side swipe there, which is fair enough. The point is I have some major concerns and have raised those concerns over the last number of years in relation to the money that has been wasted.
Another issue I raised with Ms Macklin was about the refurbishments. I believe the refurbishments should be in the hands of the shires. In every community I visited recently on the Sandover and Plenty Highways – and I visited four Aboriginal communities in that area - each shire service manager said refurbishments should be a shire responsibility, for the reason they would get better value for money.
People would have seen a photo of a house at Maningrida that ended up on the front page of the NT News. That was my photo, which had to be censored because some of the graffiti on the front of it was atrocious. What we were trying to highlight was the fact that you are putting money into these houses and only half finishing them. That does not send a good message to the community that the Commonwealth is fair dinkum about upgrading the houses. If you spend $75 000 on a house, painting the inside, fixing up the kitchen, the shower, the laundry, and leave the outside of the house in a terrible state, it does not send out a good message.
Another area which I believe has failed - and the government has to come back to the people with - is the future of outstations. I thought it was about outstations, but during the Estimates Committee, when questioning the department, I said what do you call Nauiyu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Milikapiti, and Garden Point? They said: ‘Small towns’. So I asked: ‘What is their future?’ There appears to be no future in relation to new houses. There is a policy vacuum regarding the future of these communities. What I am worried about - and I talk here about Daly River, Nauiyu - is that since their local government was amalgamated into a larger council, there seems to be - and I add into this list - very few jobs. They have no belonging anymore because they have lost their local government council, and they have no future because there is no one saying whether that community will have any more new houses. It is one of the best communities in the Northern Territory.
I believe there have been two recent suicides. I never knew of suicides when I was there. I knew of many people who died because of the effects of alcohol, but now we have people committing suicide. I wonder whether it is because things have changed where people do not see a future. I know the government will say it is doing its job, and this was 18 months ago, but the reality is I do not believe things have changed that much. They might be trying their best, but the Johnson report is showing the best is not working, and there are far too many - I only have the executive summary, by the way, of the Johnson report. From what I read in there, I also see in Bob Beadman’s report many of the things that have been spoken about.
I have never been a great supporter of the large councils. However, the councils are as they are. I believe they are too large, and they should have been made smaller. The reality is they were never going to be financially sustainable without help, either by taking on responsibilities like agencies, or unless government supported them.
The classic example is the pool. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Santa Teresa pool. What you have is a case of something coming home to roost. Many of us in local government, when all this started off - No Pool, No School - knew that councils were a little blinded by the light when it came to having swimming pools in their community. They said: ‘Wow, that is great, terrific’. However, was there anyone getting up and stating how much it cost to run a pool, how much to maintain a pool? Many of the councils, when they first got their pools, had such small budgets they were taking money from essential services to keep the pools upgraded.
There was a time when the Nguiu or Bathurst Island pool was closed simply because they could not afford to fix it. You would be given this nice present by the government, but the other side of the equation was not being told. Therefore, what you see now is something government does have some responsibility for. They put forward the idea of No Pool, No School. I think the Commonwealth also invested money in the pools. However, were they really being up-front and truthful with those councils saying: ‘Do you know it is going to cost this much money? You are going to have to find that money to maintain that pool’. I do not think those ramifications of what was a good idea was mentioned to the councils. Both the Territory and Commonwealth governments need to address that situation because it is a great strain on the core functions of councils.
I also ask about education. It has been brought up here before - and I have spoken in parliament many times – regarding the poor figures for education in the Northern Territory. It is easy to criticise from a set of figures - I understand that. I am not, in any way, supporting the terrible situation in regard to education because even if you have a job, if you cannot read and write too well, you know you are always going to be on the bottom of the pile. Your chances of advancing yourself are going to be very slim.
Education is the key and, unfortunately, finding ways to get kids to school has always been difficult. I remember when the Council of Territory Cooperation visited Wadeye and the principal of the Catholic school said: ‘We send the school bus around to pick up the kids, and the mums throw stones at the bus because they do not want their kids to go to school’. The talk was that the reason they do not want their kids to go to school is because mums want to play cards and they want the older kids to babysit the babies. That is not exactly easy to fix. I looked at some of the recommendations of Bob Beadman. With regard to the recommendations in relation to this issue of school attendance, I will start on the one that we need to really look at. I will see if I can find the page. If all the measures that the government is putting forward to try to improve school attendance are not working, he says welfare payments should be suspended.
I believe there may have been a trial in relation to that. If it is the case that, year after year, things are not changing - and there are new penalties for not sending your kids to school. Well, there were penalties before that as well. In fact, Bob quotes the number of people who were actually charged with not sending their children to school. It is pretty small. I know since this report was done, there has been new legislation. Whether that is going to make a big difference, I do not know.
Bob is asking, if parents are not sending their kids to school, is it a case that, while we blame the government we are not blaming the parents? Whose responsibility is it to send their kids to school? If parents are not taking up their responsibility, are we just going to put it in the too-hard basket? Should we be looking at what Bob was saying; that we should suspend welfare payments for those parents who do not send their kids to school?
Part of what is missing here is also the culture of education. If the parents of the children have not been to school - and this is what I think was the case given to us at Wadeye - and their parents have not been to school, it is like unemployment: why bother going to school if your parents have not gone to school? You are still getting your welfare payment, so what is the problem? That is the culture they have learnt. They have learnt that going to school is not any big deal. That is a difficult culture to change.
There are many issues in relation to where we are going with Aboriginal education, employment, and growth towns. We could talk for ages on it. I still believe the government is not doing enough in promoting the idea that welfare needs to change.
The government needs to, as it has done with the cattle industry recently, publicly support those people in the Northern Territory and tell the federal government it has to change welfare payments in the Northern Territory. If you are going to have councils, they are the ideal place for employment - if those welfare payments could be given to the councils and topped up to a reasonable wage. We have to remember when you are paying $10 to $13 per kilogram for capsicums, it is hard to encourage people to eat fresh food or pay for it if their income is pretty low. The wages have to be reasonable and the councils have to have sufficient money to provide the equipment for that employment. At least you have a base and, with that, you hope people can make some decisions about moving to other jobs. At least people have jobs; at least people have pride.
Every community I visited along the Sandover and Plenty Highways, except Bonya, was in need of some major work. There was long grass, rubbish, houses that needed maintenance, footy ovals where even the behind posts were down on one side. I do not know what happened when they kicked to the left-hand side of the goal. No one bothered to pick them up; no one painted them. There is plenty of work out there for people. It is sad to see governments being too scared to make a decision about welfare when the legacy of that decision will be an ongoing reluctance by people to work, and will continue a culture of unemployment rather than employment.
The government can, in this debate, put much spin on things, and the opposition, rightly so, can criticise the government for its performance. This is such an important issue. It is wishful thinking, but it is one of those issues where it would be great to work together. Under the ‘we are doing better than you’ and the party system to some extent, people are not always willing to say things are crook, because it might not win them votes at the next election.
If the government is saying this report was 18 months ago and things have improved, I have not seen that improvement. The government had 12 months to show it is improving things. It is saying things have changed. The people of the Northern Territory will judge that; Aboriginal people in remote communities will make the decision as to whether it is spin or fact.
If numbers of kids going to school are rising, let us see them. If more people are employed and not sitting on welfare, let us see those figures. If we are getting better value for money from SIHIP – and the minister says there are many good houses out there; it is a great program. I have nothing against the new houses out there, but people come to my office fairly regularly saying there is wastage.
I have sent some of those matters to the Auditor-General to investigate. I have looked at the houses that have been refurbished, and I shake my head and ask: ‘Where is that money?’ Where has that $75 000 gone? Where is the employment? You hear the government – this is one of the worst spins – say there are outcomes for employment for Aboriginal people in SIHIP. Yet, we have received figures – and these are generalised figures - for one community which has had about 230 people employed on SIHIP, and only one of those people has lasted more than 26 weeks.
The federal government attended some awards down south and was congratulated on reaching the target of 30% employment. Did anyone ask what that 30% employment was made up of? Were they counting the 236 people who were employed, or did they count the one person who was employed for 26 weeks?
That is where it is sad that spin takes away from the facts. If we are to join together, we have to admit there are failures - and there are failures. We also have to admit the opposition clouds the criticism to make it sound worse than it is. However, it is not good. I looked through Department of Education figures every estimates, and I have not seen any great improvement. I have seen where the estimates figures were changed so very remote communities were removed from the figures for numeracy and literacy - you would be in for a rude shock – and it is not shown anymore. Maybe it was not shown because they were so bad.
Madam Speaker, this is an important debate. Perhaps it would have been good if the government, instead of waiting for the opposition to bring on a debate through this method, announced it was going to debate this issue. It would have given me more time to sit down and look at some of the facts and figures, instead of having half-an-hour this afternoon to try to put something together. It would be good if people are going to criticise the government, then they look at positive responses and alternatives. It is such an important issue, it just cannot be criticism, criticism and, on the other side, it cannot just be spin, spin. It does not get anywhere. We need to be working together to achieve some goals and change things.
I agree with some of what I read in the executive summary about too many agencies. There are too many government programs on the ground. When you look at the Northern Territory there are 200 000 people and 40% of them are Aboriginal. What is that? That is about 80 000 Aboriginal people. Why do we have so many people involved in helping people? I am sure there are not that many people involved in my life at Howard Springs. Have we just created an industry of bureaucracy that feeds on itself instead of achieving anything? This is highlighting that fact. That is really where we have to start. The summary mentions that. In the summary, it mentions starting to thin those numbers of programs so you can start to put the money exactly where it is needed to achieve things.
Madam Speaker, there is a long way to go. This government, if it reckons it is doing something right, has 12 months to prove it, otherwise people are going to make that judgment then.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I will touch on the final comments by the member for Nelson regarding the many agencies involved. I want to begin with this in response to what I absolutely disagree with in the censure motion.
Let me go back to what it is that Aboriginal people on the ground see. In the words of the CLC CEO, David Ross, sometimes, for Aboriginal people it is like watching many politicians come and go with different policies, different views, on how they wish to improve the lives of Indigenous people. However, the one fundamental thing that has been missing in the decades of policies for Indigenous people across this country - and not just here in the Northern Territory - is talking with Aboriginal people ...
Mr Tollner: Oh, rubbish! Oh, wake up!
Ms McCARTHY: … about the policies. This interjection …
Mr Tollner: They have been consulted to death. They want a bit of action.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: The interjection from the member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: They do not want more talk. Oh, you are pathetic!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms McCARTHY: … who calls these communities ‘hellholes’ - that is what the member for Fong Lim, who represents the party that never bothered about these communities ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: … hellholes the member for Fong Lim calls the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory. Let me refer to those comments. According to the member for Fong Lim, most of these communities are hellholes ...
Mr Tollner: They are! It is your policies that made them that way.
Ms McCARTHY: So much so, they will never invest in the regions of the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: The CLP has shown it in their history - the CLP policy of years. They have never, ever invested in these communities in a genuine attempt …
Mr Conlan: Who put the schools there?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … for traditional owners working with country, working with culture. That is what this shameful opposition stands for ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows she is misleading the parliament. The world did not start in remote communities the day Labor was elected …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: It is just absolute arrant nonsense.
Ms McCARTHY: That is what happens when you put the facts on the table, Madam Speaker ...
Mr Tollner: Oh, you drop kick! You drop kick.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdrew that comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Ms McCARTHY: Hit a very raw nerve! Page 13 of the report says:
Let me say to this House that that is exactly what we have been doing since November last year at the beginning of the signing of 13 of the 15 RSD sites across the Northern Territory. There are 29 remote service delivery sites across Australia; 15 are in the Northern Territory. What has the Northern Territory government and the federal government done to work with people on the ground? Let us have a look here. This is the engagement …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms McCARTHY: This is the engagement that has been lacking from the other side of the House in working with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. Let us have a look at these plans and documents the people in Ngukurr, Umbakumba, Angurugu, Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Ntaria, Yirrkala, Milingimbi …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms McCARTHY: … Lajamanu, Maningrida, Ntaria, Gapuwiyak …
Mr Tollner: You are gammon, sister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She has pointed out there are two of those arrangements in Ntaria. Which one is the true one? You said Ntaria twice.
Ms McCARTHY: The point is, Madam Speaker, we are very conscious this has to be about working with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The one thing that has to be focused on here is the coordination of both the Northern Territory and federal governments, with the bureaucracies, with the system of governance that occurs in both the Northern Territory and the federal governments, to improve and work with Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
It is not a perfect model, but we have gone a long way to where we are now, with the SDCU under the leadership of Mathew Fagan, and with the agencies across the Northern Territory and federal parliament to improve the lives of Indigenous people - this report from February 2010, and these reports in November 2010.
As an Indigenous minister in the Northern Territory, I say to the people, not only in the agencies at the federal and Territory level, but all our people across the Northern Territory, keep this a living document - make sure the Northern Territory government does what it says it is going to do, and the federal government is going to do what it says.
I also say to the people of the Northern Territory: you do what you need to do to get your kids to school as well. These are genuine agreements to try to make a difference, so that all of us at the local government level, the Territory government level, the federal government level, and the people in these communities are vigilant about improving their own lives, as well as keeping governments accountable.
In regard to the local implementation plans across the Northern Territory, let us also have a look at what we have done under Treasury and the Treasurer, Delia Lawrie. We have invested a significant amount of funding. It is historic funding, unlike anything the Northern Territory has witnessed in these regions - close to $1bn investment across our regions - after decades of systemic neglect ...
Mr Giles: What are the outcomes? 15% school attendance!
Ms McCARTHY: These guys here call them hellholes. These guys over here are telling everyone to ‘leave your country and culture and forget who you are. Go elsewhere because where you come from are hellholes’. That is what the member for Fong Lim stands for …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling!
Ms McCARTHY: That is what the member for Braitling should be ashamed of.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the truth hurts.
Let us look at regional transport, bus trials, barge and airstrip upgrades. This government was committed to wanting to seal every single airstrip across the regions of the Northern Territory because we knew the health risks to people in the regions because they could not get out as there were no sealed airstrips in many communities when Labor came to power. We have focused on that. We still have a hell of a way to go, but we have made that commitment.
These guys on the other side would withdraw all that funding. They would withdraw any commitment to these regions. They would withdraw every piece of capital investment we are putting into the regions. We do that with the federal government. These guys over here rejected the BER program - rejected every single piece of investment in these regions in education. It is the Northern Territory Labor government that pushed for senior students to finish high school, to get high school certificates from Year 12 once we came into government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: These clowns on the other side never even considered Indigenous people come through schooling. Shame on you!
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: And you sit there and accuse us!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling! Member for Greatorex!
Ms McCARTHY: There were major road upgrades under the close to $1bn Treasury funding announcement last year. More renal services and remote health clinic upgrades, and children and family centres. Let us have a look at that - I know we are going to come to that later on, when we come to the member for Araluen’s MPI.
The Labor government has a plan. Unless we improve the infrastructure, the facilities, for all our families across the region, we know it is extra difficult for the children growing up in these places. Do you think we do not care about those kids out there? We do care! That is why we are investing where it is required the most – in our schools and our families. We want to see these kids come through with a solid and genuine education, with genuine jobs at the end of it.
Our government has worked with the federal government this year to find 500 extra jobs in the local government sector alone. We have committed to the people of the Northern Territory that we will have three years of further funding to ensure our shires across the Northern Territory can fund those positions for people who require those jobs. That is the commitment of this Labor government to the rest of the regions of the Northern Territory, to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to all people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, this censure motion is an absolute disgrace. We are not failures. We are there for the people of the Northern Territory. We are there for the Indigenous people. We will not stop, and we will continue to improve the lives of Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind opposition members that the convention is two speakers from each side and also from the Independents. That is a bit strange.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That convention has been ignored by this House for some time …
Madam SPEAKER: By the opposition members; that is correct. I am just reminding you.
Mr ELFERINK: And accepted by government. I have told the government Whip that if they wanted to have two on two, it was very easy: the last speaker had to finish with putting the motion. Now, I did not hear that, so …
Dr Burns: Oh, go away!
Mr ELFERINK: I told your Whip. If your communication with your Whip is not up to speed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you will speak to me, not to other members.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it is our view in government that there has been a long-standing convention that with censure motions it is two and two, with the Independents. We do not agree with the opposition’s view that they will run through and waste government business time on this spurious matter.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Araluen has stood on this. I will allow you to speak. I indicate I would like the government and the opposition to sort this out for any further censure motions in this House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to that instruction, that was sorted out. I made our position clear. It is not tricky …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not sorted out.
Madam SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, it is two on two, member for Port Darwin. It needs to be sorted out and someone can talk to me at a later hour, thank you.
Mr Elferink: If your Whip was up to his job, it would be easier.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important motion. I have listened intently to the arguments put forward by the government defending the accusation it has failed to provide adequate policy and support for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
The member for Arafura said they care and I believe that - you do care; there is no doubt about it. However, caring does not equate to competence, which is where the government has failed. The government has not demonstrated competently it is able to govern by providing adequate care, support, and services for Aboriginal people throughout the Territory.
I was fascinated to hear the member for Arafura say in the beginning of her response that over the last decade or two …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you refer to the ‘member for Arafura’ by the correct name? It is a bit confusing for you, but it is the member for Arnhem not Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. It is the Minister for Local Government anyway.
Ms LAMBLEY: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the member for Arnhem but, in this case, it is the Minister for Local Government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am terribly sorry. I apologise profusely ...
Mr Conlan: They are rather hard to separate because they are both hopeless.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to pick up on the member for Greatorex referring to how the members for Arnhem and Arafura look the same. What does that mean?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. I did not hear it.
Mr Conlan: I said their incompetence is exactly the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, just calm down a bit.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I sincerely apologise. I should be au fait with the exact titles of everyone in the room. Member for Arnhem, please accept my apology.
I listened intently to the beginning of her response when she said over the last decade or two governments have failed to listen to …
Mr Conlan: The minister for trailer trash over here in the front row.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw that comment.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw that.
Ms Lawrie: That is unbelievable. You are very low grade.
Mr Conlan: You are!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex referring to trailer trash in this House is disgusting. It is denigration of women of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister. The member has already withdrawn the comment. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Arnhem mentioned in the first part of her speech she was aware governments over the last decade or two had failed to adequately listen to Aboriginal people. I found it amazing that the member for Arnhem, an Aboriginal woman herself, would admit to not listening to her people and attributing the failure of her government to the lack of intention or goodwill to listen to Aboriginal people. The portfolio of Local Government demonstrates that. The failure of the shires in the Northern Territory could be attributed to the fact that local people were not spoken with, not consulted, and their local power bases were stripped.
The reason I stand before you this afternoon is to talk about the most endemic and long-term failure of this government. It has consistently failed in the area of child protection. It has failed dismally for 10 years or more. Successive Cabinet ministers placed there to protect the children of the Northern Territory have failed.
At least 75% of children in the care and under the supervision of the Minister for Child Protection are Indigenous children. If you talk about a system failing 100% - systematically failing - you are talking about failure for Indigenous Australians through failure, cover-ups, negligence, maladministration and repetition of mistakes, impotence, poor leadership, and scandal after scandal after scandal. There is no better illustration of failure of this Henderson government than in child protection.
Here I go again. The list is alarming, horrific, but crystal clear in the community. This government has failed to recognise problems despite all manner of reports - the six or seven inquiries and reports that have been handed this government over the last 10 years with hundreds of recommendations in them. This government has failed to adequately respond to any of them. In failing to provide leadership, we have had a succession of ministers who have failed to lead the government out of this spiralling mess that is called child protection in the Northern Territory. Failing to implement the recommendations of the report and improve the services across the Territory has affected many Indigenous children. We have been witness to a system in meltdown; a child protection system that has been unable to respond.
In October last year, the board of inquiry into child protection, commissioned by the government, handed down its 147 recommendations. The board of inquiry described the system as an overwhelming failure. The inquiry’s three co-chairs said it was important to focus on systematic failures, not the many hard-working, thoughtful, dedicated people struggling to cope with limited resources in an environment characterised by extreme need. Their own inquiry had uncovered a:
The Growing them strong, together report is the latest in a stream of reports illustrating - demonstrating without a shadow of doubt - this government has failed; it cannot respond to child protection adequately, it has been given more than enough time. It is probably good that the election is coming up in 12 months time so, hopefully, another more equipped party can take over.
We had successive ministers, starting with the member for Nightcliff in 2001. The member for Arafura took over from her. In 2005, we had the member for Karama. She was then succeeded by member for Arafura, followed by the member for Arnhem, followed by the member for Casuarina as present Minister for Child Protection. All of these ministers were shuffled sideways, shot out the back door, with the latest minister, the member for Casuarina, holding the fort, so to speak, hopefully taking us through to a change in government in 12 months time.
The Little Children are Sacred report, which came out in 2006 during the time the member for Karama was the minister, included 97 recommendations. This was the cornerstone, the impetus, for the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Because we have had subsequent reports, and the board of inquiry report that came out last year, we have not heard what has come out of many of those recommendations - the implementation of those 97 recommendations pertaining to the sexual assault of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. We seem to have got lost in the administration and the burden this government has found itself under. The fact is more and more reports have been loaded on to the government, more and more recommendations burdening the system and further demonstrating the failure of this government to provide child protection services.
Following that in 2007, the Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit came out with 30 recommendations. What has happened to those, minister? We have not had any talk about those recommendations and your implementation of them. Those recommendations focused on the usual themes regarding the failures in the system, case management practices, risk assessment, case loads, case allocations, staffing, adherence to time frames, and generally responding appropriately to the requirements of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
Then we went on to the June 2009 Review Report of Northern Territory Families and Children Intake Services - 41 recommendations - under the leadership of the member for Arnhem. What has happened to those recommendations? More recommendations, trying to urge the government to improve their systems, to reform, to review, to do things better - nothing changed. They had opportunity, time and time again, they were nudged, they have been pushed, they have been thrown in a corner and beaten up by these reports, and nothing has seemed to improve.
Sadly, in June 2009, were three coronial investigations relating to the deaths of children known to the Department of Children and Families. This probably was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people when - and dare I use Deborah Melville as an example, but in honour of that poor girl dying, her death signified that things were really at the lowest point they could possibly get to. This poor girl, weeks from her 13th birthday, was left to die under a tree. This girl had been in the care and protection of the minister for the Department of Children and Families from 2000 to 2007. The last seven years of her life, she depended on the Department of Children and Families, the department responsible for child protection, to look after her, to provide her with what every child needs: care, education, and health. This little girl ‘died appallingly and needlessly’, quoting the Territory Coroner, Greg Cavanagh, in his report he tabled in January 2010.
At the time of her death, as I said, she was in the care of the Minister for Children and Families. She was placed with family, her aunt, who failed to provide her with adequate care. At the end of the day, the Coroner came to the conclusion the inquest had heard considerable evidence about the serious deficiencies and systematic and individual failures of the department. It was the department that was responsible for this little girl’s death because of its failure to monitor the case, to monitor the safety and wellbeing of Deborah Melville, to provide adequate reviews required in the act at the time, the Welfare Act, and failing to visit and properly assess what was going on in that family.
What have we learnt since Deborah Melville died? On the surface it does not appear that we have learnt much at all. Children are still in the care and protection of the minister, the CEO of the Department of Children and Families, and they are still not getting the care they need. We hear on the media and off the record there are still very serious problems in the out-of-home care system, and we are still hearing the department is breaching the laws by which it is commissioned to abide.
Deborah Melville, the case that was documented so clearly on the Four Corners program, Dangerous Territory, last year, was horrific. It showcased the failure of this government in child protection. It was a documentary that talked about not only Deborah Melville’s death, but also the death of an infant who was also well known to the department. So, when you talk about failures for children in the Northern Territory, Indigenous children, and the inability of this government to respond adequately to the needs of Indigenous children, you cannot go past child protection. In the Johnson report, it said that the Commonwealth spending of $3.5bn annually over many years on Indigenous-specific programs has yielded dismally poor returns to date and, too often, the outcomes have been disappointing at best and appalling at worst. The same could be said for the Northern Territory government in the Indigenous programs it has been offering the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
In 2002, we were in a state of denial, and we have heard the government try to shirk responsibility for that. That came soon after it came to government. Let’s face it: the government has been given 10 years to reform, to pull up its socks and look at other states and territories in Australia that have been able to successfully reform child protection systems. It has been given a great deal of support from professional people throughout Australia on how it might proceed. The 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report from October 2010 went through in a very detailed manner how this government can move forward. That was 10 months ago. We are hearing very glowing reports of how things are progressing in reform within the child protection system, but in reality we know it is not doing quite as well as we believe.
We have had the government trying to kill off any public criticism of its performance regarding child protection. The Ombudsman, who has a rather long relationship in bringing the government to account in its child protection record, was gagged. She was stripped of her child protection responsibilities and, basically, told to focus on other areas. The Ombudsman is an important person in our community, who has held the government to account over child protection. She has been very up-front, very courageous in her public analysis of aspects of the child protection system. In February 2010, she labelled an official inquiry into child protection ‘a facade’ and accused the Henderson government of trying to muzzle her. That was as a result of her making fairly damning comments - which were damning but quite realistic and reasonable given the extreme nature of what the inquiry uncovered.
She has accused the government of failing the most vulnerable Territorians. In the Four Corners report, Dangerous Territory, she said:
Of cases:
She has proven she is a force to be reckoned with by the government, and it shut her up. It gagged her; blocked her from telling the truth, from exposing the government for failures in child protection. It saw her as a constant reminder of failure and incompetence. So, what did the government do? It got rid of her. The Ombudsman was marginalised and gagged by the government.
Then there was the case of Susan Mansfield, a social worker employed by the Royal Darwin Hospital, who had very serious concerns about the management of certain cases involving children she felt were at risk of serious harm and abuse. The government has, effectively, done the same to Susan Mansfield as it did to the Ombudsman. It shut her down. It marginalised her. Now it is investigating her for aspects of her conduct when, really, Susan Mansfield’s allegations and concerns around the wellbeing of a child turned out to be extremely well-founded.
We all know this government has failed in child protection in the Northern Territory. On 23 July 2011, the Northern Territory News did a four-page spread on the failures of this government with regard to child protection which was unsolicited. I did not comment; none of the opposition commented. It was an obvious article to write, given the lengthy and morbid history of child protection over the last 10 years. I believe it goes without saying that the people of the Northern Territory are fed up with the failures in a system that has to work, that has to protect the children of the Northern Territory. The government should be seriously censured for its failure to provide support and care for Indigenous children, as well as non-Indigenous children, throughout the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I repeat I am very concerned about the breaking of convention in this House in relation to censure motions. However, I will call you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not certain we had such conventions we were breaking. In any case, I appreciate your call. It would be a sad day for any parliament to try to shut down debate on such an important motion. I am glad to see that it is not happening today because this is a very important motion.
The Northern Territory’s future is inexplicably tied to the future of Indigenous Territorians. Talk to anyone who knows anything about anything and they understand the importance of Aboriginal policy and assisting Aboriginal people into mainstream Australia being the most significant and important issue we have in the Northern Territory.
I have been in the Territory for a few years and remember a long period of Labor Party politicians belting the daylights out of Country Liberal Party politicians, accusing them of racism, saying we had dropped the ball, we had done nothing at all to help Aboriginal Territorians. Lo and behold! Here we are after 10 years of a Labor government in the Northern Territory, five or six years of a Labor government in Australia, and guess what? There has been no finding of the Holy Grail and no great advancement of Indigenous hopes. In fact, things have only gone backwards. It is an appalling situation to have to listen to the diatribe from the mouths of Labor people, and an Independent who is nothing but an apologist for this pathetic, moribund Labor government running the show in the Northern Territory these days.
The reality is things have become worse. They have worsened despite the bucket loads of money poured into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory - right around Australia for that matter. Listening to the member for Nelson, I was horrified. He is nothing but an apologist for this Labor government. He gets his own way on most things. He set up the Territory Council of Cooperation - or the council of love, or whatever he calls it. It conducted an 18-month inquiry into SIHIP housing. He seems to think he is some sort of expert in this area, having chaired that, Now, we see reports tabled 18 months after they were first presented to the federal government which shows things are much worse than he suggested in his Council of Territory Cooperation.
The whole thing for the member for Nelson is for us all to run around and holds hands, have a gay old time, and not point to the problems or argue the issues we have in the Northern Territory. For some reason, the member for Nelson hates rigorous debate. He hates seeing politicians go hammer and tongs at it and will do whatever he can to reconcile the two sides, irrespective of whether that means covering up all the great failures of a moribund and useless government.
The other thing that sticks in my craw is to hear the minister for Indigenous affairs suggest many of the remote communities across the Northern Territory are not hellholes. What sort of rock has she been living under? I tell you; you do not have to go to too many communities to see there are many absolute hellholes. I could not imagine anything worse in my life than having to live in some of these communities. Every single house is falling down, every house is covered in graffiti, litter and rubbish is strewn around the place, and there are no meaningful jobs. The only jobs in most of these communities are government-funded pretend jobs. There is no private industry anywhere. Everything is community owned or government owned or government funded. It is absolutely disgraceful. We heard the minister talking about all these wonderful communities.
One of the things about the intervention was we would have town plans and a secure system of tenure in remote communities. Which ones have happened? We know the Tiwi Island people say they have a long-term lease and a plan. We know on Groote Eylandt that has happened. However, both of those occurred under the previous federal government. Since then, in how many places has it actually happened? We heard Jenny Macklin saying: ‘We are not going to build a house on land we do not have secure tenure on’. Where is it happening? The member for Arnhem - the audacity of the woman to say there was a complete absence of talk, of discussion, with Aboriginal people in the past and this government has brought that forward and is sitting down talking to Aboriginal people. What a load of absolute arrant nonsense!
The fact is these people have been talked to death. They have been consulted to death. We have had streams and streams of bureaucrats going into these communities, lobbing on their doorstep wanting to talk to them. People are absolutely sick to death of the consultation, of the talk, of all the nonsense. What they want to see is action. They do not want to see money spent, but they want to see an outcome. They want to see their lives improve, and that is not happening.
We will see one after the other after the other of these ministers stand up and try to defend the indefensible. The reality is things have become worse, not better. They have become worse under this government; they are wasting more money. One after the other, these guys will stand up being proud of the money they waste. In fact, it is the only argument they have: ‘We have wasted more money than anyone else’. That is the only argument they have. The only thing they can ever point to is the amount of money they have absolutely wasted.
This censure motion is spot on. We constantly lower the bar for Aboriginal people to the point now we are saying: ‘Oh, we will have 90% of non-Aboriginal people turning up to schools - that is where we set the bar at - but only 33% or 34% of Aboriginal kids have to turn up to school and we are a success’. Every time they do not meet that target, what do they do? They do not work at fixing it, they lower the bar.
Here we see damning stories of child protection coming out, time and time again. What is the result of it? They now want to make child protection into a race issue. We now have a child protection authority for non-Aboriginal Territorians, and we will have a child protection authority for Aboriginal Territorians, as if there is some difference in raising a kid from an Aboriginal background as opposed to raising a kid from a Greek background, an English background, a German background, or a Chinese background. Somehow Aboriginal kids are different; we have to set up a whole new agency created specifically for Aboriginal kids.
Guess what? The standards are lower. You would not have kids of non-Aboriginal descent raised in the circumstances we allow Aboriginal kids to be raised in. You would not accept school attendance levels for non-Aboriginal kids we are getting from Aboriginal kids. No, this government seems to think that is all right. It seems to think because it spends more money that is, somehow, more progress, irrespective of the fact that everywhere you look these days, every single piece of writing on Aboriginal affairs, these ideas have been cast aside.
We have government members here who are like dinosaurs. We have people talking all around the world of how welfare is poison, but what does this government do? It says: ‘Oh, no, we are quite happy to keep pumping more and more money into these places’.
Talking about building schools, I have a paper here called Rivers of Money Flow into the Sand, which was written by Professor Helen Hughes. I do not think that there is a single person in this parliament who would suggest Helen Hughes does not know what she is talking about. She said in this article:
That is the level of funding we are talking about that goes into those remote communities: $100 000 per person, per year - every man, woman and child. That is an extraordinary amount of money. For a government to come into this place and say it is doing a good job because it is making more of that money available is just madness.
As they say, when you are in a hole, stop digging! But not this government. They come in here and say: ‘Oh, no, we are spending more!’ Why? It is just ridiculous. Not only does it spend more, but it lowers the bar to accommodate its own failure. Then, it comes in here and runs nonsensical arguments saying: ‘Nothing was ever done prior to 2001 because that was the days of racist CLP government, which we all knew did not want anything to do with Aboriginal people, did not want a bar of them and they did nothing’. Somehow, these communities, these houses, these people, just magically appeared after 2001. The CLP had nothing to do with that. Goodness me, these arguments the government puts absolutely defy common sense.
There is $100 000 per person, per year - man, woman and child; $400 000 per family of four per year - husband, wife and two children. Any family on $400 000 per year living in a normal, decent house, should not have a problem getting a decent education, for a start. The big problem is there are no jobs, so these people are not earning the $400 000 that is going to the family, because there are no jobs for them to do it. The reason there are no jobs is because there is no private enterprise. The reason there is no private enterprise is because the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has precluded pretty well all forms of private activity on Aboriginal land. Everything has to be community owned or communally owned.
Have a look at the number of mines that have started in the Northern Territory since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We would be lucky to have half a dozen on Aboriginal land. Have a look and count how many butcher shops, shoe shops, bakeries or clothing stores - privately owned businesses - have set up on Aboriginal land since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Almost zero. There is nowhere on any Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory where you can find a thriving private sector. I defy any member on that side of the House to tell me where it is happening, which community I can go to and see a butcher shop, a bakery, a shoe store, a clothing store, a hairdresser, a movie theatre - any of those things we associate with mainstream communities.
That is where people want to live. That is the sort of lifestyle people want to have. That is why I say many of these places are hellholes, and I do not resile from that one bit. This government is racist because it continually divides on racial grounds: one law for non-Aboriginal people, another law for Aboriginal people; one set of standards for non-Aboriginal people, another set of standards for Aboriginal people.
I know quite a few Indigenous Territorians, and not just the ones living in the city, but ones in the bush. I can tell you most of them want the same thing. It is the same as you and me and every member of this parliament has; that is, access to jobs, schooling for your kids, decent health services, and a decent lifestyle. It is not that much to ask.
Why are we constantly stuck in this paradigm? It is because this government refuses to change. This government refuses to take the hard decisions. The hard decisions are there. Where are these township leases? Where are the public roads going into remote Territory communities – government owned roads? There are none.
Instead of saying what is right, this government is happy to pander to the well-heeled hierarchy of the Indigenous establishment. They are not interested in dealing with people on the ground. They want to get the support of those people who run land councils, who are the chiefs of the Aboriginal industry, the Aboriginal bureaucracy, because they are the ones who direct the poor plebs on the ground as to how they are going to vote and all of that sort of stuff.
If you talk about racist political parties, it is the ALP. It has always been that way. It is always the first one to play the race card or scream racism. Do not listen to what they say, look at what they do.
Madam Speaker, we have two streams of education, child protection and health services all based on race. They are not based on income or social standing in the community, but based on race. It is disgusting. That is the reason why I support this censure motion.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to comment because I have been in the Territory since 1993. I recall coming to the Territory and thinking I was coming to Utopia because the weatherman was always outside in a different territory.
We were listening to the member for Fong Lim going on about different systems for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. I had the opportunity to work for the Territory Health Department, then for a non-government organisation, an Indigenous medical service. I recall the Indigenous medical services of the Territory were established under the regime of the CLP, not the Labor Party. I refer to Danila Dilba. I remember very well the then CLP minister coming to our organisation telling us what the organisation provided to Indigenous Territorians, how good the services they provided were, and how he was looking forward to the Health Department working with Danila Dilba. He also offered them a piece of land in Palmerston.
Do not tell us about how good things were in your time; or that the ALP is a racist party that created different systems, when many of your ex-ministers - not only Territory ministers, but federal ministers - not only encouraged, but actively assisted the establishment of a separate health system, and quite rightly so. That is a way to go; that is a way to offer service in the bush. You had to do something different, and you had to do it in a way that would be very close to the people and provide the services the people needed at the time.
I also recall, member for Fong Lim, you were a member of the federal government. I cannot remember you ever asking to reverse the Aboriginal land tenure legislation, so we could have a free economy …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do not mislead the House, minister, because that has happened several times.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have never said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr Tollner: We got through an offer to patriate you back, but Clare Martin rejected it out of hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, people would think the CLP, 37 years later, suddenly discovered Indigenous Territorians and wants to become a strong advocate for Indigenous Territorians. In my portfolio of Child Protection, all you have to do to find out what the CLP did or did not do in its days in government is to look at the report titled State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory. The State of Denial looked at the last 10 years of the CLP government with regard to, exclusively, the provision of child protection services. I quote from page 13 of the executive summary, a paragraph which says everything about the CLP and how much it cared for Indigenous Territorians:
That was child protection in the last 10 years of the CLP government. To put it more broadly, some of the key findings of this report were:
the number of child protection notifications, substantiations and placements of Indigenous children in out-of-home care … in the Northern Territory are the lowest for all states and territories
…
the Northern Territory child protection system is not meeting its statutory obligations to protect children or provide for their welfare with chronic levels of poverty, homelessness and preventive diseases amongst children often viewed as ‘normal’ for Aboriginal children and therefore not requiring any child welfare response
Sick Aboriginal children were normal, Madam Speaker; there was no requirement for any child protection intervention:
the narrow investigative approach of the Northern Territory child protection system tends to blame Aboriginal parents and families for factors which are beyond their control - such as poverty
and homelessness
That is the State of Denial, the report about child protection in the Northern Territory in the last 10 years of the CLP government ...
Mr Conlan: What have you done to change it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you very much, member for Greatorex. I will tell you exactly what we have done since then.
Mr Conlan: We have highlighted that …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Araluen mentioned an article that appeared in the newspaper on Saturday, 23 July 2011, about the situation with child protection services, and blamed our government. What she failed to mention is what the reporter said in this article:
This government …
Mr Westra van Holthe: All about money …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is never about the outcomes, it is always about the money, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you do not have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: The other thing they tend to forget is in the 1980s and 1990s, child protection became a very important issue in Australia; it was highlighted. What the reporter said, quite rightly, is the Labor government came in at a time when expectations were shifting and they were literally left holding the baby. Yes, it is about money because if you do not allocate money you do not get outcomes. With $7m in the last CLP budget you did not get much child protection. Let us remind members opposite who have such a short memory that during the CLP days there was no out-of-hours child protection system to notify and protect children. That was introduced by us, when we first came to government. Do not talk to us about money and outcomes because, if you do not have money to put in place you do not get any outcomes.
We are the government that has undertaken the most comprehensive review of child protection in the history of the Northern Territory. We responded immediately to the board of inquiry recommendations, and said we are going to adopt every single one of them. It has been 10 months since the board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Territory handed down its report Growing them strong, together. There were 147 recommendations made for the former Territory’s child protection and children and family services system. The government acted immediately and put an extra $130m over five years on top of the current budget to overhaul the child protection system.
We are committed to these changes. We are committed to reform, and we established an independent committee of national and local child protection experts to monitor and report on the progress regularly and openly: the Northern Territory Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani. The committee met for the first time in February 2011. Since the formation of the committee, it has held two face-to-face meetings in Darwin and Alice Springs, and a number of teleconferences. A third meeting will take place in Katherine later this month.
The terms of reference of the committee require it to report to parliament twice per year through me, as the Minister for Child Protection. It is, therefore, my privilege to table today the first report of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. Madam Speaker, I table the report of the committee.
It comes as no surprise to the government that the committee report found the department of children services is, essentially, on track with the reform process, and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to be so.
The substantial changes achieved to date highlighted in the report include: the reduction in the backlog of child protection investigations identified by the board of inquiry from 870 cases in October 2010 to zero by May 2011; the introduction of new assessment tools; better support for frontline workers including reforms to the central intake system to create a 24/7 response to child protection concerns; the establishment and founding of new partnership arrangements with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Create Foundation, and Foster Care Northern Territory; the establishment of a new system of reward and recognition for foster and kinship carers including the carer’s excellence awards which it was my pleasure to host on 17 June 2011 to recognise the commitment and dedication of our carers; the founding of AMSANT to establish an Aboriginal child, youth and families peak body, and the appointment of the first executive of this body, Ms Josie Crawshaw.
The committee report also notes the change of this magnitude to the child protection system is ‘a challenge comparable with changing course of an ocean liner’. Real and effective changes that benefit Territory families will take time, patience, energy, and a clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes and necessary qualities.
As part of its meeting, the committee has received briefings from the Department of Children and Families on progress of implementing the board of inquiry recommendations, and has met with foster and kinship carers, staff of the department and other non-government organisations, representatives of the Northern Territory Family and Children’s Advisory Council, and the then Commissioner of Public Employment, Mr Ken Simpson. The committee also took the time to visit several non-government organisations during its Alice Springs meeting, included the healing centre, Alice Springs Youth Hub, as well as visiting a number of town camps. The chair of the committee also appeared before the Council of Territory Cooperation. The committee also noted in its report that it was impressed with the openness and candid discussion with the departmental staff and partner agencies.
The committee noted these challenges faced during the roll-out of these reforms include: the ongoing difficulties in recruiting and retaining professional child protection workers; the challenge of sourcing housing in remote communities for staff delivering service in the regions; the time, effort and commitment that would be required to build new relations of trust and through partnerships across government with the non-government sector, Aboriginal communities, staff of the agency, and with foster and kinship carers.
The department’s budget for 2011-12 provides $24.5m as part of the $130m of additional funding to address the strategic issues facing the department. This includes: the ongoing work of reforming child protection and creating new child protection family support systems for the safety and wellbeing of children; incorporating $3.6m to continue to reform the child protection intake system, increased family support programs and support the roll-out of community child safety and wellbeing teams in Territory growth towns; $5m for increased payments for foster and kinship carers, provide additional funds for Foster Care NT, reform and residential care services; $2.4m towards community education, to establish hospital-based intervention teams, and provide incentive payments to non-government organisations; $6.4m for additional child protection workers to support improved case load ratios, implement an incentive package for frontline staff, and increase training and support for Aboriginal employees; and $1.5m for an Aboriginal child, youth and families peak body and Aboriginal childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs.
It is not surprising the Territory poses the most challenging context in the nation in responding to child maltreatment and abuse. Child maltreatment in the Territory disproportionally affects Aboriginal children and young people, and is marked by poor housing, poverty, remoteness and intergenerational unemployment. However, the committee echoes what the government has been saying all along: that child safety and wellbeing requires not only a whole-of-government, but a whole-of-community approach.
A report into child protection prepared by the Northern Territory Ombudsman, which was deemed to be tabled today, reinforces why our child protection reforms are so important. The Ombudsman’s report, which was prepared over an 18-month period, supports the reforms recommended by the board of inquiry. I acknowledge the Ombudsman’s recommendations and will consider them being compiled in the Department of Children and Families’ ongoing implementation of the 147 reforms recommended by the board of inquiry.
Members opposite reject the findings of the expert board of inquiry, but this government believes child protection is an issue for society and our community as a whole and, as a government and a community, we must provide every opportunity for our children to thrive. Government cannot achieve it alone. We need the support and commitment of our entire community if we are to make a real difference.
It has been the Labor government that has built up the child protection system in the Territory. In accepting the board of inquiry’s recommendations, the Northern Territory government committed to establishing a separate agency with responsibility for child protection, child safety, and family wellbeing. A complete government department in its own right, with its own Chief Executive Officer who is responsible to me, as minister, not being tied to another government agency. As of 1 January this year, we established a new Department of Children and Families, which has its own Chief Executive, Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes.
On Saturday, 23 July, the NT News highlighted the poisoned chalice that Labor was handed when it came to power in 2001 in regard to the child protection system. It said the current NT government has invested more in child protection than its CLP predecessors ever did. It is apparent the members opposite have no understanding of the child protection services, or the response of this government to children at risk. Children’s safety and wellbeing is the overriding priority.
Let us now compare what we have delivered to the legacy of the CLP. What did the CLP deliver when it came to child protection? The State of Denial report of 2002 found the Northern Territory system under the CLP was failing dramatically:
The government is committed to making a difference when it comes to protecting children, and I am more than happy to compare the commitment of this government and the Country Liberals. When the Country Liberals were in office, the contribution was $7m only. There were no after-hours services to respond to child protection issues of this nature. In fact, the annual report from 2001-02 even stated: ‘Not all reports resulted in a child protection investigation being undertaken. Only 54% of the reports resulted in a child protection investigation being undertaken’ - 1 in 2. In contrast, we take child protection in the Territory seriously. Notifications have risen by 400% since 2001-02, which means that people now are prepared to report their suspicions about vulnerable children. Investigations have risen from 784 to 3600 since we came to power, and the number of children on care protection orders has risen from 286 to 696 since 2001.
As a government, we have created the position of Children’s Commissioner for the Northern Territory, providing an independent oversight. Members on the other side even opposed greater powers for the Children’s Commissioner to investigate issues around child protection services, which was passed in the Alice Springs sittings earlier this year. They opposed the recommendations of the board of inquiry.
We want a society in which children have a safe and healthy start to life; children develop well and be ready for school; children and young people live in families in appropriate housing where physical, emotional and social needs are met; children are safe from harm and injury; and children and young people in families have access to services that are responsive. These principles and aims are universal in children’s services systems across Australia. These principles are also consistent with the target established in the Territory 2030 strategy.
A functional child protection system is reliant on a healthy, functioning society. Territory 2030, A Working Future, correctional reform, alcohol reform – these initiatives are about establishing the building blocks to improve life outcomes for all people in the Territory. This is why we have committed more resources to children and family services.
After 27 years of a minimalistic approach by consecutive CLP ministers and governments, Labor inherited a system so broken that there was no quick fix. Child protection is an issue for the community as a whole, and it was important that everyone in our community had an opportunity to be a part of this reform, and continues to be part of the system.
Madam Speaker, it is clear from the action of this government that we have developed and implemented numerous policies, and will continue to do so, while the opposition has not. It is this Northern Territory government that has put in place a child protection family support system that puts the safety and wellbeing of children first.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak on this but I have to say I am somewhat astonished. Whilst I have not read the whole of this document that has just been tabled by the minister, I am concerned about one of the aspects of this document which highlights the ongoing problem with child protection.
We have so many experts in the field of child protection that sometimes I believe we are too busy being experts to realise this is just about protecting kids with some basic standards.
There is a tendency in the intelligentsia of this country to be just as condescending in their policy approach to the protection of children and Aboriginal people as any policy approach which has been so far outlined in the history of this country. I find it surprising with the intelligentsia and the industry that is building up around child protection, particularly in the area of Aboriginal child protection, that they would start to use comparisons with cavemen to draw a parallel with Aboriginal people. If you think I am kidding, I quote this from page 25 of the document that was just dropped on the table:
I pause here. These are the populations that the minister would compare the Aboriginal people in remote Australia with:
The comparison of Aboriginal people with cavemen is nonsense. We live in a civilised society in which the citizens of this society should consider themselves to be safe. They should feel they have a right to go about their normal business in the community safely. Parents should feel their kids should be safe in the community, and kids have a right to feel safe from their parents if those parents abuse them. This sort of condescending nonsense comparing Aboriginal people with Neolithics and Iron Age people from Europe is just the sort of nonsense which this government has completely allowed itself to get sucked into.
This is why they do not lead; it is because they are being led. They are being led by people who have all the best intentions in the world but who are as condescending and - I struggle to find the words - so offensive in their condescension of Aboriginal people that you are going to see more of the same ‘we know what is good for you’ policy.
If you want to fix these problems in Aboriginal communities, accept the former federal government’s offer to patriate the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory, and allow leases to be developed in Aboriginal communities so it generates jobs. Those jobs will require people with education. There is no point educating people if there is no job at the other end of it. Put the skills in place, absolutely, but also enable those people to have jobs, and stop comparing Aboriginal people to cavemen!
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I present a ministerial statement around the Century of Northern Australia.
I have said many times before I believe the 21st century will come to be known as the century of northern Australia. Whilst New South Wales and Victoria - in particular, their capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne - were pivotal to the nation’s development for much of the 20th century, I firmly believe it will be northern Australia and the resource-rich jurisdictions of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory that will drive economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century. Make no mistake, it will be northern Australia and, in particular the development of Darwin as the northern Australia gas hub, that leads the way when it comes to the major projects and investments that will turbocharge our national economy; it will be northern Australia that leads the way when it comes to creating new jobs and new opportunities for our people; and it will be northern Australia that leads the way in forging new and dynamic relationships with the rapidly growing economies of Asia.
The Northern Territory and our capital city of Darwin will be at the heart of this new 21st century economic paradigm. The transformation is under way. Indeed, one look at the national economy today and it is clear this transformation, this economic power shift, is well and truly under way. The figures speak for themselves: economic growth in the Northern Territory has averaged around 4.5% annually for the past six years; and Access Economics predicts annual economic growth of 4.2% for the next five years. These figures explain why business confidence in the Territory is high, and why business confidence in government is the highest in the country. When business is confident, businesses will step up and invest, which means more jobs and more opportunities for Territorians.
When it comes to job creation, the Territory is a national powerhouse. Over the last year, unemployment in the Territory has been at its lowest since records began. We have recorded the lowest unemployment rate in Australia coming up to two years in a row. Importantly, we have achieved this at a time when our labour force participation rate is close to the highest in the nation. If you want a job, come to the Territory.
The Territory economy has never been so well placed, and our government is determined to keep it that way and stay on the front foot when it comes to managing our economy and ensuring we continue to grow in the years ahead. That means keeping Darwin’s annual zone tax rebate in place to encourage the investments and skilled workers we need to continue to grow our economy and our community in the Top End.
With all due respect to our friends in Western Australia, now is not the time to be abandoning this rebate. Indeed, now is the time to increase the rebate and lock in support for this great Australian city and the northern Australia alliance. The next wave of prosperity will be the LNG wave. Whilst the mining boom has helped drive our economy, we understand it cannot last forever. That is where LNG comes in. LNG will provide a cleaner, more efficient energy source that will make northern Australia the engine room of the nation’s economy.
My government is actively pursuing the development of a marine supply base in order to maximise the economic benefits derived from the existing and future developments in the Timor Sea and the Browse Basin. The proposed development will consist of a dedicated marine berth and adjacent marine facilities to service the offshore petroleum industry. The marine supply base will be located adjacent to Darwin’s East Arm Wharf. We are currently undertaking a staged procurement process which is planned to be finalised in the fourth quarter of this year. Construction will begin shortly after, timed to capture opportunities arising from new developments such as Ichthys LNG, Sunrise, and Prelude LNG.
The marine supply base is set to increase Darwin’s marine capacity and capability, facilitate growth in local rig tender movements, contribute to the growth of both existing Territory business supporting the offshore petroleum sector, as well as new investment in Darwin. A marine supply base will make Darwin well placed to respond to increased opportunities arising from the current, new, and future activity in the Timor Sea and the Browse Basin.
The petroleum supply and service activity is also supported by my government’s initiatives through the Land Development Corporation to ensure there is suitable serviced industrial land for this and other strategic industry. The Land Development Corporation is currently developing a number of areas of industrial land on the East Arm Peninsula in close proximity to the East Arm Wharf.
LNG will, quite literally, power our national economy over the next century. Indeed, the switch has already been flicked. For example, in the next five years just in Territory waters alone, companies are forecast to spend around $1bn on exploration - and that is outside of the projects already planned to come on stream, including the INPEX Ichthys pipeline which will employ approximately 3000 people during construction, and a further 200 to 300 people for the life of the project.
Projects such as INPEX are truly transformational but they are not confined to the Territory. There is Gorgon in Western Australia and Gladstone Coal Seam LNG in Queensland, to name just two. Together with the Territory, Queensland and Western Australia are set to ride the unstoppable LNG wave deep into the 21st century. These projects not only offer immense economic opportunities for northern Australia, they will also bolster the Territory economy for many years to come.
I believe the development of the north is inextricably linked to our ability to address Indigenous disadvantage and close the gap in the Territory. A strong economy and increased prosperity will mean more schools, better health facilities, more housing options, and healthier and more sustainable communities in our regions. It will mean a real working future for more Indigenous Territorians - real jobs and real commercial opportunities not only in Darwin and our major centres, but in towns and communities across the Northern Territory.
Rapid change also throws up some big challenges. That is why I am working with Premier Bligh from Queensland and Premier Barnett from Western Australia to pull together a cross-government task force to manage this growth now and into the future. That is why I visited Aberdeen in June; because I wanted to see firsthand the economic miracle - the oil and gas inspired miracle - that has occurred in that great city. I wanted to learn more about the challenges that have been thrown up along the way and how they have been managed.
Just over 40 years ago, Aberdeen was on its knees. The local economy was in dire straits, people were losing their jobs, businesses were closing, opportunities for young people were scarce, and the region’s population was declining rapidly. That was when the miracle happened. The Americans discovered oil in the North Sea and the future of the granite city was transformed. The discovery of oil generated more jobs, more opportunities, greater investment, and better services for the people of Aberdeen. Of course, all of this meant more people were staying in Aberdeen, more people were choosing to settle in Aberdeen, and more families were choosing Aberdeen as a place to raise their kids.
Today Aberdeen is a prosperous, vibrant, and optimistic city. Like Darwin, its future is inextricably linked to the vast natural resources that lie beneath the ocean. However, the sudden and unexpected revival of Aberdeen threw up some major challenges. Like Darwin, the city faced issues such as skilled labour shortages, rising house prices, and the need to invest in the kind of infrastructure that growing cities with growing populations need. It was not an easy process.
The good news for us in the Territory is that after a decade of planning and record investment we are better placed than most to manage the growth. When it comes to developing and maintaining a skilled, flexible workforce we are ahead of the game. When it comes to providing affordable housing today and in the years and decades ahead, we are certainly coming into our own. When it comes to investing in the infrastructure that will set up our community for years to come, we are well and truly ahead of the game.
I am also pleased to inform the House that after visiting Aberdeen, Charles Darwin University is to train Territorians to compete for the big-paying jobs in the Territory’s own gas industry. The CDU website states that an agreement has been signed between Charles Darwin University and Robert Gordon University as a result of the fact-finding mission to Aberdeen. I was privileged to be at the signing of the memorandum of understanding. I congratulate our Vice-Chancellor at the university for his tremendous enthusiasm in embracing this industry and working with Robert Gordon University.
Robert Gordon University is considered Britain’s leading modern university and comes in the top three when rated for the number of graduates finding work immediately after qualifying. Robert Gordon University will be collaborating and sharing information with Charles Darwin University in training and upskilling workers to world-class standards. The university is a specialist in training students to work in the North Sea oil and gas industry.
Our university also hopes to use expertise from Aberdeen College, a renowned trade skills institution, to help upgrade the skills of workers, as many of the courses offered in Aberdeen, such as training electricians to work in an explosive environment, could now be offered in the Territory. World-class workers for world-class projects; that is what the Territory is about, and all signs indicate that this is going to increasingly be the case.
Let me turn to one of our most valuable assets; that is, our workforce. Our government has backed Territory business from day 1 by investing in our people and building a skilled and flexible workforce. We said we would train 10 000 apprentices and trainees in just one term of government, and we will deliver on that commitment ahead of time, as we delivered on a similar commitment in the last term of government.
The number and sheer size of these transformational nation building projects throw up other workforce challenges as well. Premier Bligh, Premier Barnett, and I will focus on three issues in particular. We want to ensure we are not cannibalising each other’s workforce as more big projects come online. We want to ensure we do not lose workers in crucial frontline sectors such as teaching and nursing to the well-paid resources projects. We also want to ensure the community still has access to a skilled and accessible workforce - our builders and plumbers and business people, the people who have played such a vital role in building the Territory and creating one of the nation’s great lifestyles. Our aim is to act early, collaboratively, and decisively to ensure the ongoing integrity of our respective workforces.
We will also work closely with business, unions, and schools and trade training centres to ensure we have the right pathways into these new 21st century jobs. As I said in the House earlier today, it was great to be able to speak to those Year 10 students at Palmerston Senior College last week about the very exciting future they have in the Northern Territory.
Of course, new industries, new jobs, new opportunities mean that more and more people will be heading north in the years to come. That is why we have acted early and decisively to ensure our future workers and their families can forge a life for themselves in the Territory. Our aim is to ensure that all Territorians continue to have access to affordable, quality housing now and into the future.
We have fast-tracked land release - the fastest land release ever to meet the demands generated by our rise in population. We are creating new suburbs in and around Darwin such as Bellamack, Mitchell, Zuccoli and Johnston in the Palmerston area, and Lyons and Muirhead in the northern suburbs. Planning for Weddell, which will create 10 000 new homes and be the Territory’s newest city, is well under way. We are keeping 15% of all new land release for affordable housing with the first already online in Bellamack and Johnston.
In addition, we have reduced stamp duty, increased the principal place of residence rebate to $3500, and introduced the seniors reduction of $8000. We have also waived stamp duty for houses up to the value of $540 000 for first homebuyers which, essentially, means that most first homebuyers can purchase their own home without paying any stamp duty at all.
Our government has invested around $5.9bn over the last decade in the kind of infrastructure we need to broaden our economic base, attract new and sustainable investment, and give Territory families the facilities and services they so richly deserve. These investments have improved our port with upgraded facilities. They have given us new roads such as the Tiger Brennan Drive extension, they have given us a new suburb of Palmerston East and they have funded new schools like Darwin and Palmerston middle schools, and the state-of-the-art Rosebery Middle and Primary Schools.
It also assists us in funding all of the schools in the bush to have significant upgrades, to have seven new secondary schools in our remote communities, and also to build new schools in our remote communities where schools did not exist previously. They have also funded upgrades to Territory schools and ensured our kids have access to more sophisticated learning facilities and quality education programs, regardless of where they live. I speak regularly with teachers who have come to teach in the Northern Territory from the other states, and they are all amazed at the quality of the infrastructure and the facilities we have in our schools, compared to the public system in the rest of Australia.
These landmark investments have also transformed our health system, including a new Super Clinic in Palmerston providing after-hours services to patients in need, a world-class cancer care treatment at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the new 26-room Barbara James House in Darwin. As well, as I spoke about today in Question Time, there are real investments in health facilities in our remote communities, particularly investments in renal dialysis that has improved the quality of care and the life span of Indigenous people right across the Territory.
You cannot talk about the 21st century and about transformational infrastructure without mentioning the National Broadband Network. More than 2300 km of fibre-optic cable connecting Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and now Alice Springs to the eastern and southern seaboards is now being laid. The NBN will not only deliver world-class broadband infrastructure to all Territorians, it will also deliver cheaper and faster services. It will deliver jobs, education and health benefits to all Territorians for many years to come. The NBN is a smart investment for the Northern Territory and for our nation, and the kind of infrastructure that will transform the way we do business and live our lives in the Northern Territory.
Alice Springs is well on its way to becoming Australia’s clean energy leader as one of only seven cities around Australia to be selected to participate in the Australian government’s Solar Cities program. This significant venture will certainly make Alice Springs a model for the rest of Australia and, indeed, the world. The information at hand estimates the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be approximately the equivalent of taking one-quarter of all Alice Springs vehicles off the road.
I am also pleased to inform the House of another important step forward in this major project. Alice Springs has recently been declared as home to the 1 MW Uterne solar power station, which is the largest solar tracking solar power station in Australia. The fact is that Alice Springs enjoys around 200 sunny days a year, which makes it perfect for large solar projects such as this, and now the eyes of the world are on Alice Springs. This project has confirmed Alice Springs as the city of the future, and there is no doubt it will continue to attract solar investment from around the globe.
An integral part of the A Working Future plan, our largest remote communities will be developed into strong towns, boasting services and amenities such as those found in similar sized towns around Australia. These towns will become economic and service delivery centres for their regions. They will be regional hubs with good transport options; places where people from the surrounding region will access schools, police stations, courts, health services, aged care and disability facilities. People will travel to town from outstations, homelands, and smaller towns to go to work, school, shop, see friends, or see a doctor.
Territory growth towns will have proper infrastructure including water, sewerage, electricity, and community facilities. They will have good roads that help people to get to work and school, good Internet access, and will attract new business and connect remote towns to anywhere in the world.
Central to the vision of Darwin being the capital of northern Australia, and northern Australia driving a powerhouse of growth for the Australian economy is to give the Territory government and the national government the funding to commit to our A Working Future program to develop these communities into strong towns with a strong future.
I will speak briefly about our Defence support industries. It is well-known that around 10% of the Australian Defence combat forces are based in the Territory, and it is home to the ADF’s newest and most advanced platform such as the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters, Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks, and Armidale class patrol boats.
This government recognises the importance of the Defence presence to our economy and our community. To assist the growth of the Defence sector and provide support to the defence community, this government has two dedicated ministries: Defence Liaison and Defence Support. There is also a Defence Support Division within the Department of Business and Employment. The Defence Support Program aims to help businesses that support Defence to become competitive, grow their capability, win Defence-related contracts, attract investment by Defence industries in the Territory, to leverage economic developments from the Defence presence in our regions, and to ensure a strong, reliable, informed and supportive relationship exists between the Territory government and the Defence community.
The Territory government is committed to the growth of industry to support Defence in the Territory. A new 53 ha support industry park close to the home of the 1st Brigade at Robertson Barracks, Palmerston, will further assist business and industry to grow and align their capabilities to meet the needs of Defence in the Territory.
I also point to our Defence minister at the national level who has just released a discussion paper about the positioning of our Defence Force in Australia for the years to come. That document expressly references Darwin and Perth as being central to and growing in importance to the Defence strategic positioning for our nation. We expect to see more of that Defence base build in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, the Territory is coming of age. It is growing up and the 21st century is, indeed, our time. We are on the cusp of an exciting new era in this country - an era of great prosperity driven by the economies of northern Australia. I believe the Territory is right on track to accommodate this growth and make the most of the many opportunities that lie ahead. We cannot rest on our laurels; we have to continue to work to support confidence for investing in the Northern Territory, but our time is here, it is now. It is a very exciting time for the next 20 to 50 years in northern Australia, with Darwin as the capital of northern Australia. The future is in our hands.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I agree with the central idea that this is our time. The centre of economic gravity has moved to our region with the rise of China and the strengthening of regional economies. Therefore, there is this opportunity. It is not hard to notice what is happening and, as the Chief Minister rightly identified, there is an opportunity which needs to be responded to. Whatever comes from opportunity only comes but through a plan and hard work; it does not happen by accident.
I have long noted the Northern Territory, being close to the region, does not automatically make it the gateway to the region. We have seen planes developing greater capacity and flying over Darwin. We have also seen developments around the country and in remote places where those who invest make decisions to fly in and fly out. It does not necessarily follow, if there is increased activity within our region, it will automatically result in benefit for the Territory. We have to get ahead of the game.
I acknowledge that INPEX is a game changer; it is a very significant project. I acknowledge the work of Clare Martin and her role in attracting the attention of INPEX to the possibility of Darwin. Make no mistake; the Chief Minister reaching into a shallow pond to find something to fight back with, asserting INPEX would not come if the Country Liberals were in government, is nonsense and no one will buy that. The issue has always been, and remains, the requirement for a strategic and long-term plan. The issue always was that there needed to be the continuation of the longer-term planning that had been put in place by the previous Country Liberal government for a place for heavy industry to go. There needs to be a range of options.
That issue was not progressed when Labor came to office in 2001, almost 10 years ago. The location was the fundamental issue, not INPEX. The location was only made available as a result of the failure to provide any long-term planning. That has been the issue; to highlight the lack of vision. Although they may assert and try to argue that lack of vision is not the case, they will be alone in that argument. There are many who make long-term decisions in business in the Territory who have a deep sense that there is no long-term strategic planning of a real nature; it is largely something that is constructed to satisfy what Labor will see as a political problem - that the community has that view so they will produce a 2030 plan to alleviate any pressure they may have over their failure to plan. People do not actually believe you have long-term, strategic planning of a real kind, but your response is, largely, a public relations exercise rather than real planning.
We can debate that but, essentially, I am of that view, and others would support me in that. I am reflecting what I have seen by evidence, and what I hear repeated up and down the track and across the Territory. Yes, this will be a place of great opportunity, but there needs to be a response. I can still remember the member for Karama, with her portfolio responsibility of Lands and Planning, stoutly defending her government’s position not to release land and arguing that we were going to flood the market, and the Country Liberals were going to be economic vandals who were going to wreck the market and destroy the value of people’s properties. She refused to entertain our call – our repeated calls from 2007 and before - for a release of land.
Obviously, there was a change of mind because they started to listen and recognised there needed to be a response. Unfortunately, by turning their attention so slowly to a very pressing and real issue, we now have a situation where the property market values are so high the essential and key workers we need to take advantage of the opportunity are finding it hard to get their toe on the first rung of the home ownership ladder. That is a fact, and people will blame no one else but this Labor administration because of its failure to act in a timely manner and get ahead of the game - which is evidence there was no long-term strategic planning.
The evidence is seen all around us. You only have to talk to young people who are making plans. Those plans are almost beyond reach and they lose hope. There, once again, is the evidence. The evidence is in the Bureau of Statistics’ figures. This is evidence of the lack of long-term strategic planning because there are more people leaving the Territory than arriving. Every month, over 100 people make a decision to leave the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister can bang on about the opportunities the Northern Territory has, but those opportunities require a meaningful and proper response: balance the supply of land with the demand; get ahead of the game; and ensure you can get young people with their toe on that first rung of the home ownership ladder.
For a case study, you would only have to look at Karratha if you are going to work collaboratively with Colin Barnett. Look at what happened in Karratha, a place that is, in some respects, similar to Darwin. The rents there are $1500 per week because there are constraints around the release of land. It has an overheated economy. There are people on high incomes from the oil and gas sector, but the average person - the one who works at Coles, the teacher, the nurse, or the mechanic - cannot find a place to live. That is why this is so important.
Going back to INPEX, the Chief Minister talked about how big the project is. He talked about colossal numbers. The Labor Party members seem all excited about this. They see this, largely, as a great political opportunity for them and a public relations exercise; that people will think three cheers for the Labor Party because INPEX has changed the Territory economy. You are placing great pressure on INPEX; that when INPEX comes everything is going to change. It will change; there will be opportunity. However, it could change for a heck of a lot better if, rather than spruiking, you actually get down to the real business of ensuring there is a place in the market for people on all levels of income. Also ensuring the things you talked about 10 years ago - and I remember the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, talking about this, because it sounded like a good idea at the time. People said: ‘Hmm, that is evidence of a long-term strategic plan’. That was to have an oil and gas institute. We now have - to the great credit of the Vice-Chancellor of CDU, a decade later - the initiative being taken by the university to have a Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon.
What happened to the fine-sounding words, the pledge and the commitment, and the recognition of long-term thinking 10 years ago? That was the time to get ahead of the game. That was the time to invest then. That sounded good at the time. However, it was really to create an impression rather than to actually do anything. Many people - long-term thinkers, people with a strategic view on development - now see it is right here. However, we are finding that people are leaving. Why are they leaving? Because it costs too much to live here. That needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed swiftly, along with the investment in training.
There has been a 10-year drift there. We now have the university, and I am pleased the Chief Minister has shown support and provided that contribution for this initiative of the CDU. These matters are of much greater importance than politics. I did the same, promoting the Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon in Japan. There was interest there in developing links with Japanese universities and centres for higher learning with CDU. That is also continuing. It is good we are working on both fronts. I acknowledge the initiative has largely been CDU’s, with some support now from the government, which is welcome.
You can say all these things in here to create an impression, but we are tired of it because, after 10 years, we are hearing the same fluffy stuff about what could be and what might happen, without anything tangible. The basics are there to demonstrate this is a government that is actually not that serious and is not being taken seriously. If they were taken seriously, we would have already occupied this space rather than, basically, in the last year of this Labor government’s term, we are now talking about these things.
People cannot easily afford a place to live. Yes, there has been some effort around training, but it has largely been through an investment by INPEX and the Larrakia Development Corporation with not a cent from government, except for perhaps a machine simulator in the corner. It has been the initiative of the private sector. They got ahead of the game because government was making all sorts of sounds but not doing anything.
If this is the case, I would like to have heard the Chief Minister, rather than saying they have a long-term strategic plan actually say where the heavy industry will go, and what infrastructure is being put in place for that to occur. Where will the future residential development take place that is affordable and matches the specific needs of people on a range of incomes? I know you have spoken of the 15%, but it is not really addressing the problem in a substantial way because people are still leaving.
I wish the Chief Minister had described his comprehensive strategy around Asian relations and trade; how every department and every enterprise of government is coordinated around a central strategy of Asian relations leading to trade. That goes into all areas, including education, our cultural pursuits, and our business engagements at diplomatic levels. The coordination needs to be there in order to drive that advantage and get ahead of the game.
There needs to be discrete strategies around Indonesia. Indonesia is a growing economy and it is developing very well. We have lost our presence there; we need to work there and build a presence on the ground and develop those deeper links we once had. If we had done so, if we had not abandoned our post, we would have been in a better position to pre-empt, hopefully, what was already brewing underneath the radar around live cattle. There was talk of this occurring. If you had someone on the ground there, that could have been dealt with, and we could have gotten ahead of the game. It appears to me that we have lost that link; we have lost that understanding. The cross-cultural understanding seems to have faded, as has a comprehensive strategic view around Asian relations and trade.
Further evidence of this government not taking this whole business very seriously is the assertion that we need to get things right on employment around our Indigenous Territorians. That sounds good, but that is said in light of the damning report that has been the subject of much discussion in this Chamber today; that the government has not performed very well at all. The problem has been given millions and millions of dollars and the results have been appalling - in fact, a terrible response. It is not just a program that has not been delivered. The programs to improve people’s lives, education and health have deteriorated under this government because of its inability to actually run programs that produce results.
I am very concerned, if government continues to defend and pretend that things are actually going okay. We are in the real world and this is real money. There are those who take their responsibility seriously. I fear that if this continues there will likely be decisions made federally that will take greater control over the money that flows into the Territory because they cannot put it into the hands of a Territory Labor administration.
We have a great deal of ground to make up to restore our credibility in real and practical terms. We can talk about how great the opportunities are within the region yet you cannot take control of the streets. The Labor government spends its attention and our money on having a whole new strategy in its last year of its term around how it looks and feels – an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in re-badging and rebranding how it looks and feels. This is down to the point of conducting focus groups so people get an opportunity to express their views about the government, so government can respond. It is not about the agencies which are delivering services, it is about the government.
It is not about the government - that is the tragic fact. It is about what government does. It is about the people of the Northern Territory. They have grown tired of the empty talk after 10 years, and the evidence is there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I agree with the central idea – there is a tremendous opportunity with the demand for resources within the region, with the economic shift from the United States to China, away from Europe to China, India, and in the region. Do not underestimate Indonesia and what is happening within the region with Vietnam, with places that are strengthening and developing. It is a great opportunity. However, the opportunity requires a thoughtful response, strategic consideration, and leadership in order to capitalise on this opportunity, otherwise the opportunity may come and go.
I agree with the central idea, but it requires some practical response that means something. To illustrate, in my meeting with the INPEX Board in Tokyo, the conversation was around the significance of the project and the impact this project would have on the Northern Territory. That is good; INPEX is a fine company and is going to great pains to do what it must do in order to engage our community - and it has engaged it very well. It has an interest in the long-term relationship. I believe it can’t be faulted in the way it has engaged our community, and I commend Sean Kildare and the members of the board for their diligence in attending to their side of the responsibility.
However, I have to say the practical response of a government would be to ensure there is a place in the market for people to live. That is around the balance between supply and demand and the supply of skilled workers. You can say it, but you have to do something. We are in opposition and we say these things. Maybe our opportunity will come and we will say exactly what we will do. We certainly will be doing that. They are the practical responses in a meaningful way. You cannot keep talking about the opportunities; you have to have a meaningful and practical response.
Over to the government; let us see what it will do. This appears to be - to steal a word from the member for Greatorex - something that sits in the same category as the pluff piece …
Mr Conlan: Puff!
Mr MILLS: Is it puff? Sorry; it could be pluff. It all sounds good but it does not tell it like it really is. There is something missing, and it is the reality about what needs to happen in order to make the opportunity real.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Chief Minister on his statement on the future of north Australia and, in particular, on the hub of the economic activity in Darwin and the Northern Territory.
Our future is bright in the Territory. Our growth is currently strong. When you look around not just at our nation, but what is happening in economies around the world, we are very well placed and have a strong growth underpinning where we are now. If you look at the reality of the oil and gas boom, we are on the cusp of quite a significant economic growth boom in the Territory. Essentially, the Territory is a fantastic place to be if you are in business, and if you want a job and the opportunities that flow out of the dramatic oil and gas opportunity we have.
Regarding the potential across the Territory, we have that wealth of natural resources. We also have fantastic tourism opportunities. We have a large number of Defence personnel already in the Territory, and you can expect this number to grow if you look at the indications coming out of the Commonwealth White Paper.
Business confidence remains high and our economy goes from strength to strength. Deloitte Access Economics predicts the Territory’s economy to grow at the second fastest rate in the country over the next five years - no small call when you look at the size of our jurisdiction. This growth is impressive when you consider, even more so, this prediction does not significantly include any growth arising from the INPEX Total Ichthys field project, of which we are awaiting a final investment decision in the last quarter of this year.
That is not to say life in the Territory is without its challenges. With activities in the northern part of Australia driving growth in our nation, and with Darwin as the northern capital, the Territory is definitely heading in the right direction. We are in the right place at the right time with the right set of policies to foster economic growth.
This government has worked hard to build a sustainable economy and to support jobs and prosperity. Since 2001, more than 22 000 new jobs have been created, and we certainly had the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past 22 months, and the highest jobs growth.
The Territory is resource rich and we are focused on maximising opportunities in that sector. We have been very strategic with our policies and our investment as a government with that mining investment attraction strategy. If you look at exploration, mining exploration is at record levels with a record $166.7m invested last year. That is up 12% on the $148.4m spent in 2009. In 2009, the Territory was the only jurisdiction to increase exploration expenditure during the global financial crisis, testament to the significant efforts this government goes to, to attract that all-important investment.
We are working to take advantage of the gas industry, an industry that will confirm northern Australia as the driver of our nation’s economy. Over the next five years, companies have forecast to spend about $1bn on gas exploration in the Territory. Darwin has already landed large gas projects such as the ConocoPhillips Bayu-Undan and ENI’s Blacktip developments. As I said, we are hopeful that final investment decision being positive in the final quarter of this calendar year in the INPEX Total Ichthys field project. INPEX putting the green light on that project would put about $30bn of investment into construction of both onshore and offshore facilities, and will contribute significantly more than that to our national economy over its lifetime.
A large mining and energy industry will ensure the continued strong growth of our economy as our neighbours to the north increase their demand for the Territory’s resources. Maximising the opportunities arising out of our strategic location is not happening by accident; it is quite deliberate policy and resource decisions being made by our government in our budget settings.
Obviously, the government is driving the development of a marine supply base which will be located at East Arm. The marine supply base will provide support facilities and berthing for the offshore petroleum industry, ensuring that valuable service and maintenance contracts land in the Territory. Over the coming years and decades, as the Chief Minister said, it will be northern Australia, and particularly Darwin, as the northern Australian gas hub that will lead the way in major projects and growth for the national economy. It will be northern Australia that leads the way when it comes to creating new jobs and opportunities for people, and Territorians will benefit from this.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk, you would think the Centre of Excellence at Charles Darwin University was just a beast of the university itself. That is not true. The Chief Minister has driven the Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon at Charles Darwin University. He has worked very closely with the university, and he has ensured the government has backed its support in providing resources to the university and heading up delegations to Aberdeen. You would think it was just the work of the university alone. It could not be further from the truth. The Chief Minister has driven that role in the Centre of Excellence for the university, and ensured our government has supplied resources to foster the growth of that Centre of Excellence at the university.
Infrastructure investment has been critical to ride us through the post-global financial crisis period, to ensure we are keeping our construction sector capacity in the Territory, and to ensure we are tracking well to make the most of private sector investment flowing into the Territory - that we hope to start to see the return to more normalised levels. The latest Deloitte Access Economics’ report indicates that growth in private investment in the Territory.
In excess of $1bn consecutive infrastructure spend from the last three budgets has underpinned the construction sector in the Territory. I know the opposition has been opposed to that critical infrastructure spend, but it has supported 3000 jobs. A combination of all those infrastructure spends meant we have been providing about $4.6bn into that all-important construction sector to support something like 12 000 new jobs in the post-global financial crisis period - a period, obviously, we are not yet out of, if you look at the global market uncertainty as a result of the PIGS in Europe and the gridlock that occurred in the US in the decision around the increase of their debt levels and the $3T in savings they are going to have to make to meet the result of that gridlock.
Central to a strengthening economy is a continued high public infrastructure investment in the Territory to protect and create jobs, but this has been complemented through investment by the Commonwealth government, particularly in that critical area of the Defence industry, which is a significant employer in the Territory. We recognise the importance of Defence in our community, but also to our economy. Although we have recently lost 7 RAR to South Australia, showing that nett interstate migration, 5 RAR is here, and we are advised they are building up to full strength, and a large number of Australian Defence Force personnel are continuing to be based in the Territory and will grow in numbers.
This government is committed to building a strong and supportive relationship with the Commonwealth government, Defence, and our local Defence community. We have dedicated resources to the Defence support sector in an effort to help Territory businesses leverage the opportunities out of the all-important Defence establishments in the Territory. We have been competitive in working with the Defence industry network in pursuing Defence-related contracts. Establishing that Defence Support Hub near Robertson Barracks further assists our own businesses in the Territory grow and leverage those opportunities that come from such a significant Defence presence in the Territory, one that we know - if you look at the White Paper and the direction of the Commonwealth - is set to grow even more significantly.
In tourism, we have tremendous potential. We have an enviable climate and lifestyle, with unique cultural experiences on offer for people from all over the globe. Getting out there and proactively marketing to ensure they have plans to visit the Territory is very much a focus of our Minister for Tourism. Around 19 800 Territorians are employed in the tourism sector - 10 400 directly and some 9400 indirectly. This is roughly 9% of all Territorians directly employed in tourism, and a further 8.1% indirectly employed. Tourism is estimated to have added approximately $1.4bn to the Northern Territory economy during the year ending March 2011 via direct visitor expenditure. The latest figures show that in excess of one million visitors came to the Northern Territory during the year ending March 2011, with some 720 000 of these holidaying here. These numbers are down slightly, about 8% on previous years, as we are seeing those continuing effects of the global financial crisis. However, we are still holding our own in our market share of national interstate visitors, at about 3%.
Tourism opportunity certainly exists throughout the Territory. It is great that our minister for Parks works so closely in enhancing those visitor opportunities to our parks, working with the traditional owners of the parks. Enhancing the cultural experiences is going to be a great marketing advantage for the Territory. I congratulate our Minister for Tourism, who is putting an increased emphasis on going after the market of China. There is a real opportunity in that with the growth in the middle-income earners in China and we are strategically located in flight distance times from that all-important market of China.
In having a strong economy that means, in having Territorians in jobs, we need to ensure we get the balance right in providing quality education, healthcare and services for Territorians. Having a strong economy enables us as a government to have the resources to maintain and build these services. We will have more revenue for hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure, to the benefit of all Territorians regardless of where they live. The Territory is definitely a place of opportunity.
The business community has every reason to be confident when you consider these opportunities on the horizon, and that the Territory’s economy is predicted to grow at 4.2% on average over the next five years. These are predictions from Deloitte Access Economics - tremendously solid growth. Our employment growth over the next five years is also predicted to be the second highest in the nation at 2.6% on average, behind Queensland. This is good news for families and young people coming through school and our university and thinking about their future careers.
To a Labor government, underpinning the importance of economic growth is that all-important indicator of jobs. Over 22 000 jobs, as I said, have been created in the Territory since 2001. We have a Jobs Plan; we have updated the Jobs Plan. There was no Jobs Plan prior to Labor coming to government.
We have made doing business in the Territory attractive. We have supported those small- and medium-sized enterprises by changing our taxing regime, particularly in payroll tax, making us the lowest-taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-sized enterprises in the nation, saving Territory businesses about $368m in foregone taxes since 2001.
We have a strong record of committing to training our own. In this budget, we have committed something like $21.8m towards training and supporting apprentices and trainees to grow that all-important own skilled workforce.
Our government will continue efforts to ensure Territorians across the Territory can benefit from our economic opportunities, to continue to make this great Territory of ours an attractive place to live, work and play.
We have the most expansive land release programs in place right across the Territory from Darwin and Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and we have new suburbs being created. We have put innovative home ownership packages in place. We have updated that all-important Homestart NT. We have BuildBonus in place at the moment for a construction stimulus to get into the marketplace, for first homeowners, principal place of residence, and investors. We are quite proud of all these strategies and efforts we employ to make cost of living better - whether it is opportunities for apprentices and trainees, but also supporting our seniors, pensioners, and carers with the most comprehensive pensioner concession scheme in our nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with a bright future in our economy that will deliver and improve services across our social sectors, we have a record of working very closely with the non-government sector in service delivery - whether it is in our capital city, our regional towns or putting those services into the growth towns; ensuring a strength of policy around the growth towns through the hub-and-spoke model.
North Australia, as a statement, marks - in time where we are right now, right here, today - a very exciting boom period coming for northern Australia, recognising the challenges we have in the skilled workforce and the work the government is doing, led by the Chief Minister in his discussions with both Western Australia and Queensland with regard to attracting a skilled workforce to meet those significant private investment project demands, as well as our large construction projects including the marine supply base, the prison, and a hospital at Palmerston. These are three significant government-funded construction programs, with the prison in a PPP.
These are exciting times in the Territory. As Treasurer, I get out and talk to many business people. I listen to their issues which are primarily attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. They recognise the work government is doing in turning off land across the Top End but, also, across those regional centres of the Territory.
We have seen evidence of what is flying out of the housing market regarding the moderation of housing prices and a relaxing of the rentals and vacancy rates. What we, essentially, see is a housing market returning to balance. A great number of investment strategies, as well as the right policy settings, has led us to being in an enviable place in our nation, in economic growth. As I am fond of saying, there are many Treasurers interstate who would rather be in our situation here in the Territory than what they are facing with their economies in the southern parts of our nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not going to hide under a bushel; we are very proud of where the Territory is; we are very proud of what we have achieved and we are very proud of where we are headed. I commend the Chief Minister for his statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, having gone through this statement, it is a little disappointing it is so thin in regard to trying to demonstrate what the Northern Territory government has done for the Northern Territory and its future direction.
On page 1 there was reference to resource-rich jurisdictions; however, the bulk of the paper does not address any issues remotely linked to the resource-rich land-based minerals projects, and associated infrastructure and deficiencies in infrastructure.
I see on page 2 references to economic growth; the average growth being around 4.5% - and the key word is ‘average’. The last two years have been pretty dismal - and that is from my discussions with business and industry - and hiding behind an ‘average’ is not good enough. It is actually closer to about 2% in the last two to three years. This government will try to tell us that all is rosy in the business community and with industry, so let us look at the situation more closely.
Our economy is project-driven and, while large-scale projects are welcome and supported, there are not too many on the horizon. If we take the proposed INPEX project out of the picture for now, where are the next big projects coming from in the Northern Territory and where are they going to be located? Where is the next major mining project with a 20-plus year mine life? Where and what will be the next big infrastructure project that helps boost the economy? Where is the planning for any downstream processing or value-adding of projects? Where is the planning for the heavy industrial industry if and when it should come to the Northern Territory? Where is the planning for an industrial waste facility to support the marine supply base? Yes, industry may well invest in it, but government has to plan and facilitate development of such a facility if the marine supply base is to be truly successful.
There is reference to the Territory being a national powerhouse when it comes to job creation. Good in theory; however, in reality we are not a powerhouse for job creation and, under this Labor government, quite the opposite. We have seen successive job losses in the last couple of years. This government failed to support Arafura Resources and its proposed processing operations, which it wanted to base either in Central Australia or in Darwin. That saw upwards of 400 permanent jobs lost to South Australia.
There have been job losses from the lack of support by this government for the Batchelor Area 55 Project - 100 to 150, job losses from major exploration companies shutting their Darwin-based offices, job losses from the collapse of building companies because the regulatory regime and the management by the Northern Territory government is so poor. There were job losses from the closure of Universal Engineering, which was closely linked to the Montara incident in the Timor Sea.
Of late, we have seen job losses as a result of the federal Labor government’s reckless and devastating ban on the live export industry. Estimates put the losses at 160 direct employees; I am sure it is much higher. Only last week we heard at the Senate committee looking into the export ban that was meeting in Darwin, one of the major pastoral companies operating in the Northern Territory stated they had put off eight Aboriginal stockman, full-time employees, and they would not employ another 50 people used in contract mustering as it would not be happening this year. They went on to say these 50 contract workers were usually sourced from the nearby Aboriginal communities on their cattle stations.
Heli-mustering maintenance companies were in attendance at the Senate committee and told stories of how they were putting off employees. In addition, the businesses that maintain the helicopters were also putting off employees, including apprentices. That is fairly specialised work. I do not believe those young apprentices will get work elsewhere in the Territory given much helicopter work is involved in the pastoral industry. No doubt, we will lose them or they will drift on to the dole queue.
One of the major road transport companies, Road Trains of Australia, has put off 13 full-time employees. All these people have lost their jobs as a consequence of the unwise, reckless way the federal government went about banning the live export trade.
Not to overlook the agricultural and pastoral industry; they seem not to be mentioned too much by this government. They have also suffered terribly because of the ban on live cattle export because many growers in the Douglas Daly region and around Katherine specifically, grow all their pasture and product for the live export market. What is going to happen to these people who specialise in this line of work who cannot cross over to other employment in the NT? I suggest they too will leave the Territory. All these latter job losses are a result of the federal Labor government’s knee-jerk reaction. Apart from job losses, it has resulted in pretty much 50% of the Territory’s land mass becoming almost worthless, and hundreds of families not knowing what is ahead for them, their children, their families, their stock, and their properties.
On page 4 of the statement, it said: ‘If you want a job, come to the Territory’. I agree with the sentiment. However, when the person or family gets here, they are hit with the highest rental levels in the country, the second highest cost for purchasing a house, are confronted with poor land release policies, high costs of living - and the list goes on. Darwin is the most expensive capital city to live in with a median price for rental at a staggering $520 per week, and Darwin is the second most expensive place to buy a house. These figures have not changed over the last few years, and are a result of this government’s poor planning and poor management. People cannot buy a property so they try to enter the rental market. As a consequence, rental prices get pushed up, creating an inflationary impact in that area. When they get just too high and it is too tough and they cannot survive up here financially, those people and individuals also leave the Northern Territory, taking with them their skills and their families.
On page 4, there is reference to increasing the annual zone rebate. This is one position I can agree with the government and support. I also agree with forget the Western Australians. While the City of Darwin and greater rural areas may not be considered remote or isolated, there are many other areas of the Territory where employment takes place that are remote and isolated, and we need encouragement to get skilled people to go there, work there and, hopefully, stay there. The current rate of $390 is way too low. In fact, this figure has not changed in over 20 to 30 years. Yes, the rebate is a federal government matter. It is all very well talking about how the rate is not enough, but just what is this Labor government doing to change the rate? What lobbying work is it undertaking to get the rate increased? I suspect nothing - all talk and no action. Chief Minister, we need to get the rebate upwards of around $1500 per year. In the next statement, let us find out from the government exactly what work it is doing to get the rebate increased to something much higher than the $390 it currently is.
The reference to the mining boom is interesting. Yes, there is a mining boom going on across the country, and the maps of the states of Western Australia and Queensland are dotted with new projects. Yet, in the NT, the boom is almost passing us by. Yes, we have good levels of exploration expenditure on the ground, but the conversion to a new major mine is just not happening. I have no issue whatsoever promoting and pushing the offshore oil and gas industry, and believe government does have a strong role to play in facilitating investment and development. Additionally, government has a role to facilitate the onshore support and service industries for the offshore oil and gas industry.
Let us not overlook the value of the mining industry. I encourage the government to get its INPEX blinkers off for once, and to really look harder at what it can do to increase the activity level of the mining industry onshore. It is still what underpins this economy, and will continue to do so for many years into the future. Industry is growing more and more frustrated by this government’s inability to fully push, promote, and support the industry. Yes, the government says it supports the industry, but the proof of how much support is given is shown by the number of greenfield projects opening. I can tell you there has been no major greenfield project opened in the NT of any substantial size in over 20 years. The Territory is slipping behind relative to the mineral competitive states like Western Australia and Queensland. These states are capitalising on the minerals boom, but not us.
While we all know the geological potential of the NT is high, and we rate very well still in the Canadian Fraser Institute in regard to our geological potential, we are let down by our poor and ageing infrastructure. Roads are not maintained, the port is inadequate, and areas of regional development lack the basic services that exploration and mining companies desperately need and want.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave other parts of the statement to my colleagues to comment on. Suffice to say in closing, it really does not address the serious issues we are confronted with in the Northern Territory when it comes to our growth and our future direction from oil and gas and mining. It is disappointing. I look forward, sometime in the near future, to when government really can stump up and tell us exactly what it is doing to fully promote and push not only the resource industries, but also primary industry and the commercial seafood industry.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, we see puff pieces come into this place all the time. We know the government is filibustering because it has nothing better to do with its time. This one takes the cake! The Century of North Australia is its title. The Chief Minister delivered this ministerial statement, The Century of North Australia. Well, there is nothing about a century in it at all. He, fundamentally, talked about gas production, which I do not think, in the wildest dreams of anyone, would suggest it is going to last 100 years. Talk about gilding the lily; these guys are good at it. He decided he was going to come in here and talk about 100 years of north Australia, all based around gas.
The reality is, as the member for Goyder so aptly put it, the government has the INPEX blinkers on. It is INPEX, INPEX and INPEX. Good on INPEX. We welcome them here; we like to see them in the Northern Territory. However, the Northern Territory is much more than just one project. This government is a one-trick pony. It is the only thing it knows to talk about. It sees its whole future resting on INPEX. Of course, the Chief Minister ran the whole basis of the last election around certainty for INPEX. I do not think too many people in the Territory believed them. In any case, it was a big signal to everyone that this government feels its future is tied to INPEX, and it is the only thing it is interested in talking about. What about the other great industries of the Northern Territory? What about mining? What about tourism? What about agriculture?
We have seen the most appalling decision in history, as far as a Territorian is concerned, made by the Julia Gillard/Bob Brown Labor/Green government. I have never seen a greater attack on the Territory than that posed by this current federal government. We are seeing a whole industry wiped out of north Australia. We have no ships going overseas, the trade has stopped, farmers are going to the wall, and people associated with the industry are going to the wall. Within a few short months time we will see tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cattle starving to death or having to be shot in the paddocks. Everyone here knows that is the reality.
Even the best-case scenario - the 180 000 head of cattle that permits have been issued for exported to Indonesia is not even a third of the previous trade. It means there will be in excess of 400 000 cattle left in north Australia - cattle there is no room for. Fodder is being eaten down. The expectation of farmers across north Australia is that those cattle would have been exported, making room for new calves, for weaners being taken off cows, and all of that sort of stuff. Now we have more than 400 000 extra cattle that really should not be here; they should be preparing to put them on boats. All of a sudden, we have to do something with those cattle and there is no market for them.
I hope the government will come good with some sort of assistance program in that regard. Really, the federal government should be buying all of those cattle at market price. The federal government can determine what they do with them. Most likely, they would have to shoot them because, as I said, there is no market for them. They are going to starve where they are. This is an environmental and an animal welfare crisis. It is an absolute animal welfare crisis, but nothing in the Chief Minister’s statement addresses that.
It is almost like he has kissed the cattle industry goodbye; that he has said it is time up for the cattle industry, it is time up for the mining industry, it is time up for the tourism industry, because we have gas. We have a century of gas, we have INPEX, if you flick through this. To walk in here and deliver a statement like this is just bizarre. He talked about the Ichthys LNG, Sunrise and Prelude FLNG - FLNG is floating liquid natural gas. I remember in 2001-02, the Martin Labor government was absolutely outraged that Shell was suggesting they would build an FLNG plant at the Greater Sunrise field. They got Team Territory together: Steve Margetic, Dave Malone and Bruce Fadelli all significant players in industry up here at the time - they still are. The Martin Labor government got them together, organised a bloke called Steve Brain, an economist from interstate, to put together an economic report talking about the damage that FLNG would do to the Northern Territory.
The argument was - and I was part of the argument; I totally agreed with it - we should be getting that gas onshore, and the Territory should benefit from all of the downstream jobs and all of that. FLNG was a big downer; no one wanted a bar of it. Government spent a fortune promoting gas onshore. That was the whole debate: we want gas onshore!
Now we see a Chief Minister coming in here promoting floating LNG. What an absolute reversal! It is giving it up: ‘Well, we have lost that argument; let us try to spin it the other way now so we can, somehow or other, get this project to look good for the Territory. We have a marine supply base’. There is a great deal of argument out there in industry as to whether this is the right way to go or not - the location, the people involved, all of that sort of stuff. There are plenty of people and businesses involved who want to be involved in the marine supply base. It has been cut out, left to one side. It is a supply base but, for what? We still do not have INPEX here - cross our fingers they turn up, they establish in the Territory; I pray they do, I trust they will. However, when Sunrise floating platform is built, good stuff. Maybe then we will be ready for a marine supply base.
I have to say it is hardly something that is going to underpin the Territory for the next 100 years. Goodness gracious, we know there is a food crunch coming; there is a food crunch already. What have we done about that? Have we got in there and supported our cattle industry the best we can? We know the Chief Minister has been to Canberra and, I have to say, he has taken a pretty tough approach to people like Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie - and good on him for that. However, I still think there is a hell of a lot more this government can be doing to save our north Australian cattle industry.
There is much more that this government can do to get agriculture off the ground in the Northern Territory. Maybe freeing a bit of water might not be a bad start. Maybe doing what you committed to do at the Ord River project – maybe getting that thing off the ground. Maybe opening up the Douglas Daly to more farming, rather than putting land clearing moratoriums and anti-water pumping moratoriums in place. The government could get out there and support some industry in those rural areas. That would be a good start.
Maybe we can do something on tourism and try to market our tourism product a little better than we currently are. But no, this government is a one-trick pony. It is focused on INPEX, INPEX, INPEX – that is all we ever hear: get on to INPEX. It is coming, it is coming, the Chief Minister tells us. Every second line is: ‘It is coming. I have been in Japan. I talked to INPEX. It is coming. They are spending money. They have given the Larrakia Development Corporation some money’. It just gets repetitive when they have nothing else to talk about.
Here we are, in the middle of our biggest crisis affecting Northern Territory industry - certainly since I have been alive. Maybe there have been greater ones in the last century, but I am not aware of when. I am not aware of a time when thousands of farmers or graziers have been put to the sword by a federal Labor government in such a manner. It is just anti-Australian.
This is an iconic industry, something most Australians relate to - the drover, the rough rider, the man on the land. We all want to see that industry continue. However, we have a government which seems to be completely anti-farming and anti-grazing. Do away with the Berrimah Research Farm, we do not need it. Forget research into agriculture and cattle. Why do you need the Berrimah Research Farm when you are not having any farms? They will bring in some native vegetation legislation, make it almost illegal to clear regrowth; cannot break a dead branch off a tree without risk of fines. All this adds up to the most anti-farming, anti-grazing government in the history of the Territory. It is anti-Australian. I could not imagine anywhere else in the country where a government could get away with the nonsense this government is getting away with.
The regulation around tourism is throttling the industry: accreditation programs, money being poured into Territory Discoveries, money being poured into prop up government businesses such as the Territory Wildlife Park and the Desert Park. All this is hurting the industry. If you are a tourism operator why do you want a bunch of bureaucrats hanging around your business to accredit you and tell you whether you are doing a good or bad job? The best form of accreditation is the marketplace. If you do a good job you succeed; if you do a bad job you go broke. Why do you need government involvement? Government’s job should be to get out of the way, but, no, not in the Territory. Our government decides it will speed up the process of ensuring they go broke. It is appalling!
Going through the Chief Minister’s speech, some things amaze me. Aberdeen was a classic. Aberdeen was on its knees a few years ago then it found the oil industry - that is the same as the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is not on its knees and should not be on its knees. If it is on its knees there is only one reason for it, and that is this Labor government. It was not on its knees for 27 years of CLP government. There was no better place to come. It was the place of opportunity, the place to get in and have a go; where anyone could have a go. Not anymore.
The Chief Minister talked about the miracle happening 40 years ago because they found oil in the North Sea. If you go through this nonsense, you will see some of the things he comes out with. Infrastructure investment - what a beauty. He said: ‘Our government has invested around $5.9bn over the past decade in the kind of infrastructure we need to broaden our economic base’. ‘Our government’ he said.
What does he go on about? Tiger Brennan Drive. The lion’s share of Tiger Brennan Drive did not come from his government. The majority of funding for the Super Clinic in Palmerston - almost 100% of the money - did not come from his government. The cancer care treatment centre at the Royal Darwin Hospital, the majority of money did not come from his government. The National Broadband Network, the NBN - I wonder how much the Territory government is contributing to that little baby? How much of the $5.9bn he talked about being invested is coming from the Territory government for the NBN? This is something ‘we are doing’ he said. It is the royal ‘we’, isn’t it?
He talked of the Alice Springs Solar City. It would be interesting to know how much money the Territory government is putting into the Alice Springs Solar City. I recall it was a federal government initiative - not the current one, or the previous one, but the one before that. The Solar Cities program originated from a federal government of a different political stripe than the one that is in there now. However, the Chief Minister is claiming it: ‘We have a solar city, one of seven in Australia’. I wonder who picked the seven? I tell you what; it was not the current government. In any case, the Chief Minister has claimed that. It just goes on and on.
Housing: ‘We are building houses everywhere’. How much money is the Territory government putting into that? Schools: how much money is the Territory government putting into that? He claims all this stuff, which he has nothing to do with - absolutely zero to do with. When you want a Chief Minister to stand up for your industries, to stand up against a dictatorial federal Labor government, where is he? He is found wanting - always found wanting. As I said, you come in here and see the stuff they put forward.
There is a bit at the end talking about Defence support industries. Again, whose money is Defence, who is actually supporting it? He talked about the Defence Support Hub, that great white elephant out there opposite Robertson Barracks. I do not know when we are going to see a business out there. They tell me they are lining up at the door to move in there. I have not heard the name of one. A year or so ago – a bit more than that, I think - there was a suggestion there was going to be a trailer company manufacturing truck trailers out there for the Army. Another one, I think, was building railway line carriages. None of that has eventuated. It would be interesting to know - and maybe the Chief Minister in his summing up can tell us all - of the economic activity that is going on out there at the Defence Support Hub. Maybe there is something there. Maybe that will get us through the next 100 years.
Madam Speaker, this statement is a complete joke. I am embarrassed to be in a parliament discussing this nonsense. I could believe it if it was coming from the member for Daly or the member for Stuart - someone like that - but it has actually emanated from the Chief Minister’s Office. This is the leader of the Northern Territory who has come in here with this nonsense. He said: ‘I am a one-trick pony. Here is the next 100 years of north Australia’. I do not think INPEX will even commit to being around in 100 years time. I know it is a big resource they have there. I know ConocoPhillips has a big resource; Greater Sunrise is a big resource. It will be interesting to see how many of them intend being here in 100 years time.
The Chief Minister’s statement titled The Century of North Australia is nothing about the next 100 years; it is nothing to do with north Australia even. All it is to do with is one business which the Chief Minister hung his hat on at the last election. He is hoping against all hope that that eventuates and will, somehow, save him a few seats when we go to the next election. Somehow or another, I cannot see it, because the fact is this government has neglected so many industries across the Northern Territory ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member to be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Sanderson. Good on you. I was just winding up, but there are a couple of other things I would like to say.
I never really got to say exactly what I thought of a Chief Minister turning up here with such a statement. It makes him look silly. He looks silly hanging his hat on one project, saying that is going to deliver 100 years of economic growth and that, somehow or other, we are going to be emblematic of Aberdeen.
He has included FLNG in his argument when, not even 10 years ago, the previous Chief Minister was so outraged about FLNG she sent delegations to Canberra, spent money on consultants, economists and the like doing reports, to show how detrimental FLNG would be to the Territory economy and how much better it would be to have gas onshore.
There is no mention in here of those other potential energy projects. What about Central Petroleum southeast of Alice Springs, sitting on probably the world’s largest coal resource? No mention of Central Petroleum. What about the crew at Borroloola who say they have coal seam gas there, or underground gas? I know there are projects across the Territory. What about plans to build a methanol plant in Darwin? I know one of the owners of Evans Shoal to our north, is very keen to bring gas onshore and construct a methanol plant here. No mention of that. All of these are things are out there on the horizon. If you want to talk about a century of development for north Australia, how can you overlook projects like that? Goodness me!
I had a short briefing with Central Petroleum, and they said they have more than 1000 years of coal sitting there. But the government does not talk about that. Why do they not talk about that? They are talking about doing underground coal gasification, bringing the gas to the surface and turning it into diesel - fantastic project. Wouldn’t it be great to have a source for transport fuels right here in the Northern Territory? Where is the focus of government on those sorts of projects? It is just amazing! Magellan has plans to develop the Evans Shoal and to have a methanol plant here, hooking up with Dow Chemical. We might get some downstream production happening in that regard, of petrochemical industries and the like. We can have some downstream industry.
What are we talking about with INPEX? They turn up here, they pump the gas out, they chill it down, they put it on a boat, and it is gone. Where is the value added? There is a bit of value adding with LNG, but where is the petrochemical processing, our plastics manufacture - all of those things? They are not even in the same area as the Chief Minister’s mind on this. The Chief Minister is just solely focused on INPEX. If he wanted to do a statement on INPEX, why could he not have come in here and said: ‘I am doing a statement on INPEX’, rather than come in here and say: ‘I am doing a statement on a century of north Australia’, and then just talk about INPEX? Just talk about INPEX, INPEX, INPEX, INPEX, INPEX.
What about developing the rest of the Territory? What about developing our regions? What about developing the centre of Australia? The Territory is a great place, we have resources the length and breadth of the Territory, but there is absolutely no mention of any of that in this statement. It is shameful, and I am ashamed to be in a parliament with a Chief Minister …
Dr Burns: What about Cameco? You want to mention that?
Mr TOLLNER: What about Cameco? The government chased them away too. There is a whole heap of things you are quite prepared to chase away. You had one of your …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You had one of your greatest internal battles for years based around whether or not you would allow McArthur River Mine to divert a river for 5 km. It tore you to bits. You had ministers crossing the floor, not being around for the vote. How pathetic! There was 5% of the Northern Territory’s gross state product coming out of that one mine and you almost self-imploded - what an appalling joke you are. Political correctness, Labor philosophy, all of that sort of stuff thrown into the big cauldron of hatred, and where do you end up? Fighting and carrying on – what an absolute joke.
We have projects the length and breadth of the Territory. We have iron ore projects, copper projects, coal projects, and methanol projects trying to get off the ground. No mention of any of that. Cattlemen doing it hard, people talking about building abattoirs here, a world food crunch happening around us as we speak, but there is no mention of any of that. We have one-sixth of Australia’s land mass, and probably a third of Australia’s rain falls in the Northern Territory. We have water, we have clean sky, we have an able-bodied population, and we have a bunch of unemployed people sitting out there in remote areas. This is where the next 100 years is taking us. What is the Chief Minister talking about? Nothing - absolutely nothing.
A member: INPEX!
Mr TOLLNER: INPEX, INPEX, INPEX. By God, I tell you what, if you do not fly a helicopter out to the rigs, what do you do?
We saw ConocoPhillips turn up here - another great project, do not get me wrong; a couple of thousand workers constructing it – and it very much disrupted the Northern Territory economy. I remember at the time we could not get a plumber; we had to fix the toilet because every single plumber in Darwin was working at ConocoPhillips. People could not get an electrician in to fix a power point; old ladies could not get a fan fixed because there was not an electrician to go around because ConocoPhillips was paying two, three times the market rate for all the tradesmen in Darwin. They all got sucked out there.
We went for two, three years in the construction of that and when it was constructed - guess what? - they all moved out and left and we have – what? - 50 ongoing jobs for it all. As I said, I am not negative on ConocoPhillips at all. It was a foundation customer to get our gas industry going. Thank God for previous CLP governments with their vision in getting that up and getting the project going ahead It has allowed for further development of other projects such as INPEX. Cross our fingers INPEX will come here. However, there are others that are just as worthy. We should be working on that; we should be trying to get as many spin-offs as we can. We should be working to try to get as much downstream industry as we can - not just servicing centres for the rigs offshore but actually getting some downstream industries such as petrochemical work and manufacturing work happening. All these sorts of things are possible. But, the Chief Minister has not mentioned any of that in his statement. I believe it is a complete joke and it is an indictment on this whole parliament.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and I will provide a few comments on the comments the Leader of Opposition-in-waiting just made. He has just come into these portfolios, brought back from the backbench and - see you later, Mattie, thanks for coming, nice to see you. He has been out in the cold for a while, and perhaps he needs to come along and have a chat about what we are actually doing for many of those areas he talked about. In other words: get a briefing, a constructive briefing.
The member for Fong Lim is the only one on that side who is genuinely interested in business, except for the member for Katherine who likes to start his own businesses - but we will not go into that; used car salesman.
The member for Fong Lim should well know you can do more than one thing and, this is what this government is doing. We are focused on gearing up for the biggest project ever in the Northern Territory - the biggest ever single investment in the Northern Territory’s history. Obviously, we need to gear up for that; we need to be prepared for that. More so, it is changing the Northern Territory economy dramatically. This is what I have been talking about in these forums. Perhaps I will invite you along to some of these forums, member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: Good on you. Keen to get to them as well.
Mr KNIGHT: We are getting to this tipping point where Darwin is a second, third, or fourth consideration for business to establish and open a regional office. It has come to that stage where it is the obvious location. If you look at it on the map, you can see the proximity to Asia, to the Timor Sea - and to the Arafura Sea in the future, and I will talk about that in a minute. You see that proximity, you see a rail head, an international airport, a port, a big harbour, and you know that is the best place to take advantage to exploit the oil and gas industry, to be a gateway out of Australia for our pastoral industry, for our mining industry, and a gateway for imports from Asia, the factory of the world, into Australia, cutting off time to southern markets. Darwin is getting to that tipping point.
What the Chief Minister is trying to say in his north Australian statement is we are getting there and we have to be ready for it. What he saw in Aberdeen - I guess we will be bringing more information to the business community and the wider community in the Northern Territory - is it will fundamentally change our economy. It will introduce a whole new industry and a level in our economy which does not take anything away from the pastoral industry, the mining industry, or any other industry operating in the Northern Territory now.
This is a new industry, a huge industry, which is fundamentally going to change the state of our economy, of what we do, and how we do it in the Northern Territory. It is going to change our health system, our education system, and our infrastructure. It is going to change almost everything in the Northern Territory in a radical way because it is so big. Darwin is getting to that tipping point of being the obvious place to set up business, to build any sort of plant, or establish a marine supply base.
You mock the marine supply base and make comments about floating LNG. At that time – and you would be aware of this, although you have failed to acknowledge it - the question of where Sunrise was going - Timor onshore, Australia, or floating - was up for grabs. The best result for the Northern Territory at that time was to bring it onshore to Darwin, and we fought that battle right the way through to a very pragmatic decision ...
Mr Tollner: What happened? What happened?
Mr KNIGHT: You talk about the market; you talk about get out of their way …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The Timor-Leste government was pushing extremely hard. They employed a consultant, did their own feasibility study for bringing gas onshore to Timor-Leste. Ultimately, the decision was made to go to floating LNG - perhaps a pragmatic decision. That is what they are trying to produce there.
There was the announcement of Prelude as well, being perhaps the first one to get a guernsey. Talking to industry people, they say it is technically possible to do, and they are certainly well under way now. As well, PTTP is also looking at getting in first with the FLNG. It is not the first prize, which would have been to bring it onshore here; however, ultimately, after intense lobbying, the decision was made that it was going to be FLNG. Therefore, the second best prize for the Northern Territory is to service and supply the floating LNG ship and all the supplies that go with that.
With a marine supply base, we will be able to service not only the facility at Sunrise, but the six or eight FLNG proposals on the table in the Timor Sea alone. That is what is up for grabs at the moment.
We would not be servicing ConocoPhillips and the INPEX gas plants here. We will be servicing six to eight or more in the future of these stranded gas fields or oil fields which have not been able to be exploited. Once the technology is cracked, you will see these FLNG plants all over the Timor Sea and around the world. We have this unique opportunity to supply that. It is not just about flying out to a rig on a chopper. There are hundreds and hundreds of different occupations that service the oil and gas industry. Drilling on a rig, which everyone has a vision of, is only a small fraction of the occupations which service this particular sector. What we want to do is to be able to provide, right from the high schools through to the university, the educational opportunities for people to branch off into that field.
We are an extremely strong supporter of the Charles Darwin University’s oil and gas or hydrocarbon institute. It is great to see industry is also behind that particular project.
When you go to Google now and type in ‘oil and gas training’, there is very little there, and what is there is in Perth. We have the unique opportunity, in the future, when you look for oil and gas training, it is Darwin - and it is obviously Darwin. You can fly out to the rigs for training. You can work in Darwin in a tropical environment as, obviously, those gas rigs are, and do the training here – world-class training. There are already facilities here. There is a Russian scientist they have already recruited, and they have some special machines out there where you can actually see the LNG in these tubes. They are doing tests out there at the moment. To be a research institute, training the trades which supply this industry in the research area is the future the Territory could have.
That is what this statement is about. It is saying what is possible. It has been this government - amongst a heap of criticism from the opposition which preaches doom and gloom and that things are not possible – which has cut through that. We cut through with the INPEX project. If it had not been for Clare Martin and Paul Henderson, we would not have INPEX making an FID decision in November/December this year. It would not be there. What would happen to this economy here? It would be in a pretty poor state. The economy would be in the same state as other states and territories around Australia. We have an economic boom about to happen here, and this is just the first project.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim talked about the situation around ConocoPhillips. We truly acknowledge that. When I got the Business and Employment portfolio, we looked at the INPEX project and understood what it would mean for business and for our community. That strip-out effect is a scary thing for the SMEs around the greater Darwin area. INPEX will not have a problem in getting a workforce; they will just add a few zeros to the end of a number, and they will come from everywhere. They will come from Winnellie, Yarrawonga, Berrimah; they will be stripped out of our community now. Good luck to those young men and women who would like to get the experience of working on an international standard LNG plant and get those skills and, obviously, get a lot of money for doing it.
What those businesses need is replacement of those staff. We saw that very early on. We have done modelling on the occupations and the numbers, and also the ripple effect into the economy as well. That is what we are working on. That is why we have been working with Western Australia and Queensland to get a proposal to the federal government around skilled migration. Our primary goal is to get Territorians into those jobs; into any sort of trade in the Northern Territory. With the lowest unemployment in the country, because the economy is so strong here you can pretty well get a job anywhere you like, those people are pretty well taken care of.
We have tried interstate campaigns to attract workers here. Compare our projects to Gladstone. There are four projects there. Potentially, there is anything between 12 to 16 trains on Curtis Island, and that is just downstream. Because it is coal seam gas, they have the upstream side as well. There are something like 10 000 workers required to drill 50 000 holes over the life of those projects. Then they are building a whole new coal-loading wharf there which is a massive project. They also have some rail marshalling yards. Then, chuck in Wheatstone, and Gorgon, and there are not enough workers in Australia. They are short by tens of thousands, not by thousands or hundreds.
Therefore, it is very unlikely we will get workers from interstate. We might attract some of our own guys back to be closer to family and friends, but the reality is most of our workers coming back in to be able to backfill our SMEs will come from overseas. That is why we have been preparing a proposal, and working with the federal government, to come up with a more flexible and responsive migration scheme so we can provide that assistance to the businesses because, literally, they will be in a great deal of trouble if half their workforce chuck in their resignations and head off to the construction camp of the INPEX project. That is our focus at the moment.
As well as that, we have established gearing up local businesses for major projects - this is not just about INPEX, it is about other projects that are coming online - and getting our businesses ready, getting an understanding of the workforce demands that are required, the levels of accreditation which are required for our Territory businesses to get work with these projects. That has some fairly big hitters on it - industry, the unions, the CEs of major government departments - trying to get a handle on this. The comments I have received from the Master Builders Association, INPEX, and other proponents such as ENI joining that group as well, is they find it extremely productive. They can have a real conversation with government.
Government can change the way it does things, as far as a curriculum for schools or training packages which are offered, to try to get these workers in. I do not agree with the member for Fong Lim, but I agree that there is a unique opportunity for many of our more remote people to take advantage of these projects, because the work is here. It is not there at the moment, so come here and do it. Come in and get your training and get these high-paying jobs. Go home on weekends, or when you have your week off - you have four weeks on, one week off, or something like that – that is the opportunity.
Wherever I go, to outstations or communities I have a bit to do with, that is my message to people. Mobility is the key. You have to be able to move to work. Whether you live in a remote community in outback Northern Territory, or a small town in New South Wales, the issue of jobs and the lack of them in those places is real, and the solution is moving into town temporarily, or whatever it might be. The solution certainly is there.
Madam Speaker, it is a great time to be in the Northern Territory. I have been here 23 years. I was not here for the Defence build-up and post-Cyclone Tracy and all those various stages. You could see the economy pick up at those stages. This time, I am here to be part of the next biggest and the most significant economic growth we will have in the Northern Territory around oil and gas. We will have those other industries such as the pastoral industry. I am sure the minister for Primary Industry will talk about the pastoral industry and how important that is. There is also the mining industry. We provide an extreme level of support to keep those industries going.
I heard criticism from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but we do not hear that same criticism coming from the industry. The industry, whether it be the Cattlemen’s Association or the Resources Council, appreciates the work this government does in investment attraction, trying to get investment into small projects in the Territory, and the geospatial mapping we do free in trying to get that investment going.
Also in relation to exploration, while the rest of Australia was going backwards during the GFC with exploration, the Northern Territory was actually going forwards. That has only come about because of the attitude of this government saying we want to chase business and investment, because investment means better health services, better jobs for our young people, better infrastructure, and better education as well. That is what we are all about: people in the Northern Territory and growing this economy to go from strength to strength. That is what the focus has to be in this project.
INPEX is a key part of that puzzle. I must congratulate INPEX. The member for Fong Lim was somewhat critical of them ...
Mr Conlan: No, he was not.
Mr KNIGHT: He was so.
Mr Conlan: He was critical of the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I welcome back Matt Conlan. The INPEX project is significant and I must congratulate them. They signed an IPP, an industry participation plan, and are genuinely committed to that project. I guess that Japanese culture of respect is coming through the organisation. They are truly committed to allowing businesses to participate in this project.
We had a forum, it was February or March this year, with INPEX and some other major projects, talking to industry. INPEX was genuinely saying: ‘We want you to be part of this, but, geez, you have to step up’. The quality of tenders that were coming through, the lack of accreditation with businesses was a wake-up call for businesses in the Northern Territory. These are major projects that operate on international construction standards, and that is what the marine supply base will be. Also, businesses have to get international accreditation. They have to step up and, if they do, they will get much out of it.
Either within the department of Business or in conjunction with industry, we have run a series of upskilling and accreditation workshops with businesses. There are many businesses which participate. There are many businesses that still do not think INPEX is going to come. Sure enough, the morning it is going to be announced, the people will say: ‘Oh, you did not tell us it was going to happen’. It is a very significant project, and we do need to gear up for it. That is what the tone of this statement is all about: we have to get ready for this major project and, then, we have to get our whole economy shifted around to accommodate this boom that is going to happen.
If you look at the exploration permits which have been released, they are only in the Timor Sea. We still have the Arafura Sea to go, so there is a huge …
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: That is a lovely pink shirt and tie you have on, member for Braitling. You are man enough to wear it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you can contain your comments to the statement, please.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, this project is significant and, underneath all that high-level work that goes on, our programs for SMEs continues. October Business Month is coming up and that month of activities is getting people aware of upskilling and business support programs. Everyone I have spoken to has favourable things to say about it.
With regard to the work of the department, I congratulate all the client managers and staff of DBE who support businesses. That is why those businesses keep telling the Sensis Business Index we are the most supportive government of any government in Australia, because we are truly committed to those SMEs, making them strong, supporting them, starting up businesses. To go to some of these getting into business workshops, it is really inspiring to see the work done by the department to get people prepared for getting themselves into business. These are exciting times.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim talked about Defence, which is a significant part of our economy. Defence procurement works in very mysterious ways, member for Fong Lim, and we will keep trying to get people in the Defence Support Hub because, working in conjunction with industry, they were saying that was the best thing to do. The Abrams contract was only recently awarded and they have been here for quite a few years. We are still talking to the contractor about getting them into the Defence Support Hub. It is a very good location. We have done everything we possibly can to attract people there.
The most significant thing in the Defence area is the Defence review about where Defence should place assets and the way it should do business. We will be chasing the consultants undertaking the review about the significance of Darwin and having more Defence assets placed in the north - whether they be Army, Navy or Air Force - because this is where the defence of Australia is going to occur. This is where the strategic economic interests of Australia are: in the mining and oil and gas reserves we have in the north. The protection of those assets requires Defence assets. We are the best place to have them stationed.
We look forward to putting in a very strong submission, lobbying very strongly to have a new Navy Base built in the Territory, to have more facilities, more brigades stationed here and, more significantly, to have all the service and supply into those assets done from the Northern Territory.
It really irks me to see assets broken up here, shipped all the way down south to be fixed, then shipped all the way back to the Territory to be put back on. It is a ridiculous system that is in place, and is something we will be pushing very strongly to change. It is cheaper to do it all here. I have been through many of the prime contractors’ factories down south, and there is nothing they do in those factories we cannot do here. It is something we will continue to lobby for.
With respect to the attractive place to do business in the future in the Territory, the money we are spending on the Power and Water Corporation and the assets we have around the water, sewerage and electrical area is the biggest injection in the history of the Power and Water Corporation and its predecessors. That is because of the decades and decades of neglect that occurred. We are rapidly catching up - if not already caught up - to the generation capacity required in the projections for having electrical generation capacity.
The raising of the Darwin River Dam wall by 1.2 m will increase the water supply capacity reserves to 20%. That is getting on top of this growth; this growth which is denied by the opposition but, in reality, exists and is going to continue to exist.
People are going to come to the Territory. With the land release happening, as the Treasurer alluded to, the balance in supply and demand with housing is starting to get back into some equilibrium so we get some realistic prices for land. However, it is one of those really attractive places to come because there is much work here and many high-paying jobs.
You can pick up a house in Cairns for $200 000 to $250 000 because there are no jobs. The economy is stuffed because they built their industry on one thing: international tourism. That is it. The economy we have built here is multidimensional. If we have a downturn in the pastoral industry we are able to support it with the mining industry, the oil and gas industry, Defence, or the public sector services. That is the difference in our economy; in what has been constructed here. It has been taken to a whole new level over the last 10 years with the Labor government. However, it did pre-exist that, but we have taken it to a whole new level.
The investment we have put into infrastructure has been unparalleled in the history of the Northern Territory; to have new schools, new hospitals, a whole range of new services this government has put into this community because we believe in this community. We are not doom and gloom like members of the opposition. We believe in the future. We believe in the next 100 years of economic boom in the Northern Territory. Why would you not strive for that? Why would you not strive for not only your kids, but your grandkids and your great-grandkids to be able to stay here and have a well-paying job, live in a nice home, and have all those excellent health and education services, and have the greatest lifestyle in Australia?
Madam Speaker, that is what we believe and that is exactly what we are going to strive to do.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on northern Australia. We are heading in the right direction. Northern Australia it is the place of opportunity right now, and Darwin is well positioned when it comes to powering Australia’s economic engine room into the future. It is the place to be.
I never thought when I first came to the Northern Territory in 1993 - the original plan was for two years before I went back to Perth to resume my profession as an Environmental Health Officer - that come 2011, I would still be here. I also never thought that coming to work for the Health Department, one day I would be the minister responsible for the Health Department. That is not a unique story; most of us have come here from somewhere else for a limited period of time, and we find ourselves staying here for a longer period of time, and having jobs we never dreamed we would have.
There are tremendous opportunities in the Territory, but that has not happened just by chance. It is due to a great deal of hard work by Territorians and a belief that anything is, indeed, possible. Yes, we are can-do people, we have a can-do attitude and, when things get tough, we really find a solution and do not just dwell on our problems.
Our government’s economic credentials are well-known. We are doing a great deal to ensure the Territory continues to be the envy of the rest of the nation. Our mining and energy sectors provide a solid foundation when it comes to its contribution to our economy, particularly in seeking out opportunities to our north and positioning the Northern Territory as the gateway to Asia, or the entry point to Australia.
Our key markets remain strong and the demand for resources continues to grow. A strong economy assists in improving the health outcomes for all Territorians and ensuring that every child has an opportunity to prosper. It underpins the work we are doing to tackle Indigenous disadvantage, and the steps we are taking to spread opportunity to our people in all communities across the Territory - not just people in the urban areas, but those people in remote communities in areas where the pastoral industry or the mining industry are ones that can provide not 10 odd jobs, but hundreds of jobs.
The reality is Australia is experiencing a two-speed economy. Here in the Territory we are well geared to the resource sector. Mining is the largest industry in the Territory, contributing 25% of the gross state product in 2009-10, the second highest proportion after Western Australia at 30.6%. Nationally, mining accounts for only 9.4% of gross domestic product.
If you want a job come to the Territory. Our economic growth has averaged around 4.5% annually for the past six years, and Access Economics predicts annual economic growth of 4.2% for the next five years. The resources boom has been integral to the growth and our development, and will underpin future growth. With major projects such as the $12bn INPEX gas project on the horizon, it tends to overshadow our resource and commodity sectors.
You need to look no further than recent announcements of the mining sector over recent weeks. ERA has now committed to exploration of the Ranger 3 Deeps at an estimated cost of $160m; GEMCO has just announced a $US280m expansion on Groote Eylandt; MRM is to spend $270m to increase mine production to approximately five million tonnes per year; Newmont recently announced a $0.5bn expansion of the facility in Tanami; OM Holdings Ltd increased capacity at the manganese processing plant and Bootu Creek; and, of course, there is increased iron ore production capacity at the Territory Resources Frances Creek Mine.
When it comes to potential mineral development, I mention Minemakers, the Sherwin Iron and Western Desert Resources, Australia Ilmenite Resources, Nolans Bore rare earth, Redbank Mines Ltd, and HNC Australia Resources Pty Ltd in Batchelor, to name a few.
Exploration is a success story of the Territory. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia, during the global financial crisis, which saw an increase of expenditure in the Territory. In the first three quarters of 2010-11, the expenditure was $140.3m, and we believe it will exceed $180m by the end of the year. We are one of the jurisdictions with the biggest exploration expenditure when you compare what we are and where we are. We are not Western Australia - and I would like to add we are not Western Australia yet - but we go that way because of the simple reason the Territory has a great deal of uncovered potential.
It is not only base metals people are looking for; they are looking for uranium, and the most important is onshore oil and gas exploration. Currently, in Dunmarra, Falcon Oil and Gas is conducting exploration. Their prediction is they will find 10 to 15 times more than the INPEX project. Seismic surveys for oil and gas are being conducted in the Beetaloo Basin, southeast of Katherine, and the Georgina Basin, southeast of Tennant Creek. Drilling will be undertaken in Beetaloo Basin and Georgina Basin and in Central Australia – not to mention Central Petroleum near Alice Springs, Central Australia, is talking about investing in future exploration for its coal gasification project. Talking about close to Alice Springs, that is a relative figure because ‘close’ in the Territory means 100 km to 200 km.
This did not happen by accident, it was a big investment by our government. It was a policy developed by our government. Looking to the future, we decided if we were going to attract the miners here, we have to attract the explorers first. That is why we announced Bringing Forward Discovery. Earlier this year, I announced a three-year $11.4m extension to the Bringing Forward Discovery initiative. The flagship program includes geophysics and drilling collaborations to encourage exploration in underexplored or greenfields regions of the Northern Territory. We pay 50% of the cost to a maximum of $100 000 to assist companies with the cost of exploration, geophysics, or drilling in remote areas. Seven programs have received funding, including five drilling programs and two geophysical programs, for the total of over $600 000. Successful companies were Eclipse Uranium, Mincor Resources, Redman Copper, Crossland Uranium Mines, Natural Resources Exploration, AusQuest Limited and Anglo Australian Resources.
In the last sittings, I recall the member for Goyder mentioned there are not many exploration companies in the Territory anymore; they have all gone away and there are only six left. Last time I counted, there were 18 exploration companies with offices in Darwin, or in regional centres around the Northern Territory. I suggest the member for Goyder have a look, or talk with the Minerals Council to find out the real story, rather than playing politics.
We have an international investment attraction strategy for China and Japan, and that has also paid dividends. We have managed to attract significant companies in the Territory. Most recently, we have seen the signing of an agreement between TNG and ECE. ECE has established a company in Australia with headquarters in Darwin, together with the Anhui Exploration Bureau. We have Chinese companies making agreements with Australian companies, Territory companies. I mention the following: Tricoastal Minerals has 7.5% equity in Matilda Zircon, the Anhui acquisition of Territory Uranium exploration licences; the CGNPC with 66% equity in Energy Metals for the Bigrlyi Mine; HNC and Compass, the Jiangyin Huaxi equity in Sherwin Iron, the China Minmetals in Westco Resources, ECE 17% equity in Arafura Resources, and ECE 30% shares in TNG Limited I referred to before. We now have a number of companies in Darwin from China: ECE, Legend International Investments, Anhui, Gemstone, and HNC.
Of course, this does not happen by chance. You have to have vision and you have to put the hard work in. Our government had the vision, and I have to say, my department and I put the hard work in, spending time in China, talking to people in China, attracting investment from China to the Territory. Our program is so good that one of the southern states approached us and asked us if they could partner with us to go to China to promote their state. I kindly declined because my target is the Territory, not any other state in Australia.
We have significant interest in China, but we are also moving in to Japan, where we are attracting Japanese companies. Japan is looking for resources with regard to metals and energy. Of course, we had many meetings with Japanese companies in the past few years. In the past four years since the strategy started, we have had an investment of approximately $185m from Japan and China.
Now we have to focus on other markets. An emerging market in Southeast Asia is Korea. The key focus appears to be energy. We will continue to explore potential opportunities in Korea. My department has already had a number of visits to Korea talking to senior government officials and senior company officials. We plan to visit Korea and Japan in November 2011.
We have delivered an agribusiness strategy, which was developed not by bureaucrats, but by the people on the ground in the pastoral, horticultural and agricultural industries. It demonstrates we see a bright future for the industry. There are some confronting challenges, particularly for the pastoral industry. Of course, like everyone else, I was shocked to see this vision on Four Corners on the ABC. I have to admit that I worked for a year in an abattoir. I had to do that to get my qualification as a meat inspector. I never experienced these kinds of handling practices in an Australian abattoir. It was really shocking and, of course, something had to be done. However, it probably could have been done in a different way.
Our government, once again, was in the forefront; we were the first ones to contact the federal minister’s office. I was the first minister to offer to travel to Indonesia, something the minister asked me to do on his behalf four weeks later - go to meet with senior government officials in Jakarta and advise the minister for Trade. I conveyed the messages to the federal minister, Senator Ludwig. I was very pleased that, on my way back to Australia from Jakarta, I was advised by his office he considered the information I provided and was going to reverse the ban.
We have to do something different. I was always horrified to have all our eggs in one basket. We have to do two things. First, we have to find new markets and, second, we have to find new breeds. If we cannot sell to Southeast Asia, at least we should be able to sell it in the local markets because, currently, the beef we supply is great for Southeast Asia, for Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries but, unfortunately, our local supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths will not touch it because, according to them, it does not meet their standards.
One thing I am proud of is that we stood by our pastoral industry. The Chief Minister and I worked very hard talking to our federal counterparts, and to Indonesia. I was also very pleased today to see we have put a two-year holiday on pastoral leases for the people who have been affected by the banning of live cattle export. We will continue to work very hard to reinstate the export to what it was before. Not only the Northern Territory, but northern Australia relies on that export. Our friends and many of our relatives working in the pastoral industry are relying on this export to survive. It is the only product they can produce in very good quality and large numbers. We have to reinstate the live cattle export as soon as possible to Southeast Asia.
Madam Speaker, because of the economy, we have invested heavily in health. The CLP said: ‘You put in money, where are the outcomes?’ Yes, we put in money. I recall when you were the first minister for Health, the first budget for Health was about $400m - $440m, if I remember well. Now, it is $1.2bn. In 10 years, it is $1.2bn. The member for Katherine said: ‘You put in the money so where are the outcomes?’ I will give you some of the outcomes.
Because we spent the money and we invested in health, we now see a four-and-a-half year improvement in the life expectancy of Aboriginal women from 1996. The Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%. The anaemia rate for Aboriginal children has been reduced by 20%. Cervical cancer rates have fallen by 61%. There is a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer: 64% in non-Aboriginal women and a staggering 92% for Aboriginal women. The people who have renal disease can now survive on renal dialysis the same as the rest of Australia; an improvement of seven years in their life expectancy. These are real outcomes. These are real people living longer than they were living 10 to 20 years ago.
If you compare that with the CLP and the previous Liberal government, I tell you what they did. Under the leadership of John Howard and Tony Abbott as Health minister, from 2003 to 2007 the Liberal government slashed $1bn from public hospital and reduced the level of funding from 50:50 split with the state and territories to 40:60. That means the Commonwealth would give $1 for $1 before, or 50 for every 50 the states would spend. Then the Commonwealth changed it and will pay 40 and the states have to find 60. The problem in the Territory was even worse because we actually had to find 70. The Commonwealth only puts in 30 for every dollar spent on hospitals.
When the CLP was in government, from 1996 to 1999 it slashed 200 nursing positions. It closed hospital beds and complete wards such as 3B, and chronically under-resourced the health system. Even now, Mr Abbott promises, if elected, they are going to slash super clinics, e-Health and electronic health records, and cap the number of doctors and nurses in training. That is their policy for improving health outcomes. This can only harm the Territory and take our health achievements on a dramatically backward slide.
Our government continues to deliver strategies to improve the health system for all Territorians. We have opened over 127 extra hospital beds. We have employed an extra 720 nurses and an extra 250 doctors from June 2009 to 2011. With the Gillard government, we have delivered the Palmerston Super Clinic, a new $10m facility operating through a partnership with Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. We have student doctors training in Darwin. We have urgent care from the super clinic every night. We are now talking about a super clinic in the northern suburbs.
One of most important facilities is the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, and the 26-room Barbara James House in Darwin for Territorians undergoing cancer treatment. This facility is one of the most modern in Australia, with two linear accelerators and no waiting lists.
I have talked to Kim Hames, the Health minister from Western Australia, who was absolutely staggered we do not have any waiting lists because the waiting lists in Perth for cancer treatment are enormous. Despite the fact they have two linear accelerators in Perth and one in regional Bunbury, they still cannot meet demand and they want to talk to us about treating Western Australians from the Kimberley, and the Pilbara if necessary, at the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre.
Planning is under way for the Palmerston hospital. We have committed $110m together with the Australian government. We are talking to clinicians and community leaders to ensure the planning process takes into consideration whatever they have in mind. We will have 60 beds, an emergency department, day surgery, and some specialist services.
The CLP promised, at the last election, a $100m hospital based on no planning and no beds until 2023.
In February this year, together with Prime Minister Gillard, we opened the $28m first full Northern Territory Medical School with the partnership of Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. There is an opportunity for Territorians to grow up in the Territory, go to school in the Territory, go to university and become doctors in the Territory. The most important one is the Indigenous Territorians who currently train at this facility. We have found with nurses, midwives and engineers, if you grow them here, they will stay here. If these Territorians grow here, they know the conditions and they will stay and that will fill the gap. The current gap we have is half the number of GPs per 100 000 population in the Territory, compared with Sydney and Melbourne.
Kidney disease is a huge problem in the Territory. We have made massive investments in dialysis care and preventative health to provide the best care possible and keep families together. We opened new renal dialysis services in regional centres like Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Umbakumba, Galiwinku, Wadeye, Tiwi Islands, Barunga, Yirrkala, Maningrida, Ngukurr and Ti Tree. We have made dialysis available in people’s homes in Milingimbi, Wadeye, Umbakumba and suburban areas such as Nakara, Wagaman, Durack, Nightcliff and Humpty Doo. We have expanded services in Alice Springs, Katherine, Palmerston and Darwin.
We must have good services because the Western Australians have signed an agreement with us to send all the people east of Warburton, Western Australia, to be treated in the Alice Springs centre. We must be doing something good.
We are investing in infrastructure and in the future. The electronic health records we have put in place are one of the best in Australia - so good that the Queensland minister for Health and Deputy Premier came to see it personally and find out how it works. It is also supported by the Australian government with $13m.
I will now turn to something very controversial; child protection. Child protection is not an issue for government – any government - it is an issue for the community. Unless government and the community work together we are not going to solve the problem.
The member for Araluen laughs; however, her interest in child protection can be shown by one incident. Recently, Professor Vimpani went to Alice Springs to meet with different stakeholders and people in Alice Springs. The member for Araluen has such a big interest in child protection she did not meet with Dr Vimpani because she went to a financial planning forum. She chose to attend a financial planning forum rather than meet with Dr Vimpani. That shows how much real interest the member for Araluen has in child protection.
The member for Araluen tries to talk to us about Indigenous child protection. The member for Araluen made many statements. She talked about prostitution in Alice Springs; made no real claims, no evidence, and no names. Police investigated and could not find any evidence of child prostitution in Alice Springs. She likes the headlines, I can see that. The reality is if we are going to solve this problem - because it is not going to go away next year, it is not going to go in away five years …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, the CLP in its last budget, allocated $7m to child protection, with just over 100 workers - no after-hours service and, of course, foster carers were very rare. Now, we have put a $130m for five years on top of the $182m that is the budget this year. They say: ‘Oh, no, this is not only for child protection’. Well, yes, there is $35m directly for child investigation. What about the money for sexual assault referral centre? What about the money for foster carers and foster parents? These are part of the child protection system. So, $182m over $7m shows you who cares about the child protection ...
Mr Elferink: No, that is dishonest. You are still a dishonest person. You should tell the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that last comment.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw that he should tell the truth, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS: We had the board of inquiry, the most comprehensive inquiry of child protection in the Territory’s history, that came out with 147 recommendations. We said we would accept them. You have a state of denial, on the other hand, of the last 10 years of the CLP, that tells us the government had walked away from the child protection system because it could not deliver or did not want to deliver. That shows you exactly who really cares about a child protection system.
Again, I say there are significant problems with the child protection system. As Alyssa Betts mentioned in her article, the system was really bad, it was in crisis, and the Labor government was left holding the baby. She also acknowledged in her article that no other CLP government had put as much money in as this Labor government has put into the child protection system. Yes, we put in the money as we want the outcomes. We will get the outcome, because we are committed to increase the workforce, to support the workforce, and to develop a workforce and child protection places where they did not exist before; namely, the Indigenous communities. For the CLP, if it was outside the northern suburbs, it was not worth making any decision ...
Mr Elferink: That is not honest.
Mr VATSKALIS: Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. All children are entitled to live safely and in circumstances that enable them to thrive physically, intellectually, and emotionally.
Madam Speaker, northern Australia is the place to be. It is the place of opportunity right now and heading into the future. Northern Australia will continue to be an increasingly prosperous part of Australia. We are, indeed, heading in the right direction. What we are doing is an investment for the future and our economy growing gives us the opportunity to do things that we could not do before - things in health, education, and in child protection.
I am very proud to be part of the Territory. I am very proud to call myself a Territorian. I am very proud to have come to the Territory from another state and, 19 years later, still call the Territory home.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when I read the heading of this statement today, I admit that I thought there must have been an error. I thought it might have been the century of the Northern Territory, but it said The Century of North Australia. It got me thinking; maybe it is time we thought of north Australia as a state. I had a quick look around, and there has been, from time to time, discussion whether the north of Australia should be a state. I do not want to disappoint those people who live in the south in Alice Springs - they might get a bit upset at that. They can always break away, and they would not have Darwin people to blame if anything went wrong.
We talk about the prosperous north from the Kimberleys through to north Queensland. When the Chief Minister issued this statement, he said:
Maybe we should make our state boundaries where the economic growth and prosperity is, rather than worry about where longitude and latitude is, because those things are purely convention. Maybe it is time we looked at dividing Australia up into areas of economic growth. It was interesting when the Chief Minister brought this forward; I thought it might be an opportunity to, at least, suggest that. The government spent millions of dollars discussing whether the Territory should be a state. I may be more interested if northern Australia should be the state. We have much more in common with one another than down south; we live in the tropical climates; we have issues of isolation; we have a cattle industry, a mining industry, tourism industry and we have large areas of land that is Aboriginal land. In some ways, we are a different part of Australia, culturally.
If we believe this area is going to be the heart of a prosperous 21st century for Australia, then maybe we should look to see whether the dynamics of the way our country is divided up is the right way for the future. It might be that we all seem to die on the stake for being a Western Australian, a Queenslander or a Northern Territorian, but we are all Australians. If changes to the way we are governed meant that some of those boundaries are changed, well, so be it. There would be many more people the southerners might call northerners.
We might also start to get a population base which cannot necessarily be sneezed at - the Territory only has 200 000. If you add north Queensland and northern Western Australia, we might be up somewhere around 500 000, and then we can get good representation as a state. We can argue the case for 12 senators because it would be easier to ask if we had a population base that was higher than we have at the present time. I just put that out, not so much, as people might think, for amusement, but at times we have to look out of left field and ask if this is the way we want to go into the future. I believe it is worth discussing.
In relation to the statement, whilst it mentions a couple of nice things about INPEX and a few other issues, I have always said areas such as agriculture and horticulture seem to get missed in some of these statements. We talk about economic growth, but economic growth needs to be diverse. One of the tragedies that has come out of the live cattle export bans is that, because we basically had all our cattle in one basket - that is, most of it went to Indonesia - when something happened – and I also agree with the member for Fong Lim – one of the worst decisions in Australia’s history in relation to an industry has occurred this year. We have now seen what can happen when most of our cattle go to the one market. We need to diversify our economy and push for other areas that do not get representation.
We know mining is one of the big industries. As the member for Fong Lim asked, was Central Petroleum mentioned? I had a briefing with the company this week as well, and I was astounded at the size of what they are talking about. I would have thought that would end up in this statement, but perhaps that might not fit into the century of the northern Australian state, it is more in Central Australia. The point is, it is in the Northern Territory. If that takes off, most of the rest of our mining will look like chicken feed. I believe it could contribute to the industrial development of the Centre of Australia. The employment opportunities for Aboriginal people would be colossal. Of course, that is where we also have to ensure that - going back to the censure motion today, you can put oil and gas in Central Australia, but if people are not educated, they are not going to get a job.
I hope the government is talking to people from Central Petroleum and making sure there is a big effort to get people moving in that direction. It may take some years. My undertaking is this project could go for at least 100 to 200 years. Hopefully, we have people educated by then who can get skilled jobs. There is an area we really could talk about. Economic growth and prosperity has to include Aboriginal people in the employment strategies. This Central Petroleum project in Central Australia appears to be one avenue where this can really occur.
Getting back to horticulture and agriculture, we all know of the tragedy of the live cattle export ban. We also need to understand that with agriculture it is not just cattle and live exports. It is about improving cattle production and pasture production. People would have seen an article in one of the Territory magazines about the new rice varieties. That is an exciting prospect for the Northern Territory. Our climate is suitable for lowland rice. Many discussions have been had about Humpty Doo in its day. There were many reasons why Humpty Doo failed. It was actually a soldier’s settlement project. People forget that. Many of the people who worked there, as they did in soldier settlement places in Victoria and New South Wales, did not have much experience or the knowledge we have today about the rice varieties that are available.
If you go to the Philippines, from memory, you will find one of the biggest rice research stations in the world where varieties of rice are bred all the time. It is good to see there is some development in that area at Tortilla Flats. I hope to get some time after the sittings to go there to look at what is happening. That is a good area the Territory should be looking at. We used to grow a lot of rice in southern New South Wales. Of course, it used a large amount of water and when the drought was on, our production went down to a miserable 5% of normal rice production. If we can establish an industry in the north where we know there is going to be a plentiful supply, at least in the Wet Season, then there are great opportunities to expand the rice industry.
There are also crops we once grew here in the Douglas Daly, when Fleming was developed - soy bean and sorghum. We now tend to grow hay or improved pastures for cattle. We should not be too shy to ensure we are still looking at developing these particular crops. We know we can do it in the Ord River. I do not see why we cannot do it in parts of the Northern Territory. Some may say we are limited with where we can grow crops. The Sturt Plateau is one of those areas we can grow many crops. Ali Curung is another area with its watermelons. My understanding, from visiting the Ali Curung watermelon site, is there is almost boundless water and good soil there. I will put ‘boundless’ in inverted commas but there is plenty of water and is rechargeable. It is not like Ti Tree; it has a good supply of water.
There will be an interesting discussion about vegetation management plans the government is putting through. My feeling is you have to balance this with food production. When we are talking about agriculture and horticulture, we are talking about feeding the expanding world population. Whether you like it or not, the world population will continue to grow. We have soils, we have water, and we need to have the ability to develop those. What we are clashing with today is, to some extent, some ideologies. I am not necessarily saying they are wrong, but there are issues of biodiversity, carbon captures, and climate change that are also muddying the waters as to which way we go in developing our economy.
Regardless of all that, growing crops is an important part of our economy. The fact is we have to eat. This statement does not deal with agriculture or horticulture. When governments issue statements about the growing prosperity of the north, I believe there is reason to ask why that particular area of our economy is not part of a central focus in these documents.
If you look at the Ord River - and if anyone has been there in the last couple of years you will see it is expanding. Ord River Stage 2 is up and running, or on its way to up and running. I believe they are developing the channels now. There is forestry; there are many seed crops being grown by companies like Pacific Seeds. There is very similar soil on the Northern Territory side, not just on Stage 3 near Legune Station, but around near Kildurk Station and areas like that, about 60 km to 80 km inside the Northern Territory border. Very similar soils, and we also have good water from our rivers like the Negri. Many people do not know that river very well, but I visit in the Dry Season. It feeds into Lake Argyle, and I keep telling Western Australians their good crops grow from our good water.
Agriculture has much potential. I laughed when this government spent quite a bit of money helping the trials of GM cotton. We spent seven years growing GM cotton and issued a report saying GM cotton was quite good, reduced the amount of spraying, and did not affect the environment. There was seven years of work at Katherine Research Station which I visited. Because we have a mindset through Australia that GM is somehow scary - or all GM is bad, which is the problem - we do not allow GM crops such as cotton to be grown in the Northern Territory if someone wants to grow it, yet 95% of cotton in Australia is GM cotton. That has had the effect of greening that part of Australia because there is less spraying, which means fewer tractors running up and down, less fuel, less soil compaction and less chemical sprays. You have had a change in the whole production system. Most people used to be scared of cotton production because the history of cotton production, especially in Kununurra, was not good. However, with some scientific research and some intelligent use of GM, we lead the way in growing cotton in a green way.
Sadly, we have a group of people who have an agenda which says no GM. It is like people who say we cannot have any nuclear. It is not as though we could advance the technology to overcome their fears; the point is there is no GM, there is no nuclear. That is sad because we have not progressed in society today by not taking risks and not looking at changes in technology. We have come to a grinding halt in public perception that some of these things are bad. They are only bad when misused. We have opportunities in the Territory to use some of this technology.
Take the new banana varieties being looked at through GM …
A member: They are straight!
Mr WOOD: They are straight, are they? They are very good. I do not know if straight bananas will be a good marketing ploy but they will pack much easier.
GM bananas are being trialled in the Top End. We had a fantastic banana industry that was booming until someone came in from overseas and brought in Panama disease and destroyed that industry. Yet, we have the water and the soils to grow bananas. We had the alternative area to Tully to grow bananas so, if there was a cyclone in Tully, production in the Northern Territory would take over as has happened in recent times. You still have people talking about how terrible GM bananas are. They do not even have seeds; they cannot produce anywhere else. What is the difference between a GM banana and a non-GM banana? You can see how rabid people get when they mowed down a crop of wheat in Canberra recently - the GM cotton was being grown to prove whether it had any health effects. The people did not want GM so they mowed it down. That is an act of terrorism. Someone does not believe that technology could be tested.
We also have the mango industry. Our largest horticultural industry is not mentioned here. It is mango time already. There are mangoes to buy at the Palmerston markets. We need to keep developing these industries. We have the advantages of different times for different crops in the Northern Territory. Katherine comes in a little later than Darwin; Kununurra comes in a little later than Katherine. We have the advantage in the north of having a series of climatic differences that allow crops to be sent south at different times of the year. That is a great advantage over the rest of Australia.
We are still just scraping the edge of horticulture in the Northern Territory. Asian vegetables have gone, over many years, from being a nothing crop which no one would eat, to the Territory being one of the main suppliers of Asian vegetables in southern markets. With the introduction of Vietnamese through the boat people when they came to the Territory, those people showed us how to grow Asian vegetables, and the Asian vegetable market has boomed.
We supply how many cut flowers down south? It is a great production in the Northern Territory because we have a warmer climate in winter, so we can send all these flowers down south. We have a nursery industry. We supply many plants, especially to Western Australia. We have a forestry industry, for better or worse. Sometimes, it has been done more for carbon capture than being grown for the timber itself, but we certainly have the potential for more forestry. These are the areas we have to develop.
We can talk about the big stuff. We can talk about the mining which is great, but we have to ensure we diversify. When times are tough, if your industry is relying on just one thing, for instance, if you are relying on tourism - we know what happened to tourism in Central Australia when Tiger Airlines collapsed - you get hit hard. If you have an economy that is broad, the effect of the downturn in the global economy at least is a bit easier to handle.
There is an opportunity, when these statements are issued - and there have been many over the years; they are very broad statements – for a little more oomph in them, a little more about what the Territory’s future could be about, rather than about just running on INPEX. I have nothing against INPEX, but it is only part of it. We have not talked about commercial fishing, Aboriginal fishing, or recreational fishing. That is all part of our Territory economy we should be trying to develop.
The minister mentioned Defence, which is an important industry, and also the Defence hub. There is nothing sitting in the Defence hub, I can tell you. It is a nice …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I note the Chief Minister mentioned the Defence Support Hub. It is a little nice - put it that way - because there is nothing in the Defence Support Hub. One of the problems is it is too close to Wallaby Holtze Road. The other problem is some of it is built among the magnetic ant hills, and you can get that reflection in the Wet Season. The rest of it is built on high ground, but there is nothing there yet. I understand the government is trying to encourage industry to that park, but nothing has happened. It will be interesting to see whether it is actually going to happen.
Madam Speaker, there probably were just a couple of issues I may have gone over. I spoke about the forestry. The other area is an area we forget. The member for Fong Lim spoke about whether the Territory is going to develop until we open up these growth towns, and we get public roads into those areas. Growth towns are meant to be real towns in the sense of Mataranka or Katherine. We still have a long way to go before that occurs.
Regarding Aboriginal employment, people say to me: ‘Let’s start up market gardens’. I can tell you now, I have been down that path and, unless you have people willing to work those long hours - because it is not that simple to develop those industries if people are not willing to work seven hours per day. Vegetables have to be watered all the time. When we talk about industries in Indigenous areas, we have to be realistic about what we are doing. The idea of Indigenous cattle stations is good. I have been out to Mistake Creek. I went out to Alcoota recently. Both are Aboriginal cattle stations. Alcoota is a very successful station employing quite a few Aboriginal people. We have to do more work in that area if we are to develop our agricultural industry, especially for the benefit of Aboriginal people.
If you go to most cattle stations these days, most people who work there do not come from the Territory. Even the non-Aboriginal people come from down south. If you go to the Katherine Rural College - and I remember the Country Hour was doing a little promo with them, asking the kids where they come from, and they came from Melbourne and Adelaide and all over the place. There were not too many from the Territory. There is room for much more Aboriginal employment.
I was in Katherine, the home turf of the member for Katherine, the other night, and we saw a video of young Ngukurr students who had been working at Mataranka Station as part of the Katherine Rural College course - I think it was Certificate II in Rural Operations. They produced the video. At least, they got an idea of what working on cattle stations would be like. I am not sure how many are employed on cattle stations. If we are to develop the economy, it is not just about these big picture items. It is about creating employment for the people in the Northern Territory. There needs to be this ongoing emphasis to create a range of jobs for a whole range of people.
If the Chief Minister is to make this statement that we are going to be on the cusp of an exciting new era in this country, and if the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is 14% - because if you take people out of the Centrelink system and all those other new start systems, Aboriginal unemployment is extremely high. It will always be have and have not until we bring many of these Aboriginal people into the fold. I get concerned - and people may say it might be exaggerating - in a society where part of that society is doing quite well, and part of our society is not doing so good whether that is reflected in the violence we see in some of our centres. For better or worse, or whether it is their fault or someone else’s fault, you can see a difference. There is a group of people who drive around in nice four-wheel drives and have a nice house; there is a group of people who hop in an old Holden, unlicensed, and head off to a rundown house. There may be reasons for that. The reality is that our society in the Northern Territory does show those distinctions and we have to ensure we are aware of that and do our best to overcome that.
When I hear about Central Petroleum in Central Australia, I see opportunities to turn things around for people. It is not that simple. I know about the tall poppy syndrome, where people do well in a community and, all of a sudden, it is a shame job. I discussed this with a business in Alice Springs when I was there earlier this year. They had an Aboriginal person working for them in a steel manufacturing shop in the industrial area of Alice Springs. He was fantastic, but he was humbugged for money when he went home - humbugged all the time. In the end, he gave it away. There are some cultural issues, or other issues, we also have to work through and overcome and change, if people are to move on to a better society.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. Besides the marine base and INPEX, it is not as full as it should be. I could have gone on about many other things, other parts of our economy. I have stuck generally with the agriculture. That is the sort of statement we need. We need a statement that looks at the economy of the Northern Territory as a whole, looks at the diversity of the Northern Territory, and maybe even this debate looks at whether north Australia should be a state rather than the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, the first thing I will say tonight is, how do Territorians benefit, or is there any tangible difference from a statement like this? This House runs at a great cost to Territorians, and you really wonder what our job is if it is to come in here and listen to yet another puff piece from this government. We could better spend our time in working on programs that will make a difference to Territorians.
What we heard today was another piece of self-advertising from this government. It uses hour upon hour in this place to talk about how good it is. 18 August is the 10th anniversary of the Labor Party’s election to the Northern Territory government. That is a decade. Today, we are listening to a Chief Minister talk about what he would like to do, and brag about some of the achievements of this government, but more about what needs to happen, what things need to occur to make the Territory a good place. Well, you have had 10 years. Territorians have had 10 years and, again we listen to a statement tonight, when I believe we could be using our time much better than listening to advertising.
What does it do? It gives your side the chance to promote yourself about how good you think you are. It gives this side of the House and the Independents the opportunity to get up and belt you around the head about how you have not done everything that you say you are doing. Sometimes, ministers are a little removed from what actually happens at the coalface. You can put that down to many reasons. An analogy I use is, if the Chief Minister was going to turn up to a school, the papers are picked up, there might be some painting done, and the place is made to look as good as it possibly can, to show some pride in the school, but to always put the best face on for when the Chief Minister turns up. That is what happens in any government department when dealing with the minister; they want to put on the best face possible. Sometimes events get so sanitised that, by the time they get to the relevant minister, they really do not get a clear picture of what goes on at the coalface.
I want to talk through this statement today, and one of the first things I saw in here was the Chief Minister saying he firmly believes it will be northern Australia and the resource-rich jurisdictions of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The truth is this government has not been as supportive as it possibly could be to some very big opportunities in the Northern Territory. Arafura Resources comes to mind, where many millions of dollars and, in fact, jobs are going to go to South Australia. Interestingly enough, I heard the Chief Minister mention if INPEX had come along, it just would have got a ‘no’ from this side had we been the government of the time. I put it to you that the development of Glyde Point would have continued many years ago, and today we would have a first-rate area in the Northern Territory for heavy industries. That did not occur under this government because you took your eye off the ball and INPEX caught you on the hop.
On page 2, the statement says the transformation is under way, looking at the economy and how powerful this economy is. The one thing it does talk about is the economic growth of the Northern Territory, around 4.5%, annually for the past six years. You have had six years of data which show growth, yet it has only been, probably in the last couple of years, where you finally turned a sod and started to release some land, and tried to play catch up. And you talk about being a well-established government that is planning well and is going to, and has been able to, tackle the growth! It is as though this has crept up on you and you had to make some decisions really quickly.
One area where there has been growth in the last few years is the public service. That is certainly a growth industry, with thousands of jobs. I can tell you - in the last couple of weeks, trying to get into the MVR and walking in the door and then straight out again - I know where the staff are not working. I know where this government is not supporting the coalface; that is, in areas like MVR.
You cannot do everything online. I congratulate the government for introducing online payments for registrations and a number of other things. However, there are still a number of things you cannot do online and you have to go in to the MVR. When you go into the MVR - in fact, in the last week or so nearly on a daily basis - and see the number of people waiting there, you wonder where all the additional public servants are. This government is not supporting the MVR. These people are willing to pay you money to drive their vehicles, to register their cars, to have their licences – they want to give this government money. The best thing you can possibly do is have this most streamlined conduit you possibly can to receive that money.
Page 4 of the statement said: ‘If you want a job come to the Territory’. I have to ask, what if you are an Indigenous person living in the Northern Territory? As the member for Nelson said, I have never really understood in all my years of living here why we keep so many Indigenous statistics separate to white Australia. Why is there a separation? Why are there separate programs? I have heard the member for Fong Lim many times talk about having programs set up - whether they be medical, legal, and so many other things - to deal with Indigenous people. We do not include Indigenous people in general statistics in regard to employment. Why is that?
We should be just one group of people called Australians, at the same time acknowledging people have different cultural backgrounds; whether you are an Indigenous person from Australia or an immigrant who came to make a life in Australia. Acknowledge people have different cultures and are from different backgrounds but, at the same time, we are all one nation and should be treated the same way, not as separate groups, as happens today.
Page 5 talked about LNG and INPEX. This government has put INPEX under much pressure. It has set a very high bar and raised the expectation in the general community of what is expected of this major company. It is fantastic that a company like INPEX is looking to invest in the Northern Territory; however, this government has put an enormous amount of pressure on this company.
Recently, when speaking about the generous $91m to use in environmental initiatives and other things, I made it clear in a media engagement I had that this does not in any way allow this government to take its eye off the ball and not have a responsibility when it comes to the environment. You cannot make INPEX responsible for everything; you cannot put your eggs in one basket. I found it interesting that the member for Daly talked about putting your eggs in one basket. There is a clear indication this is exactly what has happened with INPEX and the pressure the government has put on that company.
The member for Nelson also raised Central Petroleum. When I had a meeting with this company, I seriously hoped they were going to take some of the advice on board and talk to people like minister Burns regarding education, and see how CDU in Central Australia could work in with a company like this. To think some kids in fourth and fifth class today could be tomorrow’s petro-scientists. Those kids could be at any one of the primary schools in Alice Springs and go through to work in the university in Alice Springs, then go back to their areas and be petro-scientists within their own communities. There are so many opportunities that particular investment opportunity has. Hopefully, the right government can capitalise on and turn some of these opportunities into real futures and real jobs for Indigenous people.
When it comes to education, with all we do and all we have done, there is one thing we can be positive of; that is, whatever policy, whatever government over the last 30 or 40 years, has brought us to exactly where we are today. It does not paint a very good picture when you go to some of these remote communities and see the way people live in horrid conditions. It is a sad indictment on all of us - parliamentarians today and parliamentarians of the past. Perhaps even public servants who have worked in those areas share some of the blame in where we are today.
However, there are opportunities. It is not about how much money has been spent; how it is spent is more important. I look at some of the opportunities, particularly with education. I was visiting one of our local colleges recently and spoke to some young Indigenous chaps who were pulling cars apart and putting them back together. I was taken aback by their enthusiasm. I said to one young chap: ‘What do you want to do after you leave school?’ He said: ‘I want to continue with my apprenticeship and become a mechanic’. ‘What do you want to do then?’ ‘I want to become a mechanic, but Mum and Dad want me to come back to the community and there is not really much to do out there’. Then it dawned upon me and, if a black kid could go grey, this kid went grey, because it dawned upon him, it does not matter how hard he works in school, how hard he works in getting an apprenticeship, how hard he works to complete that apprenticeship, if there is no job at the end, it is all for nought.
Some of our major issues in this country come down to land tenure. If we can focus on one thing with all the money that is being spent over the years on Indigenous affairs - if we can focus on one damn thing, which is to sort out land tenure - we just may be one step closer to building these economies in our rural and remote areas that will support jobs for these young kids who come through today ...
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about it?
Mr CHANDLER: Well, what we have done up until now has not worked ...
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: What we have done up to now has not worked. I am not blaming one particular person, minister, not one …
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about Aboriginal land tenure?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: That is something we have to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr CHANDLER: This government talks about the future, about all the things it says it wants to do and has done. In land release, it talks about opportunities, but do you know what I see? It is the high cost of living. It talks about opportunities, and the average person looks at housing costs. It talks about opportunities and what it should be doing, and I see high electricity costs. It talks about all the things in these puff pieces and, in fact, some of the things that really do matter to people are being overlooked dramatically …
Mr Giles: The cost of living for Palmerston residents - you do not care about …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Just today, I received this e-mail, and I will read it to you:
This is not Johnston, this not Zuccoli, this is not one of the newer areas, this is Bellamack - something this government has been gloating about for a long time.
He might work for the Labor government:
The e-mail goes on:
While this government goes on about all its releases and everything it is doing to release land for people to build houses, unfortunately, what it forgets about is following through with processes that do not leave people where they purchased blocks of land in good faith without even having electricity put on to the blocks.
Just yesterday, we had an e-mail from a person who has invested in a block in Bellamack. They invested earlier this year, and only just received their building permits. In all that time, the developer has held on to the deposit and there is not much they can do about. I had a similar issue raised with me in May 2011. I wrote to Hon Gerry McCarthy on 24 May 2011. I will read that letter out to you, because it still has not been responded to. With all their puff pieces, they forget about the people who they are supposed to be here to support:
They were at their limit when they first applied for a deposit for their new home and, because of the failure of this government to release land titles, house prices have gone up to the extent where their bank will no longer lend them the money. In that case, we have asked the minister to intervene because we are trying to get their deposit back. To this date - that was written on 24 May, we are now in August - we are still waiting to hear from the minister on what can be done to help out a family that is in genuine need.
All the puff pieces in the world do not fix some of the basic problems we have in the Northern Territory today. We have had a government that has had more money than any other previous government – forever - since we have had self-government. More money, yet we probably have a bigger debt today than this Territory has ever had before. So, not only have they had more money than any previous government, there is no doubt they have spent the money - they have spent more than they have earnt, because they have put us into debt.
I move on to page 19, where it talked about the challenges. The Chief Minister said: ‘Rapid change also throws up some big challenges’. If they were serious about meeting some of the challenges for people and helping Territorians, they would be on the phone to the Prime Minister condemning the carbon tax and the mining tax.
There is something the member for Nelson raised in regard to Central Petroleum. I thought it was quite interesting. I wonder if it is time this country starts to look at policies where people are taken to the resources, rather than the other way around, where the majority of Australians live on the eastern seaboard. We know this country was founded on the back of the gold rush, and that many years ago people flooded to areas like Bendigo and Ballarat where the gold was. Today, we have some pretty vast resources in the Northern Territory. Central Petroleum is just one of them. There are geothermal opportunities. Perhaps tomorrow’s resources - the energy side of resources - is where we should be moving people, away from the eastern seaboard into where the resources are. One of the biggest issues with geothermal, I know, is the fact it is in some of the remotest parts of Australia, away from the grid, away from where the demand is. The infrastructure required to get electricity from a geothermal plant in Central Australia to the eastern seaboard makes it uneconomical. So, is it time we start to look at ways of bringing people to where these resources are?
I will finish up quickly, because there is much more I want to talk about, particularly with the Johnson report. The last part, the conclusion, when I listened to the Chief Minister today, I really thought there should have been some background music to it - the pan pipes playing - because it really was like an advertisement. How about we just get off our backsides and try to find better ways to make this a better Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Member for Greatorex, bear in mind that at 9 pm we have the automatic adjournment of the Assembly.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was the option to extend for an extra 10 minutes; does that still stand?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm I will ask you what your intention is.
Mr CONLAN: All right. I just need to blow the cobwebs out. We have a pretty long sittings ahead of us and need to fire this baby up, I reckon. Five minutes will probably do, and we can continue our remarks later.
I had a look at the statement and I have to say, the region is fantastic - there is nothing wrong with the region, north Australia is absolutely fantastic ...
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to direct the member for Daly to withdraw his comments and refer to the member for Greatorex by his name.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear what was said. Minister, if you said something …
Mr CONLAN: There you go, that was the Chief Minister that never will be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Giles: He does not have the guts to challenge.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw whatever it was you said.
Mr CONLAN: Whatever you said I take offence to.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw something or other.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, stand when you are speaking to me, thank you. Please withdraw the comments.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw the comments, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The region in the north is fantastic; there is no doubt about it. I have deep affection for north Australia right across the top end of Queensland through the Northern Territory and up through the Kimberley.
It is the environment that is in trouble. I am not talking about the hole in the ozone layer. I am talking about the environment the Northern Territory Labor government has left the Northern Territory and north Australia. Our streets are out of control. Law and order has spiralled out of control in the last five to six years. Crime rates in the Northern Territory are twice as high as the Australian average and, in most cases, are significantly higher.
The biggest employer in the nation and the Northern Territory is small business. Small business is struggling; retail is down about 30% across the Centre and across metropolitan parts of the Northern Territory. Couple that with the spiralling crime and law and order, and people are vacating the Northern Territory - it all becomes too hard.
The cost of living is through the roof and, of course, the housing crisis is engulfing the Northern Territory. It is tough to rent a house if you are a low- to middle-income earner in the Northern Territory. It is tough to buy a house, let alone rent a house.
The statement is interesting because it said:
Over the page, he said:
Does that sound familiar?
This is from the Chief Minister’s statement today. He is hanging everything on INPEX. I have to agree with the member for Fong Lim; it is all about INPEX, INPEX, and more INPEX. We too welcome INPEX. We encourage INPEX to the Northern Territory; we hope they come. The Chief Minister hopes INPEX arrives very soon because he has done nothing when it comes to infrastructure in the Northern Territory ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: What has he done? Let us have a look. What has the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, delivered in infrastructure, member for Johnston? What has he delivered, personally signed off on in infrastructure? Everything you hang your hat on was thanks to the former member for Fannie Bay. The little that you have done is thanks to the former member for Fannie Bay and former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. We talk about the waterfront - probably the biggest thing you have delivered was delivered by the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. You spent $500 000 of taxpayers’ money having a huge booze up and a big party to celebrate the opening.
We also look at INPEX. It was all in play well before the member for Wanguri challenged the member for Fannie Bay for the leadership. Now, he must deliver. He has 12 months to the election to say in the last four years he went to the previous election for certainty around INPEX. He must deliver that within a little over 12 months, before the next Northern Territory election, if he is to have any credibility whatsoever.
You have not built one hospital, one school …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex. Order, member for Greatorex!
It now being 9 pm, do you wish to continue for 10 minutes or do you wish to continue tomorrow?
Dr Burns: One school - what about Rosebery? You goose.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I ask that the member for Johnston withdraw that
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr Burns: You mean about Rosebery school?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you withdraw the comment, thank you?
Dr BURNS: Of course, I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to offend the member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, do you wish to continue your remarks for 10 minutes and that is the end of your speech, or do you wish to continue tomorrow?
Mr CONLAN: No, I blew some of the cobwebs away …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, which one?
Mr CONLAN: I am happy to continue tomorrow or next time.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned in accordance with Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I discuss something that should be of some concern to the Attorney-General, in particular, which relates to the speeding fines which have been brought into question as a result of the Northern Territory Police Force no longer proceeding in a matter of the police against Braddy. In that particular instance, a grave doubt has been cast over the accuracy of the vehicle-mounted speed guns that exist and are relied upon by the Northern Territory Police Force.
I have spoken to the former member for Goyder in this House, Peter Maley, who was representing Mr Braddy. Mr Maley has, with the acquiescence of his client, forwarded some material to me in relation to the decision taken.
I am very concerned about what Mr Braddy has had to say. The expert Mr Braddy relied upon when fighting this speeding ticket, a Mr Joe Mulligan, has extensive history in this country in relation to speed camera and speed gun technology. What is concerning is the fact there are some very serious questions that should be raised in relation to this technology.
I note Mr Mulligan said, amongst other things, there are numerous and significant serial number conflicts that raise concerns as to the quality or ability of the testing officer in all the test reports. This results in doubt as to accuracy and reliability of these test reports.
He went on to observe:
Mr Mulligan went on to say the radars are faulty to some extent, and he raised some very serious questions over the calibration and testing of these radars.
What he said, which is of great concern, is these test reports show that measured powered out radiated power density of 2 mW - I presume it is milliwatts - per centimetre, is alarming in the sense that the maximum power radiated from a police radar under the ARPANZA national radar standards is a maximum of 1 mW per centimetre. He went on to observe:
The Attorney-General should be explaining to Territorians as soon as possible the legal status of the millions of dollars obtained by the use of these radars over the years. I am anxious for the minister to do so.
It is one of the sad tragedies of our justice system that it is only people who are particularly passionate about having a fight, who will occasionally spend a large amount of money defending what they know is right. As for the rest of us, we will generally accept a speeding ticket. Even if we do not think it is right, it is simply more convenient to accept the ticket and get on with our lives. It would appear, in the case of Mr Braddy, he is not of that nature and he has fought this, spent the money on getting an expert, and the expert has completely and utterly canned radars 1, 4 and 5 used by the Northern Territory Police department. Not only does he say that the testing, in every likelihood, has not been done properly, but demonstrates the radars are faulty to some extent.
It is very concerning to me that the Northern Territory government has remained silent on this issue so far. It is simply not good enough to withdraw a complaint from a proceeding before a court. What should be happening is the Northern Territory government should be finding out how many of these speeding tickets they have issued rely on the use of these radars. They should also be doing an audit of all their radar systems so Territorians can feel assured the systems work effectively.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, having read the expert report in this particular case, I am very surprised – very surprised indeed - at the number of shortcomings that were found. Not only were a number of shortcomings found but the excessive generation of radiation of twice the ARPANZA standards is also a matter of concern. I am reminded of the case - and I will have to do some homework on it – where there was an increase, I think it was testicular cancer, in police officers in Texas some years ago as a result of overexposure to high radiation emitting radars. That means there is, potentially, a work health issue involved in this as well.
The Attorney-General cannot remain silent on this. The government needs to respond to what Mr Mulligan has told them. I urge the government to speak to Mr Braddy or Mr Maley to determine very quickly what they are going to do about this particular issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call on the next member, I table the Member for Fong Lim’s interstate study travel report pursuant to 3.15 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009; and also the Overseas Study Travel Report of the member for Blain pursuant to 4.2 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with much interest this morning when the Shadow Ministry was announced. I managed to not only get the announcement that was made today, dated 6 August 2011, but I looked at the previous portfolios of opposition spokespersons and office holders from 18 October 2010, which I believe is the last iteration before this one was announced today.
It is obvious there are some winners and some losers in this reshuffle ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Certainly, the winners would have to be the member for Port Darwin, who has regained Treasury; the member for Fong Lim who has come back into the Shadow Ministry with Lands and Planning, and Business and Employment; and the member for Braitling, who, as well as Indigenous Policy, has Transport and Construction and Regional Development.
Looking at the former list, the people who have lost are the Deputy Opposition Leader, the member for Goyder, who has lost Major Projects and Economic Development, Trade, and Lands and Planning; the member for Katherine, who has lost Treasury and Regional Development; and the member for Drysdale, who has lost Construction.
I have had a bit of a think about this change - obviously some winners and losers. Starting off first with the member for Katherine, who has been stripped of his shadow Treasury role, it was interesting to go back through the debate we had in May 2011, and the assurances given to the member for Katherine by the Opposition Leader. He said:
Later he said:
talking about the letter or report from the Ombudsman:
said the Leader of the Opposition.
It was interesting to contrast that, in the same debate, with the statement made by the member for Port Darwin, who has now inherited the loss - a quite substantial loss - by the member for Katherine. He said in the debate, and I remember it clearly: ‘I am not going to defend the actions of the member for Katherine’. Here we have the leader defending him, saying he will stand by him, and the leader of opposition business - and, I suppose the notional Deputy Opposition Leader by function - the member for Port Darwin, saying he was not going to defend him.
Out of those comments, the only one who was true to his word was the member for Port Darwin who has gained from the member for Katherine’s loss. The Opposition Leader certainly did not stand by his words, and has hung the member for Katherine out to dry. He has humiliated him - he has absolutely hung him out to dry. He has not stood beside him. I reckon ‘stabbed’ would be a word. I believe the member for Katherine has been loyal to the Opposition Leader, and the question I ask is: what has he got for it? Humiliation! Is this a reward for loyalty? That opens up the whole question now of preselection for the seat of Katherine. I am hearing there are a few people circling who might put up their hand for CLP preselection for the seat of Katherine …
Mr Elferink: Good. And I expect a few for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin - I have been around long enough; I can see he is continually positioning himself. He is absolutely ruthless in what he does. Maybe he is going to do the Jim Hacker: the default Chief Minister if they were to fall over the line after the election; the Mt Bundy agreement that we have heard a little about. I caution members opposite here to watch the member for Port Darwin. I have seen it all before, and do not forget …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask that Hansard record this under the Dewey Decimal System, using the word ‘fiction’ at the front of it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not forget the member for Port Darwin was part of the CLP prior to 2005 election where there was a lot of jockeying and positioning. He has learnt from the masters, so I say to member opposite, just watch the member for Port Darwin.
In relation to the member for Goyder, I believe she has been badly treated. She has been humiliated through this reshuffle - and I believe those were words used on the ABC tonight. Just looking from this side of the House at the way in which the CLP treat women in their ranks, it is not a pretty picture - not a pretty picture. Just ask Loraine Braham how she feels about it; Noel Padgham-Purich, the former member for Nelson; and, of course, Jodeen Carney - all three, good women, I believe, very badly treated by the CLP and the male hierarchy of the CLP. Now they can add the member for Goyder to that list.
Why was she demoted, if you like? Why were the important portfolios taken away from her? Why were the members for Fong Lim and also Braitling rewarded? Because the Leader of the Opposition had to reward them, but he did not have to show the same courtesy to the member for Goyder. He was forced into promoting the members for Fong Lim and Braitling, but he just did not have to show the same courtesy to his deputy. That is enough said about that.
I also feel for the member for Drysdale. He really got into his portfolio of Transport, even becoming a truck. Anyway, I am sure he will get on with the work he has ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: How do I see the future? I see things as being neck and neck, that is what our polling …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Our polling is telling us that this election is up to be won, and we are involved here in a marathon, not a sprint. The opposition thought it was going to secure government in 2009. That was bad decision-making by the Leader of the Opposition who, I am told, is incapable of making decisions; shies away from decisions. He did not make the right strategic decision. They have lost momentum; they have lost impetus. We are united as a team and we are focused on the job ahead.
I see today they tried to come out of their box and attack government, to try to take the focus away from themselves. However, I predict their problems will be ongoing. As Leo Abbott comes up for preselection it is all going to boil over again because let us not forget - and I have the transcript here, I do not really have the time to read it. Oh, well, I probably do, where the Leader of the Opposition said:
Here was a commitment made by the Opposition Leader to Leo Abbott that he would back him in 2012. But, now, he is in a cleft stick because he also postured publicly about it. It is going to be interesting to see him backing away: oh, it is the party, it is this and that. He is backing away from the strong position he had at that time at the federal election when he went for Damien Hale in quite a despicable manner. He has a problem; it is not going to go away; it is ongoing. There is a movie called the Voyage of the Doomed. You might have changed the chairs around, but the movie is the same. That movie is all about malevolence, suspicions, unexplained events, and almost supernatural powers of the division and destruction. That is the voyage you are on. You are on the voyage of the doomed, opposition. We will see. I do not think you can hold it together.
I say again I do feel sorry, particularly for the member for Goyder, and that the member for Katherine has been betrayed after he was given a promise by his leader. But, then again, Leo Abbott was given a promise by this man here. I do not think he can be trusted. They say a man is as good as his word, and I do not think he is very good at all.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to highlight some of the wonderful learning experiences being created at Taminmin College.
Taminmin College will be holding its annual Science Expo fair on Friday, 19 August 2011. The first fair was held last year. All middle school students, Years 7 to 9, will be participating and it will feature student investigations, exhibits, demonstrations, and presentations which will be on display throughout the day in the school gymnasium. The Science Expo highlights the relevance and importance of science in society. It allows students to experience a hands-on approach to science and gives students the opportunity to use and apply their scientific knowledge while integrating skills and knowledge from other subject areas.
The Science Expo also encourages unity, support, and involvement from the wider community which gives students the opportunity to gain recognition from the community for their work. This, in turn, allows students to identify the role of science areas for future career opportunities. I congratulate Ros Hardcastle and all her science teachers for supporting and promoting science in schools. I also thank the exploration companies that have been kind enough to support the fair by sponsorship including: Tom Baddeley from Santos; Andrew James from Phosphate Australia; Geoff Eupene from Crossland Uranium; Paul Burton from TNG Limited; and Norm Gardener from Western Desert Resources.
The science fair follows on from the hugely successful June musical production, The Rise and Fall of the Bargainmart King which showcased the theatrical and musical talents of the students. These talents have also been on display at various community events throughout the year, including the Freds Pass Show and the Anzac Day ceremony at Adelaide River. The inaugural Middle School art exhibition, Insideout@taminmin, was held prior to the Friday evening’s musical performance. This was an exciting collaboration proudly showcasing the work of the current middle school students who designed, danced, and papier-mch-d their way through Semester 1. The exhibition included a range of styles and mediums such as still life, lino prints, water colour, sculpture and altered books. Such was the high quality of work that some students received offers for purchase, which is good news.
Three Taminmin students, Joelene Puntoriero, David Ung and Leon Milne were offered places at the Professor Harry Messel International Science School, which was held in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney from 3 to 16 July this year. The International Science School only offers places to 150 of the best science students from around the world. Year 12 student, Joelene, was awarded the coveted Mulpha Leadership Award. Mulpha Australia donated $1m to the free science education program and inaugurated the award in 2004, stating it should be presented to the ISS scholar who has shown not only a good understanding of science, but who has also shown diplomacy across all cultures and an ability to bring people together; that is, a good global citizen.
Student groups have just returned from excursions to Singapore, France, and a world challenge to Vietnam and Cambodia which were undertaken during the semester break. The world challenge involved undertaking community work including building fences, digging trenches, and helping the local school by undertaking a renovation. I am informed this was a life-changing experience for everyone involved.
Students Jack Shellcot and Bill Nyugen were selected to attend the 2011 Northern Territory Space School. Sixteen participants are chosen from around the Northern Territory each year. Sam Tolomei was selected to attend Youth ANZAAS 2011 in the mid-year break in Queensland. Around 50 students are selected from Australia and New Zealand each year to live in university residences and go to cutting-edge science activities and lectures.
The Year 10 Leading Learner Science class were the champions at the Darwin Science and Engineering Challenge in 2011.
Matthew Devereaux and Joelene Puntoriero were the Freds Pass Show Rural Achievers in the senior and junior categories. Year 9 agricultural students also enjoyed significant successes with their three champion goats.
Tayla England, a VET hospitality student, was the Northern Territory finalist for ‘Cook Your Career’, a national cooking competition.
Callum LeLay, a Year 10 student, was selected to attend the Brain Bee Institute Queensland and Northern Territory final in July. The Australian Brain Bee Challenge is Australia’s only neuroscience competition for high school students, and motivates young people to learn about the brain. It has been created to inspire students to pursue careers in neuroscience research.
Senior school science teacher, Jen Trewren, took out the prestigious national award as BHP Billiton Science Teacher of the Year.
Radio 104.9 Breakfast Show was broadcast from the college in May and students were commended for their articulate comments as they discussed the musical, science fair, school camps, Freds Pass Show preparation, and Callum LeLay’s Brain Bee achievements. There was also a performance by the school choir.
The ABC’s Country Hour promoted the ‘Produce to Plate’ initiative where students grow food for production.
Youth Week involved a health promoting celebration organised by the wellbeing team to promote a healthy, active lifestyle incorporating lifestyles strategies to promote and maintain mental health and wellbeing.
Taminmin College continues to deliver VET in schools to Numbulwar, Yirrkala, Jabiru, Groote Eylandt and Wadeye. There are courses also offered and being delivered to adult learners in Wadeye and Palumpa.
In June, Taminmin hosted two Indonesian teachers who visited as part of the Bridge program encouraging sharing of culture with schools in Australia and Indonesia. Utilising Wikispaces, communication will continue between Taminmin and 19 junior high school students and staff in Jakarta. Students and staff from Kamitonda in Japan will be visiting Taminmin from 22 to 31 August this year.
The above achievements are all more impressive when considering Taminmin College is nearly 30 years old and lacks many of the state-of-the-art facilities and resources common in most schools today, yet it has an enrolment of over 1200 students. From my observations, the school is not getting the same attention or funds as the city high schools. This situation has to be changed. It is through the hard work and dedication of the teaching staff, parents, and all those associated with the college that it achieves what it does.
I encourage the Education minister - in fact, all of Cabinet - to visit the school and see firsthand how much the school achieves with so little. The success of the college is, in no small way, attributable to the dedication, professionalism and commitment of all staff under the excellent leadership of principal Miriam McDonald.
My constituents advise me that Miriam is creating a strong school identity by cultivating an environment where parents and families feel welcome and are encouraged to participate in their children’s education. This year, there has been an increase in the number of participants at events such as parent/teacher evenings, Harmony Day activities, athletics carnival, art displays and, no doubt, the forthcoming Science Expo. This was also evident in the support from the small community when Taminmin College organised the car parking at the Freds Pass Show this year. I am told that Miriam displays a genuine affection for all the students and it is inspiring to see her interaction with them as she undertakes her daily bus duty and engagement throughout classrooms and the grounds, given the massive role she has in running a college with such diverse responsibilities.
Miriam has a strong focus on encouraging motivational speakers such as the woodchopper David Foster, anti-bullying campaigner, Brett Murray, and Jessica Watson, to challenge the students to be proud of who they are and that they can be whatever they want and dream to be.
It is obvious to those involved in the school community that Miriam’s motivation in all she does is to ensure the very best outcomes for her students and staff. I wish Miriam the very best. I know under her guidance greater things will be achieved, and the proof will be in the positive outcomes for students, staff, families, and the greater rural community.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was sitting upstairs before listening to the member for Johnston give his assessment …
Mr Giles: Diatribe!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: His diatribe. … his assessment of the reshuffle of portfolio arrangements in the opposition. I sat there with a grin on my face because he felt obliged to get up and say something. What I picked was he did not really have it in him to get passionate about it. He did it without any great gusto, that is for sure. I am a bit surprised he did not approach it with a little more gusto - not what I expect to see from the member for Johnston. In any case, he did get it wrong in so many ways, of course.
There have been some major changes here and, quite frankly, I will be honest, I do not consider myself to be a loser in the reshuffle at all. In fact, what I have picked are Corrections and Essential Services which are two enormous portfolios and ones I am sure will keep me very busy. So, quite to the contrary of what the member for Johnston said, I do not feel hung out to dry in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I am, in many ways, pleased the member for Port Darwin has the portfolio of Treasury back again. He is eminently qualified to represent the opposition in matters relating to Treasury. I am not bothered - and that goes on the record.
The member for Johnston also mentioned - I do not know; what did he say? - the people hovering around for preselection in Katherine. Well, that is the normal process. Anyone can put their hand up for preselection in any seat. I do not know why he has a particular vested interest in it, seeing he is not even going to be running at the next election. It would be really good to know who is and who is not, on that side of the House, intending to run for that election.
With 12 months out now, it is absolutely incumbent on the Chief Minister to unequivocally, completely and fully disclose to the people of the Northern Territory what they can expect from the people who are currently sitting as Labor MLAs in the Northern Territory. They need and deserve to know that because they are starting to form some judgments about the way things are occurring in the Northern Territory government. The opposition is no different from that; they are also forming judgments about us.
Contrary to what the member for Johnston asserted, the opposition is a strong, united team. We are all working in the same direction - and that direction is to defeat Labor at the 2012 election.
I do not know where your polling is coming from, member for Johnston, but I suspect you have probably cherry picked some of the words you used in describing the polling you have done. It is certainly an election to win. You have an enormous amount of work to do to win back the confidence of the people of the Northern Territory. They have, indeed, lost confidence in you. You have had your time. You are a lazy, worn-out government. You are bereft of any new ideas whatsoever.
In talking about being bereft of new ideas, one could not go through that debate without mentioning these ridiculous alcohol restrictions that have now come into play in Darwin. Here is the idea, and I remember it because I actually took the time and the effort a number of years ago to provide some feedback to the consultant who was looking at the plan that was going to be introduced into Katherine around alcohol restrictions.
At the time, the suggestion from the consultant was that there would be a reduction in hours, there would be IDs and all that sort of thing. As a police officer then, I said to the consultant it was not going to work. Surely, the proof is in the pudding. Those restrictions have not worked in Katherine and they most certainly have not worked in Tennant Creek. They have not worked in Alice Springs yet – before I go on, they have not worked in those places, and you can see that by the evidence. There are still drunks on the streets in all of those places. The rubbish is absolutely phenomenal. Thank goodness for blokes like Glen Hewitt, who is contracted to pick up the rubbish in Katherine, who does that work tirelessly to present the town in a reasonable fashion. That has all been caused by the drunks that this lazy, slack Labor government has imposed on us.
It is a policy that does not work. The assaults are increasing; and break-ins in commercial premises are increasing. I hear reports all across Darwin now of people at bottle shops being offered money to buy alcohol for them because they cannot get it themselves. I hear of people’s houses now being broken into and their back yard fridges being broken into for alcohol. They are the implications of this Labor government’s slack, lazy policies.
What did they do? They have a policy that does not work in Alice Springs, does not work in Katherine, so what did they do? Roll the policy into Darwin. The people of the Northern Territory have lost faith in this government because they have no new ideas. They do not know how to deal with these problems. They try to be all things to all people. They try the softly, softly - whatever it is called - jurisprudence approach of being careful with what they do, and it is doing no one any good. The policies do not work, the crime rate is rising; you can see that across the whole of the Northern Territory. That is why this Labor government does not deserve another term. If the people of the Northern Territory vote for Labor in 2012 and put them back into power for another four years, do you know what we are going to end up with? Four more years of the same stuff! Four more years of government with no ideas. Four more years of a lazy, tired government ...
Mr Giles: And we do not want it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: And we do not want it, and neither do the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that was not actually going to be entirely the subject of my adjournment debate tonight, but listening to the member for Johnston, it made me get to my feet to talk a little about it. This government is inept. In fact, every time it brings in some other policy, it plumbs the depths of ineptitude. I cannot believe it. To watch it is excruciatingly painful. There would not be a day goes by when someone in my electorate of Katherine says to me: ‘When are you going to get rid of these buggers? When are you going to get rid of them?’ Sadly, I have to say: ‘You have another 12 months to wait’.
Mr Giles: Unless Gerry Wood pulls a rabbit out of his hat.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, but that is not likely to happen. It is not likely that Gerry Wood would pull a rabbit out of his hat.
Tomorrow night in adjournment I am going to speak about what I intended to speak about tonight. In the meantime, the members opposite should consider their future as MLAs in the Northern Territory. Many of their seats are in jeopardy, without a shadow of a doubt. They are in jeopardy because the people of the Northern Territory are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Labor politicians here and across the country.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is quite fascinating that the release of today’s report from the federal Cabinet by FOI is now being known as the Johnson report. After the diatribe from the Leader of Government Business in the seat of Johnston, I find it highly amazing that on page 14 it spoke about lack of capacity to do the job. Clearly, Bungles is a representative of that lack of capacity to do the job. The seat of Johnston has the minister who controls SIHIP and Education, the two biggest failures represented in that report where they said they do not have the capacity to do it. He stands here and has a go at us because we stood here with fire in the belly and held them to account.
I can say the position this side of parliament sits on is we have that fire in our belly and we will hold them to account because they do not do the job. As the member for Fong Lim said earlier, it is all about money to them, but not about outcomes.
When you have Indigenous students last financial year achieving a school attendance outcome of over 80% at 15% of those kids, which includes urban and remote, that is failure. That is failure!
I question the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson - nice bloke, he wants us all to work together. That is all good. We all have good intentions. We try to do bipartisan things from time to time. However, surely there is a point in time where he has to look at that agreement with the Chief Minister and look at the term ‘maladministration’ and start to reflect what maladministration really is. When you only have 15% of kids turning up to school 80% of the time, surely that is maladministration. When you have had report after report, investigation after investigation into SIHIP - Auditor-General’s reports as well, now a $250 000 review from consultants in Sydney by the federal government, you have to ask: ‘What is maladministration?’.
I am happy to give him a dictionary, because I know what it is, and this is what it represents. However, more than just a definitive term of maladministration, and standing here casting political points, you have to look into the eyes of those kids who are not getting a future. You have to go back to the 2007 COAG report that talked of halving the gap in Indigenous Year 12 outcomes by 2020. When Year 5 kids are not going to school, it is not going to happen.
The government likes to portray the argument about the 27 years of CLP government. Well, they promised so much. Have a look at the age bracket of the kids who are going through now. The kids who are 10 years of age are performing better than the ones who are five and six years of age. The threes and fours are not even going to these mobile preschools they are wasting money on. Sure, it is a good idea but, if no one turns up, what is the point? You can see when you map the age groups to the kids, the kids who have been born in this lifespan of this Territory Labor government are performing worse than the kids who were born at the end of the CLP era. So, all your rubbish out the door!
Bungles over there, the member for Johnston, the minister for failure with SIHIP and Education, as reflected by the federal Cabinet’s Johnson report, can stand here and talk about us, but I can tell you, we are solid behind the Leader of the Opposition. We will fight to 25 August next year to win government and take it off - as the member for Fong Lim says - this moribund, defunct, mendicant Labor government.
All they do is put their hand out. $120m extra on average a year from GST received - where does it go? $100m at least on public servants every year, as we saw in that presentation, member for Araluen. That is where it goes; you are not getting money on the ground. Northern Australia development - you are a waste of space.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the point of me standing up tonight was to talk about something I find completely fabulous, the Desert Sports Foundation in Alice Springs as developed, managed and run by Murray Stewart, an Alderman on the Alice Springs Council.
Murray is a highly impressive person. He is passionate, he cares about our town, and he speaks on issues he is passionate about. He is not afraid to pull a punch, he is not afraid to talk about a controversial issue because he cares about the town. He saw a need and an opportunity several years ago to develop what is now known as the Desert Sports Foundation. He has driven it for quite some time. It really came into existence last year.
On Saturday night, my colleague, the member for Araluen, and I were in attendance at a function at the Gillen Club hosted by Alan Rowe, General Manager of the Gillen Club. At that function, there were a number of inductees to the Hall of Fame. I congratulate and thank those committee members, which includes Murray Stewart the Chair; Dave Douglas, the Deputy Chair; Susie Thompson, the Administrator; Liz Dashwood, the Administrator/Treasurer; and Andrea Sullivan, the Assistant Administrator. I also particularly thank Steve Menzies, sports reporter from the Centralian Advocate for the hard work he does in promoting the Desert Sports Foundation.
The minister for Sport, the member for Stuart, at the dinner called it the Desert Leadership Foundation. He was not quite sure where he was; he tried to be highly political and gave one of the worst speeches I have ever heard. It was not motivating at all. Everyone sat there cringing and making jokes about how bad he was.
That aside, I also thank the other committee members: Vanessa Stokes, who does the expo administration; Steve Brown; Alan Rowe; Kevin Rockemer who I work with for the RSL; Ian McAdam; Terry Houghton, who had a fantastic Alice Springs Cup Carnival; Brad Clarke; and Tara Everett. All those committee members deserve a huge amount of congratulations.
I congratulate and pay respect to people who were inducted into the Hall of Fame for the Desert Sports Foundation – for the member for Stuart, the Sports minister, who did not seem to know where he was on Saturday night.
John Bell was inducted for running. He made the Alice Springs May Day race his own. Quite a number of times he has made it his race - maybe even 26.
Geoff Curtis won the inaugural Finke Desert Race on a motorcycle and was three times winner of that event. The Finke Desert Race is a fantastic event in Alice Springs and great for tourism.
I am looking forward to more Chinese tourists coming to the race next year. There was a delegation this year and, hopefully, next year we can draw more.
Matthew Gadsby for athletics - a track and field superstar with a family who has a long heritage in sport.
Billy Hill for darts; quite a sharp shooter in darts.
Max Houghton for tennis; a person who gave three decades of service as an official in tennis at the local, national and international levels.
Lyle Kempster for baseball, could be considered what some might call the Donald Bradman of baseball. The baseball diamond in Central Australia is named after him and would
not be there without his efforts.
Hamish McDonald, a Paralympian, was a guest speaker on Saturday night. He is five times Paralympian in track and field, an Alice Springs fellow who is now living in Canberra.
Reg Preece for basketball; an active and tireless volunteer also with Pioneer Football Club and then basketball from 65, receiving life membership of the Alice Springs Basketball Association.
Christine Trefry for pistol shooting; a great performer at the highest level of pistol shooting.
David Yeaman as a netball official. He is an incredibly high performer playing squash, however, his main claim to fame is as a netball official at the local and national level.
I congratulate all those people.
It is important, especially for a local, regional town, to celebrate our successes and recognise those people, past and present, who have come to provide the formation of a culture within a community that is part of the fabric of our local society. We are a very high participating sporting community, whether as a participant or as a keen observer.
More importantly, I pass on my gratitude to the committee members, particularly Murray Stewart. Murray likes to ring you up and pester you, on an everyday basis, to drive you and help pursue your goals and his goals. This would not happen without him having the tenacity to achieve that. I know the committee members would agree he is a very tenacious man, and he strives for this. I just want to let Murray know, when he reads this Parliamentary Record, my heartfelt thanks and congratulations go out to all the effort he puts in, not just to sport and the Desert Sports Foundation - for the purposes of the Sports minister, Sports Foundation - but also for the Alice Springs community.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, I cannot proceed without at least making some response to the member for Johnston’s contribution to this parliament. He is a man who has studied; a learned gentleman who, I believe, has particular analytical skills he has applied in his profession and brought into this parliament. He has employed them for the practices of the dark art of wedge politics.
I make the observation that I was in this parliament - had not been here for very long - in 2001. I was sitting on the backbench over there as an observer of the proceedings, a member of the Country Liberals which was in power. I recall, at that time, the then Country Liberals were obsessed by the opposition and were constantly writing the script of the opposition and analysing, dissecting, laughing, discerning, and prophesying what was to come. That was the last era of the Country Liberals in government.
I suggest employing your sometimes impressive analytical skills on something that would be a benefit to the people and the families of the Northern Territory, rather than worrying about the opposition. You may be rewarded for that.
I take this time in this adjournment debate to pay my respects - and I am sure many members would join with me in this – to a lady I have held up as a hero ever since I was a kid - Nancy Wake.
Nancy Wake passed away on Sunday at the age of 98. She was born on 30 August 1912 and passed away in London on 7 August.
She was born in Wellington in New Zealand but, when she was two years of age, the family moved to Sydney. Not long after her father left and went back to New Zealand, and she was raised by her mother in Sydney. At 16 years of age, she left home and went off to work as a nurse. She was fortunate enough to receive a 200 inheritance from a relative, and she used that to go to London to explore the world, where she chose to train as a journalist.
She was given a posting in Paris, working for the Hearst newspapers in the 1930s as a foreign correspondent. During that time, she witnessed the rise of Nazism. She married a French industrialist in 1939, then war broke out and she stayed there. She then worked for the resistance as a courier. Her work was so effective it resulted in the saving of the lives of many Allied airmen who had crash landed, or had been shot down, in Europe. So effective was she as a courier that she was the most wanted person by the Gestapo. She had a price of two million francs on her head at that time. She evaded capture on many occasions. Her husband was captured in 1943. He was tortured, with the purpose of revealing the location of Nancy. He refused to do so. It was not until the end of the war that she learnt that her husband had been killed resisting the terrible attempts for him to reveal where Nancy was.
She escaped from Europe and managed to get to England during the war in 1943, where she trained then with the resistance and was parachuted back into France. She was involved in hand-to-hand combat - not just involved, but it is reported that she had to do what soldiers do. Seven thousand of them were parachuted into France and they took on the SS.
She was highly decorated. She is the most decorated Allied service woman of the whole war. She was awarded the George Medal, the Medal for Freedom, the Medal of Resistance, three times the French Medal for the Resistance fighters, and the Legion of Honour. She has been decorated by the United States. In later years, she received the Companion of the Order of Australia, and the New Zealand RSL’s greatest honour.
I was surprised to find a part of her history I did not know. I knew her war history. As a young person, I was fascinated, impressed and inspired by this person. I found out later she stood as a Liberal Party candidate in 1949. In fact, she stood twice against Dr Evatt, and on both occasions she did very well - they made gains - but was narrowly defeated on both occasions. She also ran in 1966 for the Liberal Party in the seat of Kingsford Smith, but was unsuccessful.
Her husband passed away in 1997. They were living in Australia and, shortly afterwards, she moved back to the United Kingdom. She developed a chest infection and passed away on Sunday. She has requested, and I think significantly, that her ashes be scattered in central France. So, God bless her.
Having a person such as that as an inspiration to many, leads me to say that in our education system, for our young people, we need to take the stories of heroes and present them to our young people - of those fellow citizens who have done extraordinary things, whether they be explorers, inventors, or people who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. We need to have these stories told to young people. It seems to happen less and less. There are the stories of people whose lives can inspire, and I hope there is the opportunity for teachers to tell the story of people such as Nancy Wake, and look around for heroes so we can have those role models for young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I join with fellow members of this Chamber and acknowledge the heroic contribution that Nancy Wake has made to the cause many were called in our nation to fight, that was well above and beyond the call of duty. I hope many are as inspired by her story, and I am pleased that many have now taken up her story. There have been movies, books which have been repeated many times - and one of those I read when I was about 12 years old. For any teachers who might be listening to this, I ask you to reach out for books on people who have stories that inspire, and read them to our young people because they do need hope and need to be inspired. Nancy Wake was No 1 amongst those in my books.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, what an interesting day in parliament. I have been totally intrigued by the goings on in the Chamber today. The Minister for Local Government talked about the working party for the Santa Teresa pool, and the need for Aboriginal people to be consulted. She, basically, admitted that over the last 10 years that is what was lacking.
There have been some wonderful admissions today, but what takes the cake is when the Minister for Child Protection presented parliament with the report from the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. He very proudly presented this document to parliament today. It is a 30-page report, itemising the progress of the committee and what it has been doing, amongst other things. This is truly a fascinating report which the member for Port Darwin alluded to earlier. Probably one of the most astounding things about this report is on page 25 where the committee has, effectively, compared Aboriginal people to cavemen. It is absolutely startling that the minister could table such a report with such a horrific and demeaning comparison made between our Indigenous Aboriginal people of Australia and the Iron Age people referred to in this document.
The whole thrust of the report was also very intriguing apart from this horrendous comparison. This committee was put together with some controversy. It came about as a recommendation from the Growing them strong, together report: Recommendation 136. It was an urgent recommendation stating that the Children’s Commissioner should be appointed as the external monitor of the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, which came about from the board of inquiry into child protection in 2010. When that report was first tabled, the government committed to implementing each and every one of those 147 recommendations.
However, a crack emerged when the government decided it was not going to give the powers to monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations to the Children’s Commissioner. They decided to set up this Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. This committee is made up of eight very distinguished, highly professional people in the area of child protection. We have no question about the credibility of the people on the committee.
This report contains no information at all about exactly how this committee intends to monitor, review, and report on how the government is travelling with the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. There is absolutely no information publicly made available, either in this report or any other report, as to how this group of people - supposedly independent – is going to assess and analyse and measure how the government is going about its business of reforming child protection. There are no measures in place. There is no mention of systems, of analysis, data collection - there is nothing of the like.
What we have in this 30-page, rather shameful document – and I might add, no author is included in this report, so we can only surmise it is a rather enthusiastic government advisor. I cannot imagine that anyone on the committee would be privy to the types of information included in this report. However, I stand to be informed as to exactly who the author is. If the minister is listening, perhaps he could provide us that information further down the track.
What we have is a host of different information which could only be provided by the government. Most of it is contained in the various reviews and inquiry reports we have all read. It is a re-hash of what we have seen before. It has been regurgitated to be placed in this report. The external monitoring and reporting committee has its own emblem which has been branded and put on the document. This document does not do anything to make me think this is an independent body at arm’s length from the government. It tells a story of how they met for the second time - they have met twice in the last 10 months.
This is not a vigorous committee in how it is going about its business; it is not active. It is inactive and is being stage-managed very carefully. It has met twice in the last 10 months since the board of inquiry released its recommendations. The first time, I presume, in Darwin for a day, and the second time in Alice Springs for two days. The committee was shipped down to Alice Springs and was briefed by various people, including the CEO of the department. The Minister for Central Australia was part of the briefing they received on the Youth Hub, an initiative of the Northern Territory government. They were then briefed on the Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council, on the Mobile Outreach Service, and given an expos of all government children’s services in Alice Springs, or a good range of them.
As we know, briefings are just that. Government briefings are a rather sanitised and manipulated version of what is happening on the ground. You would not hear the sad and bad stories from any briefing; it is all very good, very positive, very encouraging, very compassionate and understanding. That is the theme of this 30-page report of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. It is all very positive, sanitised, and it is completely and utterly deceptive. What we have is a committee that is costing the taxpayers of Australia much money, presumably. We have eight people being carted around the country, wined and dined, and exposed to all these wonderful government stories about how successful they are in reforming child protection and implementing the recommendations of the half a dozen reports that have been flung at them over the last 10 years.
We do not see any independent or truly impartial monitoring which we require. This government needs to have an independent watchdog look over its work when it comes to child protection. This government has failed again and again when it comes to child protection. What does it do? Just as it gagged the Ombudsman, it dismissed Recommendation 136 recommending the Children’s Commissioner should be the external monitor because they said he had a conflict of interest - he was too close to the work. In fact, the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, knew too much about what was going on, had gone on, and should go on. They did not want to be subjected to the impartial and strong criticisms and views Dr Bath would have had of their practice. The government did not want to be subjected to any form of objective measurement or analysis of how it is travelling. Instead, it set up this toothless tiger, this flimsy thing called an external monitoring and reporting committee - and it is an absolute disgrace. It is quite offensive that this is what the government parades around the Northern Territory as, supposedly, the external monitor of its efforts in child protection.
I would like to take the government to task and say that this is not good enough …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired member for Araluen, resume your seat.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I will address three things, if I can. First, I take the time to discuss a very enjoyable morning. Mr Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and Mr Terry Mills, the member for Blain, and I were invited by Ms Ann Brown to a gathering of a seniors group in Palmerston. Ann is a fantastic lady who regularly frequents my office. She has many ideas, and one of those ideas, from some time back, was to set up a croquet club. Some suggestions were put out and a little help was put forward to get some croquet sets. From there, she has built up quite a group of people who have wandered all over Australia playing croquet. They have many fascinating stories of their games played in different parts of the country, and how popular it is.
Ann was determined to get a croquet group going, and she has joined forces with Maggie Schoenfisch of the Alexandra Day Club and all the volunteers at the Gray Community Hall on a Wednesday, and came up with the idea of a Pollies and Senior Challenge. The three local MLAs of Palmerston - the great Palmerston district it is - took on a group of seniors. It was a fun morning had by all. No matter how old some people may have been, their feistiness was better than some of the members on this side. Their skills were great, but my desire to play competitively certainly came through, and Mr Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and I won against our senior’s team in a play-off hoop - right down to the literal wire. It was a fun game. We learnt many things. We learnt how to jump balls across other balls. Sometimes, our seniors really regretted teaching us some of their techniques and, at other times, we managed to drive them out of the way with brute force to protect the hoop. It was a really great morning.
The Alexandra Day Club supplied a morning tea for us all, and we sat out under the beautiful trees at the Gray Community Hall in Palmerston.
One of the things that was quite telling - and I spoke to some of the people at the time - was we had different people moving in and out and through the croquet games. You could say they were long-grassers or homeless people, but they took the time to stop, watch what we were doing, engaged enough in our game to watch us play our shot, before moving on and through. I found it was almost a touching moment on a couple of occasions where people came through, because we were out in the park playing a game of croquet and they, for a short time, engaged with us and enjoyed watching the game we were playing. It was one of those strange things in life. It was something I noticed, and we talked about. We all agreed it was really good to see people getting out, using our parks, and everyone around us seeing the benefit of having a great time.
Thanks again to Ann Brown. I look forward to the next challenge; I am sure you will have one for us. We will step up to the plate to see what we can do. I am sure we will not always be winners of the game, but winners in the fact we are actually out there using our facilities.
I will quickly touch on what some of the ministers and members from the other side have, in their ramblings today, talked about: what a great job they have done. I remind the Territory people that this Labor government we have had for 10 years has borne no greater cost upon this Territory other than its failure to plan a single thing. It keeps banging on about – and we heard it many times today – the developments that are happening in Palmerston. The reality is they are so far behind it has cost Territory families a lot – not in the monetary sense, but in the personal pain that is felt when you are at the markets, when you are going through the shopping centres, when you are listening to them at different functions and forums. They are feeling the stress because this government failed to plan.
I look back - only probably now two months ago - when the government released the great Zuccoli development. It was two years behind time; 220 lots of land behind time. At this point in time, on the Northern Territory government’s own timetable, it should have delivered 220 lots of land in Zuccoli. That is a shameful indictment on a government that has truly failed to plan, and it has hurt the families of the Territory people to the point where they are leaving the Territory.
We, from the Country Liberals, will be delivering real plans for a real future. The greater Darwin plan that was released last year has certainly shown there is a greater vision than can come from this Labor government - a plan that will take us well into the future, that gives the people of the Territory at least something to look forward to. Members such as the member for Daly have been really void of any knowledge. He is a vacant space.
I also make some quick mention of the great work of several of the Palmerston sporting clubs, and I would like to highlight it again. If it was not for the sporting clubs and the committees in Palmerston, the Palmerston sporting groups would not be getting the great deal they are now getting - mind you, under this Labor government. It was the diehard good business senses of the AFL clubs, the Rugby clubs, the soccer clubs, the tennis clubs, the netball clubs, that allowed a good deal to be struck with the government to ensure we get good facilities in Palmerston. Those clubs should be commended and should be the people who are rewarded for their hard work.
If we look at what the Labor government in 2008 promised in the election campaign, it was that they would deliver a group of sporting fields at the home of the Magpies and would, in fact, take one football oval away from the Magpies, give that to the soccer club, and tell the soccer club they would have to share with the Rugby club - and then will throw in some tennis.
That was Labor’s plan, to actually plan for fewer facilities than the Palmerston sports clubs already had. For that alone, this government should be condemned. However, the sporting clubs fought hard - fought against a vicious minister in the member for Karama - and came out with fantastic outcomes for the Palmerston people. It is not the government to be commended, but the Palmerston sporting clubs. They are the true heroes of the day out there. I look forward to them enjoying the rewards they have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been an interesting day. I look forward to tomorrow, because this team will not back down, and will ensure this Labor government is a gone government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for today be pursuant to Standing Order 90A.
Motion agreed to.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDERS
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of a change in administrative arrangements for the opposition as follows:
Terry Mills - Leader of the Opposition, shadow Chief Minister, Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Public and Affordable Housing, Major Projects and Economic Development,
Asian Relations and Trade, Defence Liaison.
That is for the information of the House. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Opposition Seating Arrangements
Opposition Seating Arrangements
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, in relation to changes in the opposition shadow ministries, I was advised about an hour ago that the opposition wish to change seating, which I have agreed to. This may have some issues in relation to Hansard because some people have louder or softer voices than the person who had previously used the chair. Over the next few hours we will be adjusting those things. We may need to get a sound consultant in to check that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): We place on the record, Madam Speaker, our thanks for your indulgence.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 28
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No 28 notifying assent to bills passed in the June sittings of the Assembly.
TABLED PAPER
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – Letter of Thanks
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Jamie Lowther Pinkerton Esq, MVO, MBE, Private Secretary to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales, from St James Palace thanking honourable members for the gift we gave for their royal wedding.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Anula Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Tracey Lewis and Mr Richard Lees. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 140)
Continued from 2 December 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset this will be one of the shorter debates on the legislative instruments that pass this House. This one will pass, I presume, unopposed. This is one of those dotting of the i’s, crossing of the t’s bills, which is part of the review of legislation which occurs from time to time in accordance with good housekeeping practices. This changes a raft of legislative instruments in small and technical ways, creating no substantive change to the law of the Northern Territory and, consequently, enjoys the support of the opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member for Port Darwin. I did try to make some effort. It was easier to go through the explanatory notes than the actual legislation. I have a question. I noticed this under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The explanatory notes say:
- Section 23(4)(b), definition of ‘official’, is amended by omitting ‘member of the Police Force of the Northern Territory’ and substituting ‘(a) a police officer (including the Commissioner of Police; or’ to reflect the current drafting style.
The issue I raise in relation to that is - and I have not had time to go through all these acts so I thought I would ask on the floor - did that mean any police officer originally? Does it mean any police officer because, originally, it said ‘member of the Police Force of the Northern Territory’? Now you are substituting ‘a police officer including the Commissioner of the Police’. Does that mean any police officer? Does it also reflect the discussion that was held about how the Commissioner of Police is categorised by the government? Is the Commissioner of Police a policeman or, by putting it in this terminology, does it ensure there is no doubt about his role?
There is also section 10(4) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which says:
- Section 10(4) is amended by omitting the whole subsection and substituting:
(4) The police officer for the time being in charge of a police prison is an officer for this Act’.
Do the words ‘the police officer’ mean any police officer in Australia? You have gone from using the terminology ‘member of the Police Force of the Northern Territory’ which, obviously, describes the police officer as being a member of the Northern Territory Police, to just the words ‘police officer’. I know I might sound technical, but does it leave it wide open for meaning any police officer in Australia? It is just another issue as well.
Another interesting area which made me laugh - and I am just trying to find it - it was under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. I know we were changing things because of gender bias and various matters, but it mentioned the definition of ‘sexual reassignment surgery’. I looked at that and thought to myself: ‘What the heck does that mean?’ I have been told what that is about, but I was not sure what that whole area was about, and whether that was important or not. There are many sections in this act that deal with gender. The words are not only current drafting style but are in relation to gender bias terminology. I did not know whether it had anything to do with that as well.
The issue of police is an area I thought needed some clarification, if the minister could come back to us with that.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support on, essentially, what is tidying up legislation, as the SLRs tend to be.
In the clarification sought by the member for Nelson, I am going to have to get back to him on that. I do not want to make a comment on my feet that could be wrongly interpreted. Obviously, Parliamentary Counsel introduce current and contemporary drafting practices in their updates. I am sure that is what is behind that. It may be, in current and contemporary drafting practices, that we recognise that there are members of the Australian Federal Police who operate in the Territory as well. So, to have a Northern Territory police descriptive in there would not be as encompassing as we could be.
The gender bias terminology does not have a direct link to the gender recognition you refer to in the other legislation.
I will have to get back to you on the contemporary drafting practices of the description of police. It is an area outside my direct administrative responsibility. As Attorney-General, I capture all contemporary drafting practices in statute law revisions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 139)
(Serial 139)
- Continued from 31 March 2011.
The problem members on this side of the House and I have is that one of those industries in particular has signalled quite clearly concern about this national framework which is being brought into this House. Once this legislative instrument is passed, it is my understanding this framework will then be used for future occupations. Yet, one of the first seven to be identified already is receiving resistance from various real estate institutes across the country.
I have been written to by five people: Mr Greg Troughton, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of South Australia; Quentin Kilian, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory; Tim McKibbin of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales; Mark Berry of the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania; and Michael Wellsmore of the Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory. I will table this letter shortly, Madam Speaker. It raises issues and, having contacted Mr Quentin Kilian through the Leader of the Opposition’s Office this morning, the e-mail he sent to me on 22 June remains current. That e-mail said:
- Attached is the letter first sent in April this year to both minister Lawrie and Terry Mills. I have received a response from the minister; however it does not address the issues we have raised.
In essence, there is a vast disparity in this country between different jurisdictions as to what the base requirement is for people operating in the industry. If government chooses to legislate for an industry, expecting certain standards to be met and to be followed, then that government should make certain those standards and benchmarks are capable of protecting the people those legislative instruments protect.
The first threshold question for any government is: do we move to create a legislative environment around a particular industry? In the case of the real estate industry, such legislative instruments exist here in the Northern Territory through several different legislative instruments, including the Residential Tenancies Act, Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, Stamp Duty Act, and Unit Titles Act, just to name a few.
The problem the real estate institutes have is that with this disparity of standard across the country, it is my understanding that in Queensland, which is not a signatory to this letter, the requirements for a person to call themselves a real estate agent are surprisingly low. The concern these other real estate institutes have is that such a jurisdiction becomes the benchmark by which other jurisdictions are met. If I understand it correctly, the real estate course in Queensland can be done quickly – it is a matter of days – whereas the real estate course in the Northern Territory, if you are doing it part-time, can take up to three years and, even if you do it full-time, it still takes well over a month.
Implementation for the seven initial occupational areas will occur in two phases, with the first tranche of occupations commencing in July 2012 and the second tranche joining the scheme from 1 July 2013. This staggered introduction is necessary to provide adequate time for the development of appropriate licensing policies for each occupational area.
Leave granted.
The concern I have is what the government, essentially, wants us to do in this House today is create the legislative instrument which enables it to go down the path of occupational licensing, whilst these other real estate institutes remain unhappy and unsatisfied with the scheme as it is currently proposed.
I prefer - and I am sure many members of this House would prefer - to leave this matter sitting on the Notice Paper until these issues are ironed out and we can be reassured that in the other areas such as refrigeration and plumbing, these matters have been ironed out to the satisfaction of the representative organisations in the Northern Territory.
What I do not want to see is a lowering of the standards required for real estate agents in the Northern Territory now we have gone down the path of legislating for their occupation to a standard which will be bad for consumers in the Northern Territory, and the purchasers of houses. These legislative instruments are what I expect people would see faith and trust in.
As a consequence of this, I ask government to leave this on the Notice Paper, do not force passage of this bill today, speak to the various industries so when I speak to those various industries I can be reassured they are happy with what government is proposing. Once it leaves this House, we will not get to speak to those industries or, more importantly, raise those issues in this House.
It would be reasonable, considering there is no requirement for this legislative instrument to be passed even this year - it could be done early next year and preparations can still be made for the first tranche in July 2012. I would prefer to see this matter remain on the Notice Paper.
There are other members who wish to speak to this, and I believe we should afford them an opportunity to do so. I encourage the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at the end of her contribution today, to move an adjournment of this bill so we can come back to it at a later date.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will speak briefly to this bill and seek points of clarification. The purpose of the bill is to accommodate national uniform legislation to harmonise licensing required to work in a number of occupations in the Territory. There are further occupations to be included in 2013, and I am curious to hear from the minister what some of those would be.
My first query is in relation to transport. I seek clarification that dangerous goods should not be included because they are already regulated. Asbestos is excluded because it is covered elsewhere. Given I am talking about asbestos, I am interested to know where the government is proposing to dispose of asbestos. I have written to the Minister for Lands and Planning seeking advice and clarification that the government is proposing to put an asbestos dump adjacent to the proposed gaol at Howard Springs. However, I digress.
It may be difficult to get amendments through, given it has been agreed nationally. However, I want to make a few points. In reality, licensing provides only an identification system - it is not a competency assessment or assurance system as inferred where it said it was providing appropriate protection for both the community in general and consumers.
It might be about government - or some would say big brother - knowing or better being able to control its citizens under whatever guise suits. Laws about licensing in the various jurisdictions already exist, and trying to get rid of barriers and make it easier is beneficial. I would like to know the detail.
Another comment is the fines are pretty steep for a first offence; albeit I realise it is focused on those carrying out the activities for money. However, you could have a situation where you help your neighbour fix their plumbing or lights and he gives you a thank you package. Yes, an offence, but $50 000 is a steep learning curve for someone trying to help a neighbour. Second offence, perhaps yes; however, if the regulator decides to be unreasonable in the first case, it seems to offer free rein to an unfair regulator or someone who is on a mission. I have no problem with the second offence being hit hard because they have not learnt from the first - or multiple offenders - but first offenders should be given a lesser penalty than the second.
The ability to demand requested information should be tempered by a right not to self-incriminate, and be relevant to licences or investigating alleged offences only.
The other issue that concerns me - and I seek clarification from the minister - is where it says if an authority fails to make a decision on a licence application within 120 days, it is deemed to be refused. I believe that is not very good, or acceptable. It also can get worse. If the internal appeal process is not given notice after 28 days, the original decision is deemed to be upheld. That means an authority can simply ignore an application for at least 148 days before the applicant has the right to take the matter to court for a decision, with all the costs that could possibly entail. That is, if the authority does not ask for additional information or, perhaps, seek intervention by some other means - possibly an Ombudsman. I seek clarification in that regard from the minister.
As my colleague, the member for Port Darwin said, I ask that the minister put this bill to the side and adjourn it for a later time until we get clarification on a few of these questions I and my colleague have raised.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I cannot see that too many people would have too much opposition to national uniform legislation to do with occupational licensing. It is something I imagine business would want. Australia has become a small place; people move between jurisdictions. Streamlining something like occupational licensing is - I think every person in this Chamber would agree - a good idea.
However, there are questions. The member for Port Darwin raised a few of those questions in his brief presentation, as did the member for Goyder. It is concerning that standards can slip. This is something that is concerning the Real Estate Institute, and something, I have to say, I have been concerned with for a long time, particularly in the area of real estate agency licences in the Northern Territory. The concern I have in relation to real estate agents is some of the investment advice real estate agents are giving.
For people who work in the financial services industry around Australia, there are some quite stringent regulatory requirements as to who can and who cannot operate, and the means by which they do operate. Over a long period of time in Australia, we have been reforming the financial service industry. Basically, anyone giving advice on securities needs to be licensed. There are some pretty rigorous requirements involved in attaining that licence. Then, to give advice, there are pretty stringent requirements in relation to knowing your client, understanding their risk profiles, understanding the type of advice they are giving in relation to areas such as negative gearing, risk and returns, and all of those type of issues.
The real estate industry is exempt from that legislation. I can understand the argument that when someone is purchasing a home those considerations might not be particularly relevant. However, when someone is purchasing investment property, those considerations become relevant: you need to understand the risk profile of your client; you need to understand what your client is trying to achieve through that investment. In that regard, real estate agents are definitely dealing in securities and should be licensed as such.
Time and time again, you see - certainly in the Northern Territory - the white shoe brigade coming up from the Gold Coast marketing real estate down there, giving all sorts of misleading advice. It seems we are powerless to stop it. If it was happening in the share market, listed property market, or other areas, the regulations would be in place to stop that type of carpetbagging of real estate interstate.
Madam Speaker, I have concerns about this. I am very interested to hear what the deputy leader has to say in regard to it. I am cognisant of what my colleagues, the members for Port Darwin and Goyder have said, and I am very keen to see this adjourned and debated at a later stage as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. I thank the government for its briefing. I have a series of questions which I would like to ask during the committee stage, because there are some questions that need to be answered by the government.
As the member for Fong Lim said, this is very important national legislation, although it is not actually Commonwealth legislation. My understanding is it is called national law, and it is then covered by each state. If you go through some of the explanatory statement, you will understand this is not legislation we are signing up to through the Commonwealth government. I must admit that I would not mind the minister explaining the concept. My understanding is it is the concept of so-called national law where states use the Victorian government’s legislation as the basis of their legislation to sign up to this particular national legislation. The explanatory statement says:
- To ensure a nationally consistent approach for occupational licensing, the national law does not permit the delegation of the licensing authority’s function for policy development.
Yet, you get this idea of a national law through this whole document. It is something I had not heard about before, so I am interested to know where this concept has come from, and whether it applies to anything else the Territory has put its name to. It will be interesting to see what the basis of this process is.
I believe it is good that the occupations people have to get a licence for a national standard. When you read the costs that are required for people to be either re-licensed in another state, or to upgrade their licence because the legislative requirements for that licence in another state are different, it costs the industry and the people who are going for those licences a considerable amount of money.
I also believe it makes sense, especially where people live and work on both sides of the border - and it would apply more so to Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia - to make it much easier for them to undertake their work without extra costs. Of course, there are dangers that this type of legislation cannot allow for the special requirements that apply to different parts of Australia for whatever reason. It could be simply because of the climate that some things that are required in the Northern Territory may not be required in southern Tasmania. My understanding from reading this is this has the ability for the Territory to change things where it sees it to be appropriate. As long the legislation has in it that the Territory has the power to change those things, I believe that is a guarantee we will not be necessarily locked into things that may not be suitable for the Northern Territory.
The other issue - and I will probably raise this more in the committee stage - is that with the possible arrival of INPEX to the Territory, there needs to be a quicker approach to what has been put forward. The government has said there will be two tranches for the introduction of certain occupations. The area of building will be in the second tranche. The date mentioned is 1 July 2013, although I see somewhere else that date is not exact. If INPEX is coming to Darwin and government is serious about making sure we are working under the best possible schemes, those issues could be sorted out for those people who are licensed in the building and construction industry before 2013. Theoretically, if INPEX makes a decision at the end of this year, one would expect by July 2013 they will be up and running. The government should look at that area.
There has been some discussion that, for me, popped out of the blue in relation to some issues - and I have not had a chance to really look at this matter from the various real estate institutes. There are five real estate institutes and, with seven states, there are a couple missing. I wonder whether all states agree with what is in that letter. The point is when I read through the explanatory notes - and I have to take on face value what I read here - there were discussions with many stakeholders, not only on one occasion, but quite a number. I would have thought that for any important legislation like this, the national body - I presume there is a national body of real estate agents - would be submitting their concerns to the people who were putting this consultation together.
Page 10 of the explanatory notes mentions consultation. It says there was a July session which was to provide preliminary information on the COAG decision of 3 July 2008 and to gain stakeholder feedback on aspects of the system. Stakeholders were invited to submit written comments on the proposed submission, and 15 submissions were received as a result of the consultations. In October, there was more feedback. It says the sessions were attended by 425 people and 55 written submissions were received. There were also workshops that were well supported with 215 participants in Adelaide, Melbourne and Adelaide again. They were also held in each capital city between 25 November and 8 December 2009.
It surprises me today to hear the Real Estate Institute has some issues with this particular legislation. I am not expecting the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales to write to me, but I would have thought our local Real Estate Institute would have written to the Independent saying they had some concerns. For me to get this letter now, and then be asked to make a comment on it is a little rich. I spent quite some time going through this legislation. I thought the guarantees in it would cover concerns if people thought the system which was being put forward was going to be detrimental to Northern Territory occupations, including the Real Estate Institute. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about this letter.
Can the minister gives us some guarantee that if there are going to be changes to what is required of people who need to get a licence, those changes would come back to this parliament if there are substantive changes? I understand the concern the member for Port Darwin has that if there are to be some changes we will not see them. I am interested to know what the minister has to say in relation to that.
This is not an easy bill to get through. I had a briefing on it, but the feel of the bill is that because it comes under this concept of a national law - there is a section called ‘Sufficient regard to the institute of parliament’:
- The institute of parliament is supreme, and the Northern Territory parliament will, ultimately, through debate of the bill, decide whether the proposed legislation will be passed to enable full implementation of the national occupations and licensing system.
It goes on to say:
- … the Northern Territory parliament will retain its ability to determine the law as it is to apply in the Northern Territory through its ability to scrutinise and if necessary, disallow the amending regulations.
I am interested to know if we can see that. Will that disappear into the ether of regulations as sometimes happens, or can we be guaranteed, if there are some amending regulations in relation to this bill, they will come before parliament to scrutinise? There is a danger when you say yes, we will scrutinise these regulations. Many regulations disappear to committees and never see the light of day. If there is a concern from the opposition that we will not have the ability to do that in a fully open and transparent way through the parliamentary debate, I am interested if the minister could guarantee these regulations - minor regulations might not have to; however, if they are substantial regulations - come back to this House.
I spent quite a bit of time going through this legislation; it is not easy. One of my concerns is as much as everyone likes to have everything uniform, Australia is not uniform. Its geography is not uniform, the people are not necessarily uniform, and the conditions in which people work are not uniform. If we do not have the ability to change legislation to suit our circumstances, that would needed fixing. My reading of the explanatory notes and the second reading is we have the ability to do that. However, I am interested to hear what the minister has to say.
I understand the opposition may have some concerns – this has come at the death. If the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory is concerned it was a big issue, I do not know why the Independents could not have been notified earlier because this legislation has been around a long time. This is the first time we have had a full parliamentary sittings since Alice Springs. It was introduced into parliament quite a long time ago and, only now, I am being asked whether I would support an adjournment. My feeling is no; however, I am willing to listen to what the minister has to say.
Madam Speaker, I have read the explanatory notes. I am comfortable with what is there. I would like to hear what the minister has to say in relation to some of the issues I have raised.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate today. This legislation has been sitting on the public books since November last year when it was introduced. At no stage during that period did the opposition come to the government with any concerns about the legislation and place them on the public record. I see this move by the member for Port Darwin today for what it is - a stunt. I will talk through the checks and balances in the process we have in place to ensure the interests of the consumer in the Territory, as well as the person undertaking their trade or profession in the Territory, is assured in the quality of the profession.
Bearing in mind this move to national consistency in trade qualifications is about reducing red tape, I listened intently to the member for Fong Lim, who is now back as shadow spokesperson for Business. You would have thought a party that lauds itself as the friend of business would understand the inherent advantages in having national consistency across its trades and professions in licensing. If we genuinely want to reduce red tape across our nation, and the mobility of that all-important trade workforce to be captured in the Territory, then you would be standing up and supporting the legislation here.
The member for Nelson was spot on in his understanding and grasping of the contextual nature of where we are in the Territory. We have a major project on the horizon in INPEX and the Total Ichthys field. If you want to be well placed to capture the mobility of that trade and professional workforce, you need to remove the regulatory and red tape barriers which currently exist there. That is what this national licensing scheme is all about.
Clearly, there are enactment dates in this which are approximately a year hence. The first tranche of professions and trades picked up get moved over to the national consistency on 1 July 2012. Why would you do that? Because, clearly, there is more work to do in the drafting of the regulations for the licensing, and more consultation, as well as a regulatory impact statement which will form the base of those consultations.
In process, oversighting these reforms are the Treasurers of our nation. It goes to the responsibility of the federal Financial Relations Ministerial Council, which I commonly refer to as the Treasurers’ Conference. This is not being oversighted at a low functional level, this comes back to the Treasurers of our nation, and it is about driving economic reforms which means we are a productive and competitive nation, where we capture the movement and mobility of workers in our nation without a great deal of disparate red tape barriers.
It truly is surprising and amazing to be in the Chamber today, where this legislation sat on the books since November of last year, and the party which lauds itself as the business-friendly party has been silent and comes in today with a stunt to try to adjourn this matter.
I will go the actual aspects of this legislation in my wrapping up. I look forward to any committee stage debate there is. I place on the record that there are two categories of trades within that first tranche which is due to come into effect on 1 July 2012, which will take a significant body of work and consultation in the Territory, before we get a landing point on where they should be. There was absolute silence from the opposition in the unlicensed category - the refrigeration mechanics out there who will be captured by this scheme. If you were on the ball and understood the impact on trades this scheme is having, you would have picked up the fact it is the refrigeration mechanics who are currently unlicensed in the Territory, who would be scoped into this first tranche from 1 July 2012.
There is a responsibility of government, and the government officers involved in these reforms, to get out on the ground between now and then and ensure we have a very clear view, for the refrigeration mechanics of the Territory who currently require a lower level of electrical trades experience and licensing, whether or not they are happy with where any proposed national licensing scheme would land.
I am happy to say, as the responsible Treasurer oversighting this legislation, I will not sign off on any regulatory scoping of an industry body unless there is acceptance by that industry body in the Territory of where they land; particularly the refrigeration mechanics, quite obviously, because they are currently not licensed in the Territory and they are proposed to be licensed under this scheme. If the fridgies in the Territory do not want to step up to that national licensing requirement then, as Treasurer, I will not scope them in and sign them in.
I get that we have particular needs in the Territory and I believe, with goodwill, understanding, and working through the licensing requirements and issues with the refrigeration mechanics out there, we could actually meet the licensing scheme. However, that work is yet to be done. I will absolutely guarantee to this Chamber that I will not sign off on any regulations scoping them in unless we have reached a landing point which is good for the trade and for the fridgies in the Northern Territory - bearing in mind and going back to the sense that this is about removing red tape and the inherent barriers across state and territory jurisdictions which prevent the easy flow and mobility of that all-important trades workforce.
The member for Nelson hit the nail on the head when he said if you are genuinely looking at major projects on the horizon, why would you not be supporting this national scheme of licensing, and actually try to facilitate the different tranches of it, bearing in mind some come into effect on 1 July 2012, and some come into effect on 1 July 2013. I guess it is whether you want to bury your head in the sand - which, essentially, is the argument of the opposition - and say it is all too hard, we will do nothing; or whether you set in place very clear scopes around a national scheme, then do the consultation on the regulations, which, as a matter of course, happens with legislation.
You bring the legislation in, it sets the parameters, it gives people certainty in the parameters, then you move forward with your regulations, your consultation on regulations, and then your regulations come into effect. We have set the certainty in the legislation and the parameters of the scheme; we are going to set the certainty of the timing of when different trades come into the scope of the scheme. The guarantee from the Territory Treasurer is we will not be forcing, for example, refrigeration mechanics into it unless they can accept and understand the national licensing and whether that meets our Territory requirements.
Regarding real estate, there is a genuine and live debate amongst the real estate agents of our nation as to what that licensing requirement should be. It is the case there are two jurisdictions which have very low entry requirement levels in their industry ...
Mr Elferink: That is right. And you want to make those low requirements transportable.
Ms LAWRIE: You had your turn. A little listening and you might start to understand this, John.
The training requirements proposed by both Queensland and Victoria would set minimal entry requirements for licensed real estate agents. That is not acceptable to me as the Treasurer of the Territory. We have a robust real estate industry here, with very good training and entry level requirements. I am very supportive of their concerns, and the concerns of other jurisdictions, about not having this licensing be a race to the bottom in qualifications, but an opportunity to raise those qualifications in, say, Queensland and Victoria, up to the norm experienced in other jurisdictions.
That is an ongoing debate which is not yet finalised. As I have given a commitment regarding refrigeration mechanics, who seem to be missing in action with the opposition, I will give this commitment: we will not diminish the licensing requirements for real estate agents in the Territory. I am not interested at all in diminishing the licensing requirements for our real estate agents in the Territory. We are satisfied their industry is robust. We are satisfied that holds the consumer in good stead. The member for Fong Lim talked about the impact on the consumer and the confidence the consumer wants to have in their real estate agents. This is not about a race to the bottom. This is about trying to move to national licensing standards whereby you reflect the one set of licensing requirements. You will know, whether a real estate agent enters into being a licensed real estate agent in Victoria or in the Northern Territory, that they meet the same robust set of standards.
I point out that I did receive a letter from Quentin Kilian in June. I responded to Quentin Kilian from the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, letting him know this matter was still in train; that the Northern Territory had not made a final decision on this. I pointed out - and this is germane to the debate in the Chamber in understanding just how spurious the arguments from the member for Port Darwin are - that under current law it is possible for applicants for registration to obtain their entry level requirements anywhere in Australia - in the jurisdiction that has the lowest level requirement. So, they can entry level into the lowest common denominator in our nation. Surely, inherently, that is an argument for trying to get to an acceptable standard of entry level requirements right around Australia? Under current law, it is possible for applicants for registration to obtain their entry level requirements in the jurisdiction that has the lowest level requirements.
In determining any future vote the Territory has on this - bearing in mind this is a vote at the Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations, the Treasurers of our nation - we will take into account the views of the profession. I have said there needs to be detailed consultation with the profession. That has started, but it is by no means finished. There have already been forums held in the Territory, and there will be more. The regulatory impact statement needs to be finalised as a part of those consultations. The regulatory impact statement will be finalised in September of this year. It will form the basis of the debate and engagement with industry sectors, professions, and trades regarding those licensing schemes.
In short, in this occupational licensing - the national uniform legislation - in the Territory context, there are two industries where we do not yet have a national landing point: the refrigeration mechanics, who are currently unlicensed in the Territory, who would propose to be licensed as of 1 July 2012 going forward; and second, the real estate agents, because there are varying degrees of entry-level requirements in their profession around the nation.
I have categorically said, on the Parliamentary Record, we will not sign both refrigeration mechanics and the Real Estate Institute into regulation until we have an agreed landing point in the Territory with those professions. I have no intention of participating in a race to the bottom of licensing skills and requirements in either of those.
The refrigeration mechanics are likely to come up in their requirements because they are currently unlicensed. However, the real estate agents are robust; they have good professionalism and training in the Territory. I am not interested in racing down to the bottom where Victoria and Queensland are currently. If we are not satisfied with the Territory’s position, in protecting our industries, we will use the disallowance provisions within this legislation and scope them out.
Picking up on a request from the member for Nelson, which is a legitimate issue he raises, if there are substantive changes in regulations - and substantive would be scoping the refrigeration mechanics out and significantly changing the licensing requirements for the real estate agents, how does this parliament see and debate that? My commitment is this government, once we have a landing point on those - bearing in mind we have six months of significant consultations once we have that regulatory impact statement in September. We should know by the end of the first quarter of next year at the latest where they have landed. We will have had the regulatory impact statement in September, the next round of consultations with the industries, and we should know by the end of first quarter next year where they are standing in relation to the Treasurers’ Conference and the detail coming back.
I will write to the opposition and the two Independents and advise them of consideration government is making in the final landing point on the regulation regarding both the refrigeration mechanics and the real estate agents because they are the two key areas for the Territory that do not naturally fit within where the licensing systems sit within the nation. Our fridgies are not licensed, and real estate agents have a good licensing requirement here which is not so good in Victoria and Queensland.
I will write to the opposition and the two Independents advising them of the proposed landing point on the regulations, prior to the regulations being enacted. I want to ensure we have a parliamentary sitting period in between my writing to the members of parliament and any proposed enactment date of the regulations, so there can be debate in this parliament, through motion or otherwise, of those regulations and where they are going to sit.
This is not about trying to hoodwink anyone. This is about saying let us reduce the red tape that currently sits out there amongst our trades in our nation, and make our workforce mobile so we can, in the Top End, draw in a skilled workforce to deal with the major projects. Also we can, in Central Australia, know that with a licensed tradie working in Alice Springs, going across those borders into South Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland - and vice versa - we have consistency about their qualifications and skill sets and the consumer, ultimately, is going to be the beneficiary. Employers will also be a beneficiary because they are able to more easily and aggressively capture the skills we need in the Territory. Listen to any employer group in the Territory; the biggest issue they have is a need for a skilled workforce - that is their No 1 issue.
Here we have a national licensing scheme that will make it easier for our Territory employers to hire qualified tradespeople from other Australian jurisdictions, and the opposition is saying: ‘Do not do it; put the drawbridge up and do not do it because the Real Estate Institute of the Territory has some issues’. I get it. I get the Real Estate Institute of the Territory has some issues. I have said on the Parliamentary Record we will work with them, we will see where that is. At the end of the day, I have no intention of diminishing the qualifications required to be a real estate agent in the Territory.
We get to decide, as a Territory, whether we use the disallowance and pull them out of the national scheme, or whether we are satisfied with where the qualifications land and keep them in the national scheme. We have the advantage of whether we want them in or out.
The national scheme will operate on a delegated agency model where the Ministerial Council and the National Occupation Licensing Authority determines the development, maintenance, and performance of licensing policy, while state and territory regulators will continue to provide administrative functions and retain responsibility for regulating licensing conduct. This will allow a sufficient degree of flexibility to deal with issues specific to the Territory.
Initially, this will cover seven economically important occupational areas introduced in two waves, commencing on 1 July 2012. The first tranche will include air-conditioning and refrigeration installers currently not licensed in the Territory who we want to see licensed, electrical, plumbing and gas fitting occupations, and property-related occupations such as real estate agents. Currently, consideration is also being given to staggering these commencement dates between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2012. For example, if it takes longer to deal with the issue around real estate agents licensing nationally they would become, I dare say, staggered into the later tranche. It does not take Einstein to work that out.
The building and building-related occupations - land transport, commercial passenger vehicles, dangerous goods drivers, maritime occupations and other property-related occupations such as conveyancers and valuers - will join the scheme from 1 July 2013.
The national law provides the general framework for the establishment of the scheme; it does not provide all the detail in relation to the licensing regime. That detail will be set out in the regulations. It is the regulations where the rubber hits the road. As I have said on the Parliamentary Record, if there is substantive change to the regulations I will write to the opposition and the Independent members prior to approving the regulations, ensuring there is a sitting period for a debate in this Chamber providing parliamentary scrutiny of where those regulations land. Obviously, if there is very little change, there is no need to go through that additional consultative process.
Our bill provides that the regulations will be subject to disallowance in the same way as any other regulations made under Territory legislation; that is, we are the masters of our own destiny in the Territory. We can determine, through disallowance, who is in and who is out. That is our call, quite reasonably, quite appropriately, as the Territory.
Further amendments to the national law should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and our disallowance powers in the Territory. That is why I am more than happy to give that commitment regarding any substantive change to regulations going to members of parliament prior to any approval and sign off by the government and the relevant minister, so there can be a parliamentary sitting for debate, scrutiny and consideration around it, if there are substantive changes.
As Treasurer, I am hopeful that with this process being run through the federal Financial Relations Ministerial Council - I know how robust that is - with a regulatory impact statement underpinning the next round of consultations from September onwards, there can be a degree of maturity taken towards this debate by our industry groups in the Territory. I have seen that maturity in the past, and I am quietly hopeful and confident they can be mature in how we debate where that licensing sits in relation to regulations. I have said - and will restate it - I am not interested in seeing the professionalism of real estate agents in the Territory diminished through a national licensing scheme. I will not sign up to that, and I am quite happy to say that on the Parliamentary Record. That is the third time I have said it in this debate.
In regard to the Territory in a functional sense, I have established a multi-agency implementation working group of senior officials from the Departments of the Chief Minister, Business and Employment, Justice, Lands and Planning, and Treasury to coordinate the implementation of the national licensing scheme. I will ensure we do not, holus-bolus, sign up to introducing any licensing for an occupation just by virtue of that occupation falling within the scope of the scheme. I will be paying attention to the detail of where those regulations land, and I will be insisting on full consultation with the Territory industry bodies right down to the level of, for example, we have to write to every refrigeration mechanic telling them what has been proposed because they are currently not licensed, and this would bring them into a licensing regime. The question is: are they up for it or not? I suspect they very well may be, and see the advantages to them of breaking down those jurisdictional barriers, removing the red tape, and being able to work proactively in drawing those all-important skill sets from other jurisdictions into the Territory at a time of traumatic and economic growth where we are seeing major projects on the horizon, and real advantages and opportunities in the growth of Central Australia as well.
I go back to where I started. This has been on the statute books since November of last year. The opposition members walked in here today and said: ‘Oh no, we have a problem. The Real Estate Institute has a problem with this, so pull it up, hold it up, pull up the horse, pull up the drawbridge, do nothing’. That is not the way a responsible opposition should go about its business. If you were genuine in any issues that any industry has, bring it forward, and let us have the discussion prior to the debate. This is a good scheme; it will reduce red tape and provide advantages to the Territory’s employers to attract skilled workforce into the Territory. That is the No 1 issue any small, medium size, or large business in the Territory will tell you they have.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to members and look forward to any further discussions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a few questions. They are not in any particular order, but they are relevant to what we have been discussing today. I gather we have licensing authorities already existing in the Northern Territory. Under the national scheme, will those authorities still exist or will they be replaced by a national authority?
Ms LAWRIE: The Territory authorities will still exist. Essentially, during the summing up, I tried to explain the national licensing scheme. It will operate on what we call a delegated agency model whereby the ministerial council and the licensing authority determine the policy, while the states and territories will continue to administer and enforce the licensing functions. The policy functions that will remain with the Territory include conduct requirements, consumer protection, public safety, consumer complaints and remedies, and appeal mechanisms. Essentially, those authorities remain in place.
Mr WOOD: Will they have a direct role to the licensing authority in relation to policies?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they will be providing advice through the National Licensing Board. The membership of the National Licensing Board is not yet established. We have a Territory representative on the short list. The final board decisions that will be voted on by Treasurers have not yet occurred.
Mr WOOD: The next question is related to property-related occupations. I might have asked this question during the briefing but we need to have it on record. What exactly are property-related occupations? There is no definition I can see within the bill. I was asked by landscape and irrigation people. They are property-related occupations. What is the range of property-related occupations that come within the scope of this act?
Ms LAWRIE: The property-related occupations are conveyancers and valuers.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the second reading speech, you say on page 1, the bottom paragraph - I hope it is the same as in the smaller versions of the speech:
- The National Licensing System will initially cover seven economically important occupational areas. These are: air-conditioning and refrigeration; building and building-related occupations; electrical; land transport; passenger vehicle drivers and dangerous goods only; maritime; property-related occupations; and plumbing and gas fitting. All these categories, with the exception of air-conditioning and refrigeration, are currently licensed in the Territory and will be part of the national approach. A future policy decision is to be taken on whether or not air-conditioning and refrigeration licences should be part of the national scheme.
I know you were referring to that a short while ago; however, on one hand it says the national licensing system will cover those seven but, at the end of that paragraph, you are saying that has not quite been decided. Is there an anomaly in what you say, or will it happen?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, they have been included in the scope of the scheme. What I have said is whether we will use our disallowance to scope them out in the Territory; I will make that decision based on consultations with the industry representative in the Territory. Currently, they are unlicensed in the Territory. It is proposed that they be included in the national licensing scheme, and that would be in the first tranche to come into effect on 1 July 2012.
My view, as the Treasurer in the Territory, is we need to consult locally with our affected refrigeration mechanics. I know they have some entry requirements now in an electrical certificate, but I want to hear directly from our refrigeration tradies in the Territory, especially to do with air-conditioning and refrigeration, as to whether they see themselves able to meet any national licensing requirements. If they cannot, I do not believe in pushing them into the national scheme; I would use the disallowance to scope them out. Currently, they are scoped in. We need to consult with them about where they sit and where those national licensing requirements would require them to have professional development improved. If they do not believe they could genuinely do that, I am happy to disallow them. I place that on the Parliamentary Record.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Just a clarification: do some of your plumbers and gas fitters do air-conditioning and refrigeration under their licences?
Ms LAWRIE: I would have to seek advice on that, but I do not believe so. It may be that they have multiple skill sets, and so they do that work as well because they have, I believe, an Electrical B Grade licence which you have to have if you are practising as a refrigeration and air-conditioning tradie.
It may be that some have done their plumbing or gas fitting trade requirements and have picked up an Electrical B as well, so they have scoped that into their business and what they are doing. That would be an individual’s business call as to whether they have picked up those additional skill sets and have added that to their business.
My understanding is that, in the main, the air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics in the Territory are specialists in those fields; they truly are air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics. I know one I am going to have to consult with very closely who does my air-conditioning.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, before you ask your next question, I will acknowledge our visitors in the public gallery. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Anula Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Kim Bond and Mr Jim Schofield. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr WOOD: Minister, in relation to licensing, if a licence is to be renewed every five years, will there be a requirement by the licensing authority to send out renewal notices and, if not, why?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised the local licensing authority will be required to send out renewal notices.
Mr WOOD: That is good because I remember when someone who had a gun licence was not notified his licence had run out. He missed the Arafura Games and was struggling with the national titles. I hope common sense applies, especially if you hold a licence for five years. There is a fair chance you might forget you had to renew it, so it is good. Is there a section in the act that actually says that, if it ever comes back?
Ms LAWRIE: There is not a section in the act that requires that. It would be one of the operational requirements of the licensing authority. It is on the Parliamentary Record that I am happy to ensure it. I was provided the advice that they would be issuing notification of licence renewal requirements so, operationally, it has already been captured. However, if you require anything further, I can give you a letter.
Mr WOOD: Minister, in relation to clause 19, Personal probity, which deals with criminal history, can you say what sort of criminal offences would stop you getting a licence?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised they are intended to be occupational specific. For example, if a real estate agent has a history of fraud, they would not be licensed.
Mr WOOD: If a person had been to gaol for a violent offence, it is not going to stop him being able to drive a truck when he gets out?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. Bearing in mind what you said, is there any chance that a person presently holding a licence, who may have had an occupational offence but is allowed to hold a licence presently, would be stopped from having a licence when he renewed his licence under the new scheme?
Ms LAWRIE: I advise you it is unlikely because many of the provisions that currently exist within the various licensing requirements will go into the national licensing requirements. If someone is not likely to be licensed under this new national scheme, they are not likely to be licensed under existing Territory law. However, there are appeal provisions.
Mr WOOD: I raised that question because I will be raising this matter in parliament later on. Without being too specific, there is a person who has had an occupation for umpteen years and had ‘an offence’. When reapplying for the position, even though he had that offence all this time, he was told he had an offence and they were reluctant to renew. That is a long story which I will raise in parliament later. I was concerned that the same issue this person has just had to go through might apply to someone who had an offence before and, when the new legislation came through, they might have been stopped from renewing. I know that might be a rarity, however, the person who came to see me on the weekend could say it was a rarity too, but it did actually happen.
I mentioned INPEX in relation to concerns about the second tranche. I presume many of the people who are going to work on INPEX are going to be people from the building industry. Is there any reason why the building industry occupations cannot be part of the first tranche, considering that would make it easier for people to have a national licence before work started?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised there are far more complex differences in the licensing in the trades in building industries across the jurisdictions, therefore it is going to be much more complex to achieve consistency across the jurisdictions for the building trades. I am advised that will require significant consultation with the particular trades within the industry. That is why they are targeted at 1 July 2013.
Depending how we go with the first tranche of consultations, there may be scope to bring some of those forward but, at this stage, I am advised there are highly complex differences across the jurisdictions that will require significant consultation; hence 1 July 2013. However, in relation to time frames, that is not highly problematic for the Territory in the expected uptake in construction.
Mr WOOD: My last question is something I mentioned during earlier debate: the concept of national law. I realise this is probably not necessarily specific to this legislation, but it is founded on this concept of national law. In fact, the heading is ‘Occupational Licensing National Law’. I am interested in where this concept comes from and how it varies from existing procedures where we try to normalise legislation between states.
Ms LAWRIE: The concept came from the view, essentially, of creating a national licensing scheme to regulate across trades and professions to ensure we are reducing differences across the states and territories that create the red tape and barriers to a more mobile national workforce. It is to capture the intent of our nation being a productive nation, of a mobile workforce with a common set of skills and entry-level requirements into their trades and professions. It is about the view that we are a productive nation, rather than a collection of somewhat disparate states and territories which happen to carve up the federal dollar, as best we can, of the nation’s revenue - bearing in mind the Commonwealth has the largest revenue capability once we gave income tax over in World War II. However, that is another debate.
It is to recognise we want national productivity, national consistency and an understanding there is a national benchmark in these trades and professions. No one is under any illusion; you have to get there in tranches, and you have to work through and consult at the base level.
South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have all taken the same approach on this. We are ensuring we have the disallowance and levers to pull that suit our particular circumstance within our jurisdictions. Clearly, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have similarities of strong economic jurisdictions with significant growth through the next five years. Deloitte Access Economics predict we are the strongest growing economies in the nation. However, we both have those pressures of the need for the skilled workforce so we want to ensure we are protecting our own skills base and also take advantage of the national scheme.
In relation to your question about whether I am aware of any others, no, this is it. It is about a nation of productivity; it is fitting in with what all Treasurers around our nation want to achieve through these industry-based reforms, which is a skilled and mobile workforce of Australians who can build our nation, bearing in mind there is going to be significant growth across the north of our nation, particularly the top end of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland.
Mr WOOD: I understand national law from a lower-case point of view; however, this is distinguished from being a Commonwealth law. This is a concept of a law and – am I correct? - is somehow attached to Victoria. Can you explain how this works in practice?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, Victoria is the host jurisdiction. That has been their role.
Mr WOOD: What hangs off that? Were you required to talk to Victoria for any reason in relation to this bill? It is new and I am not sure my understanding of it is clear.
Ms LAWRIE: We were required to talk to Victoria in regard to this legislation.
Mr WOOD: Why is Victoria mentioned at all? Why is it not simply an agreement to come together with laws in each state which are uniform or national? Why is Victorian mentioned?
Ms LAWRIE: It is quite common in major reforms across the jurisdictions to create a host jurisdiction. In this range of reforms it was Victoria.
Mr WOOD: It probably does not explain a lot. Perhaps I can get some references, in simple terms, as to how it actually works in practice. It is something I do not think I have come across before.
Ms LAWRIE: They draft it. It is actually quite common in national reforms. In the negotiations of the relevant ministerial council, health legislation reforms have done it, so have other major national reforms. In negotiations in ministerial councils, you choose a host jurisdiction. That host jurisdiction spends its time, effort, energy, and money in doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the drafting of the legislation. They then drive it through to the discussions of the ministerial council level. You do not get a resolution to all until all the jurisdictions are signed up and happy with the drafting.
We never put our hand up to be the host jurisdiction because it takes an intense amount of resources of the public service which is the host jurisdiction. We are a small jurisdiction; we let the large jurisdictions carry the host responsibility. As I have said, in this case, we come in and have a look at it. We have followed Western Australia and South Australia in putting in our disallowance provisions so we can pull our own levers, albeit we have taken the work of the host jurisdiction.
Mr WOOD: Thank you; that is a better explanation.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I say at the outset I have had no comfort at all from the minister in relation to this. Honourable members were told by the minister that we have suddenly manoeuvred to pull a political stunt at the last minute. The minister well knows we were advised this bill was going to be brought before the House as a matter of business late yesterday; that is, Sunday afternoon.
This matter has already been postponed once at the request of government because they were having problems with it in March. We, on this side of the House, acquiesced to that request. I invite members to look at the Parliamentary Record and you will see a short entry in March, I think it was in Alice Springs, where we allowed this matter to be postponed.
If you look at the last Notice Paper issued before today’s Notice Paper, you will see this particular bill had shuffled down the agenda items to about Item No 8. Whilst it is up to government to readjust the Notice Paper as they see fit, to readjust item No 8 up to Item No 2 on a Sunday afternoon looks less like an opposition stunt and more like government entrapment, because it is now trying to push through a bill which it knows it is having trouble with - at least in one area of industry.
The minister …
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question in all of this ramble?
Mr ELFERINK: I have 10 minutes to ask this question, and I will ask the question putting the case that needs to be put ...
Ms Lawrie: You will get there eventually. Weird conspiracies again, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is right. I am involved in a conspiracy, and that conspiracy involves five real estate institutes of this particular country, including the Northern Territory jurisdiction …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, this conspiracy, as she so names it, still has not seen those real estate institutes satisfied. This is a race to the bottom. Small wonder Queensland has not signed this letter which I tabled earlier; the reason being they get to run the two-day courses and then export their new real estate agents who have two-day courses under their belts. The minister’s answer is? ‘Trust us. Trust us and we will make this work’. The fact is I do not trust this government when it comes to these types of things. I have no qualms about saying I do not trust this government when it comes to these things, because this government has proven itself to be untrustworthy.
The government still has not satisfied the issue with the real estate institutes. It knew it had the problem in March; it still has not resolved it. As a consequence of that, it wants to now push this through after giving us less than 24 hours notice it was bringing this bill from No 8 to No 2 on the Notice Paper on the first day of parliamentary sittings. And we are the ones who are playing games? Not very likely!
The real estate institute remains unhappy. We heard the minister herself say this. Why the urgency, I ask? Why? Because this government knows it is not going to be able to satisfy the real estate institutes, I suspect, so it wants to push it through as quickly as possible. Then: ‘Oh, we will bring it back in later when the regulatory instruments have to be passed, you can wait. You have waited once, you can wait again’.
Madam Chair, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, unless government can resolve these issues with industry, then it is duty bound to sit on this for a little longer and finish the process it promised to undertake now, and then explain to this House before this legislative instrument is passed, that that can be done.
The Attorney-General said we are a business party: ‘I am really surprised the party that supports business would not support this’. We do support the concept; what we do not support is hasty legislation pushed through whilst industry is still complaining about it. She said it is going to be good for industry because we will get this high level of transportability of qualifications. No, it will not be good for industry if the qualifications that are being transported into this jurisdiction are substandard. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Madam Chair, I move that debate on this matter be adjourned to a later date.
Madam CHAIR: I will confer with the Clerk. You need to move to report progress so the Speaker can return.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, all right, I can do that. I move that …
Ms LAWRIE: Just a point of clarification from the Clerk on that. We report progress, we deal with the motion, then we go back into committee?
The CLERK: Yes, if it is negatived.
Ms LAWRIE: And the ability to put the motion a number of times?
The CLERK: Not by you. The motion is that the committee report progress.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I move that the committee report progress.
The committee divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
- Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Mr Giles Mr Hampton
Mrs Lambley Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Parap Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Gayle Cann, Miss Pauline Haeberer, and Ms Nicola Hanssen; and Casuarina Secondary College German exchange students accompanied by Ms Paula Simeone. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we continue the committee stage.
Bill agreed to without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am not going to divide the House again. We have made our point on this issue.
I am curious about the member for Nelson’s approach on this. The member for Nelson said he had not been contacted by the REINT and that was not a reason to postpone this legislative instrument.
There are good reasons to postpone this legislative instrument. One of those good reasons for the postponement of this legislative instrument - I am not talking about its defeat, merely its postponement – is so the member for Nelson could have become more informed than he was when he walked into this place. That is a good reason to postpone. For him to come into this place and say he has not been spoken to by the industry body, therefore, he is not interested and he is going to continue to allow for passage of this bill is not good form. For someone who prides themselves on knowing everything required for a legislative instrument, that is a surprising turnaround in the way the member for Nelson approaches these things: ‘They did not talk to me so I am not interested in the argument no matter how legitimate that argument may be’.
In relation to the government’s approach to this matter, we heard from the Attorney-General in relation to this and now it is basically: ‘Trust me. Trust me; I know what I am doing. Do not worry about it guys, I will get it sorted for you’. This is the same Attorney-General who said ‘trust me’ when it came to the liquor licensing legislation saying: ‘You must provide an ID, but when it comes to implementing it I will change my mind; it is just common sense’. It is not what the law says. This is the same Attorney-General who interfered in a court case and had a prosecution pulled against Red Rooster in Tennant Creek ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Do not lie.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the same Attorney-General who walked into this House and said: ‘By the way, I have not read that legislation. I have not read it but trust me; I know what I am doing’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! First, this is legislation under my portfolio responsibility as Treasurer – but you have missed that, member for Port Darwin. Second, the third reading debate is not to raise new matters. It is to deal with the matters that have already been dealt with. This is all a new, bizarre conspiracy from the member for Port Darwin.
Mr CONLAN: That is not a point of order, Madam Speaker! If the Attorney-General wants to make a personal explanation she can do so later.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Member for Port Darwin, can you contain your comments, bearing in mind …
Mr Conlan: For crying out loud! She gets up and makes a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Member for Port Darwin, remember what a third reading is, please.
Mr ELFERINK: I do, Madam Speaker. The point is this legislative instrument only needs to be adjourned. We do not disagree with the intent of what is being tried here, but when industry bodies are telling us they have problems with it we are saying please adjourn it. You have already adjourned it once because you have had problems with industry bodies; you could have continued to do so. Yet, the Attorney-General said: ‘Trust me, we are going to sort it out. We are going to force it through the House today; we are going to take it from No 8 on the last Notice Paper and push it up the agenda to No 2 so we can ram it through today’.
Then, the government is saying we are pulling a stunt! It is engaged in political entrapment in this House, ably assisted by the member for Nelson - ably assisted because his position is whatever you do, do not question government. The member for Nelson said: ‘I trust government; it makes all types of promises to me’. Where is the pool in Humpty Doo, member for Nelson? The government made promises to you before. The member for Nelson has to realise this government likes to sell him pups and he takes it every single time.
All this side of the House has asked for is to bring this back when industry groups have signed up to it. Industry groups have not signed up to it; it is that simple. For the Attorney-General to say ‘trust me’ when she has proven herself to be untrustworthy tells me again this government is pushing this through because it knows it will meet industry resistance. When it meets industry resistance, the last thing it wants is to come back into this House and debate this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is lucky we have the Darwin Festival at the moment because we now have a new act called ‘The life and times of the member for Port Darwin’. He has given a classical piece of theatre. He is saying to the minister: ‘Trust me’. I ask if I should trust him. He dumps this on my desk, apologises by saying: ‘I should have spoken …’
Mr Elferink: No, I did not apologise.
Mr WOOD: Let me speak, member for Port Darwin …
Mr Elferink: Then, do not put words in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: You said many things in the third reading speech which were putting words in my mouth. I am having my turn, member for Port Darwin. You seem to think you run this show. This is not your side of the parliament; it is our side of parliament. I do not have to agree with you all the time. I will put my …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, you like to bully me. That is your tactic; that is your game. That is the way you play it. You get up and …
Mr Elferink: I like to protect industry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: It is not about you; it is about Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: The member for Port Darwin said it is not about me. Did you just hear the very end of that conversation? It was about me ...
Mr Elferink: It is about Territorians and failure to protect them …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, he continually personally attacks me because he does not like the agreement. He goes on and on like a cracked record ...
Mr Elferink: They are lying to you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: He should move from cracked records to iPods; it might help him.
Madam Speaker, this issue has been around a long time, as I said. This issue has been there for industry to debate. This industry has had adequate time to talk to me about it. Just because a letter is dropped on my desk does not mean I say: ‘Oh, fine’. Imagine the precedent that sets for every bit of legislation that comes into this parliament.
The CEO of the Real Estate Institute knows me quite well. He discussed issues about conveyancing, and issues which were brought before this parliament in relation to the bill regarding how land is sold. I have met the gentleman a number of times. If this industry in the Northern Territory was concerned about this bill, you would have thought it would have brought it forward to me …
Mr Elferink: All hail you! Waffle, waffle, waffle.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr WOOD: Just because occasionally I say a few things which upset the member for Port Darwin, he gets touchy, touchy, touchy ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you are on a warning!
Mr WOOD: I looked at this bill, as I said, and I gave it due consideration. It was around - even in discussion form as they minister said – for a long time. It had its first reading in Alice Springs, so it is not something new.
I have received no other letters from any other occupations telling me they have concerns with this - until 10 seconds before this bill was introduced, I got a copy of this via the office. I had not seen it before. Then I am asked to comment on that, and am criticised for holding up this bill. What? Because someone has dropped this in front of me 10 seconds before the legislation is to be passed, I am expected to believe this is all true and accurate, without even being able to debate it? If someone wanted my support for a bill – anyone - you would think they would give me a few days. Give me a break! If you are serious about this issue ...
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t they give us a few days and tell us you were bringing this on? You told us last night.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WOOD: If the opposition was serious about this issue, even they would have given it to me more than 10 seconds before the bill was debated. No! I am not silly, either. I know the stunts and the playacting that goes on in this place. I have been around long enough to know the methodologies used: ‘We can cover up these tactics with sweet words and expensive language’. We can do all that type of thing but, if people are serious - and I am serious about the legislation which goes through this parliament - then people will come to me and the other Independent, in due time, in proper time, and say they have some concerns and I would take those up with the government; I would raise them in parliament.
The member for Port Darwin has a dig at me about supporting everything the government is doing. Well, where is the Public Service Commission Act? What about the issues on flooding at Pelly Road …
Mr Elferink: Tell them to bring it in the House.
Mr WOOD: No, no, no! Just because I do not fit the agenda of the member for Port Darwin, I am, somehow, the enemy ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will stick to the facts. The facts here are simply that I brought this legislation before the House as Treasurer. The member for Port Darwin is so confused he keeps referring to me in my responsibility as Attorney-General. I get that he is a very confused mind; we just saw that in his third reading response – an incredibly rambling and confused contribution from the weird member for Port Darwin.
The fact is this legislation is to introduce a national scheme to provide for the reduction of red tape for the mobility of workers in our nation, where we have a certainty around their trade and professional licensing so the Territory can benefit from the economic boom times we are starting to be in and will enjoy. It makes so much sense when you look at the context and movement of workers, particularly in Central Australia where Alice Springs is, essentially, the regional hub across the bottom end of Queensland, the top end of South Australia, and Western Australia. We have to put in place complex agreements all the time with other governments to manage the service delivery out of Central Australia, out of the hub of Alice Springs.
The national scheme around trade and professional licensing makes so much sense, particularly for the Territory around where we are placed geographically as a regional hub in Alice Springs, but we are also increasingly becoming a regional hub for the Top End of our great nation in relation to the top end of Western Australia, where we have the emergence of a major project on the horizon with the Ichthys field for INPEX and Total. If we can get to a point where we have national schemes and consistency across those trades and professions, it is absolutely in the Territory’s best interests.
It is interesting that many furphies get put into debate, and that the member for Port Darwin leads with his chin. He said he would table a letter. We are still waiting for that to be tabled. I look forward to …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was tabled during the debate and has been circulated.
Ms LAWRIE: We have checked with Table Office; they do not seem to have it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I table a letter showing that …
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot table that, you do not have the call. Resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is the tabled letter.
Madam SPEAKER: That is good. Resume your seat!
Ms LAWRIE: We look forward to getting a copy. During the debate, as I explained, the Territory will consult locally with the air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics. We will also consult with the Real Estate Institute. They are the two areas with the first tranche of the national licensing scheme due to come into effect on 1 July 2012. They are the two professions where we need more localised consultation. I did say I did not want to see a diminution of the skills sets amongst our professionals in the real estate industry. I recognise Victoria and Queensland have a lower entry-level requirement than we do, and we want to see a strengthened and enhanced situation across our nation, not a diminution.
My office contacted the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory during debate in the Chamber this morning. Interestingly, I have been advised that, when a representative of my office spoke to Quentin Kilian, the CEO of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory this morning, he said REINT supports the national licensing scheme. REINT and their national representatives are meeting in Canberra with government to provide their input into the drafting of regulations to support this national scheme ...
Mr Elferink: That is right.
Ms LAWRIE: That is appropriate. I will pick up on the interjection. The member for Port Darwin said ‘that is right’. If you had listened to his entire contribution during debate this morning, he was saying something entirely different. You are too tricky by half for your own good, member for Port Darwin. You have been discredited, you have been oopsed, and you have been sacked previously as the shadow Treasurer. You have been brought back because the shadow Treasurer, the member for Katherine, was sacked. It is a revolving chair for shadow Treasurers over there, because you do not understand productivity and the economic requirements of our nation, and you consistently get it wrong. Your nickname is ‘oops’ when it comes to the economic debate ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw the minister’s attention to that letter, and ask her who signed it. I wonder if Mr Kilian signed that letter.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Arafura and Blain
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Arafura and Blain
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Blain for the remainder of the day. It is signed by the two Whips.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Government
Proposed Censure of the Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure the NT government for its profound failures highlighted in the Johnson report into Indigenous expenditure and, further, that this House censures the NT government for failing Indigenous Territorians by pursuing policies that are based on race.
Those who are in glass houses! I find it deeply disturbing as a citizen, as a member of this parliament for 12 years, that those on the other side of this House can repeatedly take the high moral ground and be completely blind to that which is occurring around them, and not take one step towards accepting any responsibility.
I found today something that confirms even further why I have Indigenous Territorians speaking to me and to our members. We listen, and we have heard. I cannot believe government has not heard the deep concerns across the Territory and in the bush that you do not effectively care for Indigenous Territorians and you have demonstrated that by your actions. You have talked about money and responses that are, effectively, meaningless. You have consulted Indigenous Territorians to death, and they, as a result, recognise that you do not care. You care more for your ideology than you care for Indigenous Territorians.
That is demonstrated by your language in this Chamber, even today. To have a simple issue such as a swimming pool that does not contain water responded to in such a bizarre way is exactly the problem that is on every front. Every Territorian living in remote area has an expectation that a government would respond in a meaningful way to a real problem. Instead, we have something called – what? - a working group on swimming pools that are remote, which is the response to a pool that is empty. Why don’t you put water in the pool? If you have asked someone to do something, if you have given them some money to do that, and they have not done it, ensure they do it. That is an action, a response, that will be meaningful to those who are looking to us for leadership.
They looked to the Labor Party for leadership. They had an expectation which you fostered to your political advantage year after year in opposition. Now it has come home to roost. You do not care for Indigenous Territorians, and it is demonstrated by your failure to produce a meaningful response in education, health, law and order, and economic development in the bush. Some of you will smirk and sit in the proud castle of your own thinking - you are deluded. Go out and take a look. You have missed the mark and missed it seriously. There are lives at risk and lives have been lost because you have raised expectations and have failed to deliver.
We will go back to some of the history, and it is important because we are talking about a Labor Party that is not interested, it does not care. It confects care; it pretends to care. It speaks the language of feelings but has no interest in standards or in changing behaviour. It will respond with convoluted language, it will consult people, then consult again at colossal expense, and confuse people. People’s spirits fail them because of this Labor Party’s failed approach of generating real care and delivering on the expectations you have traded on politically, year after year. They are deserting you and for good reason: you do not care. The signs of this are clearly evident.
On the other side of this Chamber, on that proud day you came into parliament and thought this is a whole new era - it is not a new term; it was a whole new era. You had been milking this for all it is worth politically year after year, then you came to government. You were going to deliver on the expectations you had raised.
What were you more interested in under Clare Martin, the former Chief Minister? Making sure you secured and maintained your political advantage and used Indigenous affairs to your own political advantage. Evidence? There was growing disquiet; concern was generated by horrific reports through the Little Children are Sacred report. It gained national concern and anxiety. People across this nation were appalled at what they saw communicated into living rooms across this country. Who was in charge of this? Who was meant to respond to this? The great, caring Labor Party was to respond to this. How did it respond? It responded politically. What was its reaction? It was one of embarrassment. How did they manage this political situation? They managed it with a review: ‘We will manage it and we will get some people together and make a big play of this’. The government had a response which was a review. It conducted a review which kept the dogs at bay for a time. It stretched that as far as possible and we finally got the report – after many announcements waiting for this thing, managing the political process - but it sat on it and considered it. We waited and waited while the problems were beamed into people’s living rooms across the country - civilised people thinking: ‘My God, what is happening in our country?’ This great Labor Party we expected to respond and demonstrate care showed its greater interest was in managing the political process.
Then, Mal Brough weighed in and responded - he reacted. Yes, there were issues around that; however, there was a response just as you would lend help to someone in need. That was a response; there was some relief. It was then put into the hands of this Labor administration which, essentially, did not care.
The problem was that behind the scenes - they are very good at managing the appearance because that is most important to the Labor Party - they were trading very heavily and politically on the fact they had five Indigenous members. It had the member for Arafura; the member for Arnhem; the member for Stuart, Elliot McAdam; and Alison Anderson, the member for Macdonnell, a member of the Labor Party at that time. There were five of them: Arnhem, Arafura, Stuart, Macdonnell, and Barkly. They were all there and, behind the scenes, they were growing increasingly concerned about two things articulated very well by Matthew Bonson, the former member. What did he say? He said he was concerned.
This is what was happening behind the scenes. It was plain for all to see what was happening. It was horrific for those who were living out in the bush. The Labor Party does not care! In a memo from Matthew Bonson, he revealed what was going on. He revealed why the member for Macdonnell is now no longer a part of the Labor Party, because she has seen what you were really up to. We have seen the evidence in the bush: you do not actually care.
There are two issues that were the nub of the concern: ‘That we are not actively working towards addressing social disadvantage’ - this was in 2006. Here is the telling point, No 2: ‘If we do not respond it could have a detrimental effect at the next election. We must respond because politically it could be damaging’.
You have a driving responsibility. I am sure your party platform, or that which you believe in, requires you to make an actual move that makes a real difference. There must be a requirement within your own world view that you need to actually do something, not talk about issues. This memo was sent to Marion Scrymgour, Elliot McAdam - interestingly, I would rate Elliot McAdam as a conscientious objector who has walked away and turned his back on the Labor Party - Barbara McCarthy and Alison Anderson. She has walked away from the Labor Party because of what she had seen. There were copies of the memo sent to Syd Stirling and Paul Henderson, who was not the leader at the time.
There was an expectation that this issue would be attended to by the now leader of the Labor Party in the Territory parliament. There was an expectation: you have an obligation, you have a responsibility. You can fob off, at your peril, that which was reported nationally last night. It has been the commentary and concern expressed right across our nation. Yet, the Chief Minister said: ‘I have not had a look at that report yet’ ...
Mr Henderson: I have not seen it.
Mr MILLS: He has not seen it yet, but it has been communicated all around the country. Once again, there is deep shame - national shame - that falls at the feet of this Labor administration. It has let down the very people it has used for political advantage, but not served their interests in a genuine way.
I cannot believe, after 12 years in this parliament, I still hear talk of money as though it is an outcome. I cannot believe I have been to places where the Indigenous people, proud and quiet, have just had enough of being repeatedly consulted. They want someone to do something; say exactly what they mean and say it in a meaningful way. They are concerned about their children; they want to see a system that actually works. Those good, quiet people in the communities want to know that someone actually cares.
How would you demonstrate that? You would talk about all types of fluffery, all types of programs you would announce and do a media conference about, and issue glossy brochures of all types. In fact, what they are wanting is for you to do something meaningful for them; that is, for those good parents who do the right thing and send their kids to school in remote communities - and I believe that would be a hard thing to do - to back them up, to support them. If they do the right thing, back them up by penalising those who do not do the right thing. Send that money to the school to benefit those who do the right things and encourage others to do the right thing – stand up for the good people in the Indigenous community and show some leadership. Some people will not like that, but it is doing the right thing.
Set a clear standard and ensure when an Aboriginal community - and I have been out to Baniyala and I have seen what …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, there will be smirking and laughing because there is an ideology behind all this. Yes, it is all politics. What I saw there is not contained just within that community. It is a quiet aspiration being expressed across the Northern Territory. There are Indigenous communities wanting to take greater control over what happens in their schools. They want to work in genuine partnership. Yes, they are up in the islands, in Arnhem Land, in the Centre. There is any number of schools waiting for someone to provide genuine leadership.
The aspirations of parents should be supported in this situation, where the desire of Indigenous families is respected when they ask for something, and you actually work in a meaningful relationship. After all, parents have responsibility for the education of their children. They do not have a responsibility to the Education department; the Education department has a responsibility to support those parents. There are parents who have called out for help to work in a meaningful relationship so they can deliver a meaningful education for their kids. If you can scoff at this and explain it away, you are captive to the Education department and you are not serving the interests of families who want their kids to receive a quality education.
You may think this is a particularly difficult proposition, you may even think it is ridiculous. If you on the left have a view that no one is actually responsible, and just talk about nice stuff and things like money and programs, it has become ridiculous to the extreme. The language from the left of the Labor Party may appear to be nice, it may appear to be good. However, it hides a deadly poison. You do not care for Indigenous people because, if you did, you would speak the truth ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, what rubbish!
Mr MILLS: You would speak the truth and you would respond in a meaningful way Indigenous people could understand. If you think that is rubbish, you obviously are listening only to those around you - and that is a smaller and an increasingly reducing group.
There are people who want clear leadership from a government - a government that stands up and says what it means about what standards are required, and not fluff around and spend huge amounts of money that feeds a problem rather than sets a standard and reinforces the strength of a community.
As I said before, you will find this difficult, but I honestly believe the approach that has been taken, the duplicitous standards that have been set - the standards around Indigenous education in particular - and the aspirational goals that have been communicated but never enforced, with no meaningful policy response required of you - you can just keep saying the same thing – is a thin mask that is slipping away. It reveals that the heart of the left of Labor is racism. You do not actually deal with people on their true merit. You think of issues such as this in relation to politics. Even the communiqu from Matthew Bonson reveals that. That is after all these years. You can scoff all you like about this, but the reality is plain to see. The results and standards are plain to see; the evidence is there. You are still caught up in this idea - and I am sure we are going to hear a lot about money and convoluted programs that are, frankly, meaningless. You have been in power for a long time, and the results today are worse - truly, they are worse - today than they were when you came to office. They are worse now …
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: Yet, you hold on to this ridiculous notion that you have done something because you have spent ever-increasing amounts of money ...
Mr Henderson: That means that you are going to cut the budget?
Mr MILLS: This means there will be decisions made and we will take an entirely different approach. You are totally misguided if you believe it is the expenditure of money. It is not what they tell you here. It is not about the money. It is about the program and the quality of that program.
I have not heard you talk about how your policy frame has resulted in a problem and how you are going to fix it. You talk about the extra money, and reassure everyone there has been a fix. Okay, perhaps a policy response could be that there would be some kind of working group to address remote pools and, somehow, people can swim in them. The reality is we need to be very plain about this. If you are going to spend money, because you are responsible for spending money, make sure you get a result for it. Make sure the kids turn up, make sure you back up those good people who are doing the right thing. Do not feed confusion by consulting and thinking: ‘We are going to have to consult again’.
Madam Speaker, I honestly believe it has come to the end of the cycle for this Labor administration. I believe this Labor administration’s greater concern is its image and fixing its brand to try to have some desperate attempt - at taxpayers’ expense - to find out what they need to say and do, how they comb their hair, and what they make their letterheads look like so people will like them once again. The evidence is plain to see and, sadly, I honestly think you guys cannot see it. You are in a position where people are not listening to you anymore. You cannot see what is actually happening and you are going to now resort to - let me predict - saying that report was 18 months ago but, since then, everything has been fixed. This is a weird argument from the Labor Party if they say 18 months ago, they had this report, it has all been fixed, it is okay, and everything is on track. Money has been spent, working groups, reviews, etcetera.
You will then reach back into the past and you will start to defend yourself with ancient history, as though that somehow justifies the failure that is there for all to see. The whole nation can see your failure to deliver and to do what a serious and real government would do. Frankly, it has become embarrassing, members of the Labor Party. I know privately some of you care and are concerned. You will be embarrassed about this because the brand you represent has failed to deliver - simple as that. Some of you will grab hold of your ideology and think you will just muscle your way through this. You will not make it. While you hang onto it, the result will be a further damaging of the aspirations of those who are holding out for some hope; that is, our Indigenous Territorians.
You may think it is ridiculous. Laugh if you like, but they are looking elsewhere now for solutions. We have that responsibility because they have tasted and have seen poison from the Labor Party. You have not delivered. If you cannot read the words that are contained in that report and be embarrassed, we have a problem. It is over, effectively; you have lost the plot. You are going to hold onto this, battle your way through it, but you have lost it. You have missed it. People are not listening anymore.
Give it your best shot and defend this censure. You have, effectively, taken a position that has caused great damage. You have not delivered on the expectation. Your approach is effectively racist.
__________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of teachers and students of the Sanderson Middle School Night School Program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what a bizarre contribution from a man sitting opposite me, who would purport to be the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Once again, all we heard was his conspiracy theories and convoluted political theories about closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Did we hear anything about what a CLP government would do to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage? Nothing - an empty vessel. An empty vessel that can knock, complain, and trudge around in conspiracy theories, but with no policy agenda and no commitments to funding. In fact, the complete opposite. By saying we should not be spending this money because we are not getting the outcomes means these funding commitments we have made to the bush would be axed under a CLP government. If you follow the line of argument that we ‘are not getting any outcomes, why would you spend the money?’, you would not spend the money. You would cut the budget and that is what CLP governments have always done.
Let us go to this particular report. As I said, the first I knew of its existence was news reports last night. I will have a look at the report today. It is 18 months old. It is a report conducted by the department of Finance in Canberra that talked about education and housing as examples. In those 18 months, as I said in Question Time today, we have met or exceeded all the targets the federal government has set for the construction of new houses and the upgrade of existing houses. We have met or exceeded all the targets set.
In regard to education and health, under the new national partnership agreements we have met or exceeded all the targets we have signed up to because we have been given reward payments for meeting or exceeding those targets. I am getting the details coming through. This report is the history of 18 months ago looking backwards, not acknowledging the very significant gains achieved going forwards in the last 18 months.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about Aboriginal people in the bush not seeing anything happening. Wherever I go in the Northern Territory - and I travel regularly to bush communities - I have seen enormous improvements in housing, schools, health clinics, jobs being created, and infrastructure being built. To say nothing is happening out there and everything is going backwards belies what is happening in the bush.
Tell the 2000 families who have either a new or an upgraded home they have not benefited from SIHIP, with 324 new houses completed, 191 under way, and nearly 1600 upgraded across the Northern Territory. It is our government, with the Commonwealth government, that has committed funding to a $1.7bn national partnership agreement over 10 years to address the chronic shortfall of housing in remote communities - the most extensive funding commitment ever.
I follow up my colleague, the minister for Housing, by asking why the CLP hates this program so much. Why does it hate it so much when it is delivering thousands of new houses across the Northern Territory? Why does it hate people getting a new house? Why does it hate people getting an upgraded house? Why does it hate people getting jobs? I point out it is this government that has committed close to $140m to this program over the first five years.
The CLP cannot point to, in governments past, let alone in funding commitments into the future, that it would spend $1 on remote Indigenous housing. It certainly did not whilst in government. It went to the last election with not a single dollar funding commitment for new houses, yet has the audacity to criticise the government for shortfalls in a $1.7bn program.
I find it astounding that the opposition would criticise this program when it is not prepared to commit any funding going forward to new housing in remote communities and, for their 27 years in government, never built any houses because housing on remote Indigenous communities under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act was the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. It was totally hands off; it is all up to the Commonwealth government. The gall to come here with crocodile tears over this project is ridiculous.
As I have said, since that report was completed we have met or exceeded all the targets for delivering that housing. It is fantastic to get around the Northern Territory and see new subdivisions being delivered under this project.
Of course there will be trials, tribulations and challenges. The logistic effort required to build a new subdivision at Maningrida, or new housing at Ngukurr, with the supply chain, all the materials that are required, the challenges over the Wet Season - the enormous Wet Season we had last year – are enormous. If people are without a few cable ties, they cannot pop down to Bunnings and buy a bundle.
With the ongoing carping criticism and negativity around this program, the opposition is criticising Territory businesses. It is criticising very significant large and small Territory businesses that are very proud of what they are delivering in the bush. They are very proud of working to develop Indigenous jobs in the bush. I am not going to mention the names of those business people and opinion leaders in this community, but they are absolutely beside themselves with the ongoing criticism of their efforts in delivering this program with the challenges in the remotest parts of Australia. Anyway, if they want to continue to criticise their own - or their supposedly own - heartland regarding the construction industry and some very significant people who are part of delivering this program, well, they should hear what those people say to me about the ongoing criticism of this program.
Since that report was written, we have met or exceeded all of the targets for SIHIP. It is obvious the CLP hates that program. Goodness knows what would happen to the national partnership agreement if they got into government, because I am sure we would not see a continuation of investment of the likes of $140m from this government into new and upgraded houses in the bush.
I go to the pet topic of the Leader of the Opposition about failings in education. I will point out again - because the hypocrisy is astounding - their own policy document, Early Education for a Strong Future. Every practitioner in education understands that investment in the early childhood years is absolutely crucial in a child’s life journey through the education system. There has been a great lack of early childhood education facilities, infrastructure, and teachers in the bush for a whole range of funding and logistical reasons. Those are being attended to now by the Territory and the Commonwealth governments. We have mobile preschools, the Families as First Teachers program, and Commonwealth commitments as well.
Yet, in this CLP policy document - it proudly says policy – there is not one word about the challenges and commitment to improving early childhood education in the bush - not one word. The reason why there is not one word is because they would not commit $1 - not $1 - of the Territory budget to those initiatives. As my colleague, the Education minister said in Question Time today, where is your policy? Where are your funding commitments for additional teachers, teacher housing, and better facilities?
We know you campaigned against the National Broadband Network. Given you are opposed to the National Broadband Network, what is your solution to connecting those communities to broadband, and where are your funding commitments to that through what you would put together in a budget? It is just not good enough to sit there and criticise. As the supposed alternative government you have to put forward solutions. What we have seen so far is absolutely nothing in commitment to education.
As I said, we have established secondary education in remote communities. We have had over 150 students graduate with a Year 12 leaving certificate from remote communities, compared to the CLP, when in government, of none, zero - absolutely nothing at all. We have built secondary facilities in seven communities, and we have rolled out hundreds of additional teachers to support education.
The Leader of the Opposition complains it is all about funding. Well, how do you run a school without teachers? How do you give those kids access to the Internet without committing to funding with Telstra to run fibre-optic cable all the way from Darwin through Jabiru, up across all those Top End communities over to Nhulunbuy? It all requires funding. In education outcomes, I guarantee if Indigenous kids in remote communities attended school at the same rates as non-Indigenous kids, they would get the same outcome in education. I guarantee that - absolutely guarantee that - because Indigenous kids are just as smart as non-Indigenous kids, and the teachers we have out there in the bush are first-rate teachers. The schools are there, the teachers are there, the facilities are forever being upgraded, despite the campaigns against Commonwealth funding from those sitting opposite.
I give Indigenous parents an ironclad guarantee: you get your kids to school 90% of the time, on time every day, your kids will travel through their life journey of education and achieve to the same levels as kids in Darwin, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Sydney, or wherever else. I am absolutely confident that will occur. As we are seeing, with the 150 kids who have graduated with a Year 12 leaving certificate, that can be done.
The CLP and the Leader of the Opposition, talked about aspirations never being enforced. I point out that when the CLP was in government, those kids were never even tested, such was their level of commitment. More kids are being tested, there is more transparency in the system, and the reality of the deficiencies and outcomes is stark and for all to see. If you really want to get to the brutal truth about all of this, yes, we have been in government for 10 years or 11 years, but we have had to turn around two generations of neglect. There were two generations of Indigenous people who had no education beyond Year 7 - none at all. Over those 27 years, the average education outcome for Indigenous people in remote communities was a Year 3 education outcome ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true. You are not telling the truth.
Mr HENDERSON: That is the truth; those kids were never tested. The CLP did not care, and those kids were never tested, those results were never published, because it was absolutely out of sight, out of mind.
We have seen fabulous new schools. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the new school at Baniyala. I am advised by the Education minister and the member for Nhulunbuy they were out there to officially open that school this week. It is a very remote community with, previously, just a tin shed for education on one of the homelands out in northeast Arnhem Land. We spent $2m on a brand new school, two full-time teachers, with 30 students. That is the level of our commitment. I also opened the brand new school in Utopia, a fantastic facility for middle school and high school students. We have also opened seven new secondary schools across the Territory as well.
It is hard for kids to get an education if there is not a school there to start with. It is also hard for kids to get an education if you have a policy - an absolute policy - of not providing education beyond Year 7 level …
Mr Elferink: Not true!
Mr HENDERSON: A policy of not providing education in remote communities beyond a Year 7 level - that was the policy of previous CLP governments.
In regard to the national partnership agreement and the targets we have signed up to - post the report that is now 18 months old from the Commonwealth Department of Finance - we have received $3.4m of national reward payments for achieving literacy and numeracy first-year targets. This is a journey. You do not go from 40% to 100% in year one with the argument that, somehow, things are going backwards and not forwards. The National Productivity Commission is oversighting the national partnership agreements, the COAG reforms, and has given reward payments for all of the transparency targets of the NT government. I congratulate the minister and his department for succeeding in gaining $3.4m for achieving literacy and numeracy targets. The facts speak for themselves in this report and what it is commenting on.
Regarding the broader delivery for Indigenous people across the NT, and the ridiculous spin and assertion the Leader of the Opposition has put forward that, somehow, we do not care, I find that offensive, but I am not going to rise to the bait. I know this silly little political game he is trying to play.
Let us look at delivery of health services and health outcomes for Indigenous people across the Territory. We have opened new renal dialysis units in Alice Springs, Gap Road, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Palmerston, and remote areas - and this is not an exhaustive list; there are many more than this - Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Umbakumba, Galiwinku, and Maningrida.
I will never forget the images, because I was shadow Health minister at the time, when the previous Health minister, Stephen Dunham, who was the member for Drysdale at the time, was trying to defend the fact that the CLP was not prepared to commit to renal dialysis outside of Darwin or Alice Springs. I will never forget the Lateline episode where he was either very tired – I will not conjecture on what might have been happening - or under the weather, and he stated that if Aboriginal people did not want to travel to Alice Springs from Tennant Creek to access renal dialysis, then if they wandered off into the bush and died, that was their choice. I will never, ever forget that interview because it was defining in the attitudes that were dominant in the CLP government at the time …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: He said we had perfectly good facilities in Alice Springs and, if renal patients in Tennant Creek could not be bothered or did not want to go to Alice Springs, if they wandered off into the bush and died, that was their choice.
People who are on renal dialysis now across the Northern Territory live as long as renal dialysis patients across Australia. We have seen a massive increase in primary healthcare for remote areas with more doctors, nurses, and health workers in chronic disease, child and maternal health, health promotion, eyes and ears health. We have new remote health services at Milikapiti, Daly River, Yuendumu, Nguiu, Minjilang, Kalkarindji, and Maningrida. We have signed up to the national health agreements they said they would not sign up to - would not have signed up to the national health agreements that have shown $60m for brand new health clinics in six of our remote towns. That is six communities which would not have received a new health clinic because the opposition would not have signed the national health agreements. They pretend that, somehow, they are committed to Indigenous people in the bush. What an absolute crock!
If you look at health outcomes, there has been a four-and-a-half year improvement in life expectancy for Aboriginal women, from 65.2 years in 2000 to 69.8 years in 2006. I am sure that has improved since 2006. Indigenous infant mortality rates have fallen by 37% from 25 deaths per 1000 births in 2000 to 15.7 deaths per 1000 in 2006. Anaemia rates for Aboriginal children have fallen by 20%. There has been a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women, by 92% for Aboriginal women between 1991 and 2003. As I said before, patients on renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia; an improvement of seven years.
I know the ridiculous little political game the opposition is trying to play; I did not come down in the last shower. The facts speak for themselves. The facts are they would not have committed to the BER reforms that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars spent on remote schools. They would not have signed up to a health agreement that is seeing $60m in new health clinics across the Northern Territory. It is just an opposition that is leaderless, drifting, has no policies at all - certainly no policies about closing the gap on Indigenous people that are real policies with serious strategy behind them and funding commitments to drive them forward.
Let us look at the jobs outcome in the Northern Territory. Delivering a strong economy is not about profits for shareholders or bigger profits for companies; it is about jobs for people. Over the period 2005 to 2010, Indigenous employment has increased in the Northern Territory from 13 100 to 18 400. That is an extra 5300 Indigenous people employed across the Northern Territory because of the work my colleague did in the preparation for this year’s budget in securing additional funding for our shires - a $30m three-year jobs package to support an additional 5300 jobs in shires, with the Territory government contributing $25.2m.
These are real improved outcomes in education, in kids getting to Year 12; improved outcomes in achieving reward payments for achieving and exceeding literacy and numeracy targets in the bush for the first year; real outcomes in improved health service delivery and outcomes in Indigenous health; and real outcomes in jobs in the bush with 5300 Indigenous people sharing in the 22 000 jobs which have been grown across the Northern Territory.
I am happy to talk about other infrastructure. These are not mirages; these are funding commitments we have made through the last two budgets delivering our A Working Future policy. It is my understanding this Department of Finance report commends the Northern Territory government for its policy framework. Since that report was written, the policy framework has been underpinned by two budgets. Budget 2010-11 delivered $980m for infrastructure to support A Working Future in the bush.
I challenge those opposite. Go back through the budget papers for your 27 years in government; go back through the regional highlights papers of those budgets over 27 years and, proportionately, show me anywhere near that commitment ...
Mr Elferink: You will see schools being built, roads being built, health clinics being built, and you will see police stations being built ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: ... anywhere near that commitment - nearly $1bn for the bush. Show me anywhere near that. Other people are going to pop up in this debate. A few of you have only been here for one term, very few were here for the dying days of the previous government. Go back and show me anywhere near the commitment to infrastructure in the bush. There is absolutely nothing ...
Mr Elferink: I can show you more health clinics than you have built, more schools built, and I can show you more police stations than you have built.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: … to see in that commitment to the bush. Also budget papers now, in relation to transparency, break that budget down into the 20 towns so people in those towns can see firsthand the commitments that are being made. As well as through the A Working Future policy, my colleague, the minister for Indigenous Development, will speak next in the debate about the local implementation plans being rolled out across the Northern Territory; plans that have been worked through with the community, and jointly signed up to by the Territory and Commonwealth governments and the communities.
It is just a cute piece of political rhetoric. I know what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. He is too cute by half to try to state we are not delivering anything on the ground in remote communities. Nothing could be further from the truth. We still have a long way to go to close that gap and have equity of service delivery in these remote communities. Every day we are making progress.
I share with the Leader of the Opposition my commitment to education. I am certain that, by and large, we have first-rate schools in most of these places with first-rate infrastructure I believe you would be hard pressed to find in Queensland or Western Australia in very remote schools. We have great teachers there. While we have attendance rates of around 40% because Indigenous parents are not sending their kids to school we are going to struggle. If there was a simple solution to that, it would have been enacted. However, there are no simple solutions to that issue. We are working as hard as we can. It is great to hear from my colleague, the Education minister, about the compulsory conferencing that is taking place.
Another thing taking place is there are up to 80 - I stand corrected if I am wrong - kids who are not going to school where there is a definition of neglect under the income quarantining arrangements in place. Up to 80 additional families have been put on to significant income quarantining as their kids are not going to school on a daily basis.
I have been very clear tonight in demonstrating our commitment to the bush in transparency through our A Working Future budget papers and process. Our commitment has been absolutely highlighted by the National Productivity Commission which has assessed our expenditure on Indigenous programs - independently of the Territory government. We have had two assessments. The Auditor-General has been through this, and we now have the National Productivity Commission saying we spend 53% of our budget on delivering services to 33% of our population, and we actually spend more than we were allocated by the Grants Commission in delivering those services. You can see that across the Northern Territory.
Regarding the so-called shame the Leader of the Opposition was trying to whip up in comments about housing and education, since that report was concluded and reported almost 2000 families are now benefiting from new or improved housing under SIHIP. All of the targets that were set by the Commonwealth have been met or exceeded. In the education agreements through the national partnership agreements, we have achieved $3.4m for achieving those and exceeding those targets in year one.
The Leader of the Opposition came here with cute political games, trying to stir the possum, I suppose, on an issue all of us on this side are absolutely committed to in closing the gap on that Indigenous disadvantage. The fact that houses are being built, roads are being upgraded, new health clinics are being rolled out, schools have been upgraded, hundreds of new teachers are out there, 5000 new jobs have been created, and Indigenous health outcomes are improving belies the nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion this evening.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to work hard to improve service delivery to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We are committed to it, we are transparent about it, we have the policy framework to deliver it, and we have the funding commitment. All the CLP opposition has is hot air and crocodile tears.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion of the Chief Minister brought forward today.
I listened in Question Time today, particularly to the minister for Housing and Education, and to the Chief Minister just now. All he talked about was money - money going in, a little here and there being built. He does not actually talk about outcomes. He did not say anything about the suicide rate amongst Indigenous Territorians right now. Could not care less about the suicide rate of people in the Northern Territory - Aboriginal Territorians who are killing themselves every day because of the situation they find themselves in.
He did not talk about shires and how the shire reform has taken away the voice of Indigenous people in the bush. He did not talk about that at all. He has not spoken about the loss of voice, the erosion of self-determination, the stripping of assets and infrastructure of people who do roads around their communities. He did not mention that once.
On 1 June 2006, a piece of wise advice came forward to Labor, to this current government. It spoke about part of the problems in the Northern Territory with Indigenous affairs. That advice spelt out a problem with communication, with the results being achieved on the ground. That advice came in the form of a letter from the then member for Millner, Matthew Bonson. I will read it out. It was from Matthew Bonson to Marion Scrymgour, Elliot McAdam, Barb McCarthy, and Alison Anderson, and copied to Syd Stirling and Paul Henderson.
Just taking a second, this advice formed the basis for getting rid of the previous Chief Minister. It was advice trying to round up the Indigenous MLAs on the Labor side of government for an uprising to get rid of Clare Martin. It said:
- Re: Notes relating to Bulletin magazine articles.
I was interstate at the peak of the Mal Brough publicity generated over Indigenous issues. In the last two weeks, speaking with local community people and hearing general comment, I am concerned at the level of misunderstanding and even hate towards the Chief Minister …
I step aside for a second. I do not think anything has changed. I believe we are back in the same position or worse. It went on to say:
- It seems the opinion of supporters as well as non-supporters is the five Indigenous members are not speaking out on these issues.
I have to say I agree that they are not speaking up on these issues. It said:
- I refer you to the attached articles from the Bulletin magazine by Paul Toohey which highlights the general point of view of people I have spoken to. Please note the two paragraphs I have marked from the first article.
- The first article is concerning this government and the Chief Minister is a web only article. The second story about Bagot is published in the current issue of the magazine.
I am concerned about two issues: firstly, that we are actively working towards addressing social disadvantage and promoting this as a civic responsibility; secondly, if we fail to manage this aspect it could have a detrimental effect at the next election.
Well, it is going to happen again. It says:
I would suggest that although the Chief Minister has held the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, we as a group, as individuals and as a government, have grown politically and practically to a point. It is now time to consider Elliot McAdam or Marion Scrymgour as the minister for Indigenous Affairs. Our strength is we have five Indigenous elected members. I expect you understand the sensitivity of these concerns and this matter remains confidential.
Regards,
Matthew Bonson.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think they got the message. It is not about money that goes in; it is about outcomes. They are losing support, which is not of concern to me, but it is important that we get achievements for people in the bush.
I spoke about suicide rates. The government does not even talk about suicide rates. It talks about building schools. Let us talk about schools. Let us talk about the BER. I have photos of the schools in Maningrida, as an illustration of the BER projects. People around this Chamber who can see this or are watching the footage will see that this school building at Maningrida looks like some sort of Asian prison. How are we supposed to attract children to this school? That is not a derogatory reflection; that is exactly what it looks like. Why would you want to go to that school if you were a kid? I would not want to go there if it was work. It is a disgraceful looking building. Sure, it might work, it might be functional, but there would be no way I would want to go to that school at all. I can understand why kids at Maningrida might have reservations. I seek leave to table those photos.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is just one example of the inept approach. We have not even looked at how much the government sucked out in administering that construction project - the same way it bled SIHIP and continues to bleed SIHIP.
I listened quite intently to the minister for Housing when he answered some questions in Question Time, particularly on SIHIP. I am not going to preach about SIHIP all day. I will say he may either have been wrong or misleading - I am not sure either way. When he made reference to the houses at Wadeye - Senator Scullion raised this in the federal estimates, and I raised it in the Territory estimates - they were all rebuilds, not refurbishments. You need to look at how much money was actually spent on those and come clean on those figures. I know you will not, because you will see the embarrassment and the shame of the gouging you have taken out of that.
The Chief Minister talked about a $3.4m bonus received for achieving some targets. I would like to see how much the alliances have received in bonuses for achieving the targets the government set. I would like to see who signed off on them. Was it you, or did you delegate it down so you could have a hands-off approach on all of this?
Refurbishments are supposed to meet the standard that has been set in the Northern Territory. I would like to know why those standards are not being met in the bush. This is where the Leader of the Opposition is right; it is a two-speed policy: it is one thing for blacks and one thing for whites. Go out to Santa Teresa, where you are not allowed to get your house painted, you are not allowed to get your tiles painted, you cannot put cupboards in the kitchen, and you cannot have a little verandah that goes over the dirt so you can stop walking dirt in the house - the dirt that ends up making the kids there sick. You cannot do that. You do it in town, like in the town camps such as Hidden Valley, in the display houses. Sure, they look all right. They look good, because that is where the cameras can get to. Out in the bush there are no display homes. There is just rubbish. These are your electorates, bush members.
Matthew Bonson was right. This is why people are starting to hate you. It is time the Indigenous MLAs formed another uprising. Maybe they can get behind the member for Barkly, who is never in Barkly. The member for Johnston seems to have had his day; I think he might be leaving. There has to be someone else over there, someone who shares passion. You sit there quiet. They sit there quiet. At least, we speak up on this side of parliament - we care.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: We care. You talk about money that goes in, yet you are not talking about the outcomes you are supposed to achieve.
It seems the only way this government can actually house Indigenous people is by building gaols and putting them in gaols. We have nearly a 90% rate of prisoners in gaol who are Indigenous; 77% of them have been there before. Compare that with non-Indigenous. What is occurring is just disgraceful. Now, we have all these people becoming criminals because they drink alcohol. Rather than trying to rehabilitate people who have alcohol problems we are forcing them to become hardened criminals - unlike the CLP’s policy.
Back to education: it is interesting when you look at this year’s budget. The government talks about how it has achieved so much in education. It would be interesting to have a chat to the Children’s Commissioner and see what he thinks about education and school attendance rates. I understand that earlier this year he gave a presentation to a bunch of school practitioners where he said words to the effect of ‘school attendance is at an all-time low and it has never been that bad’. Going back to CLP years, it has never been that bad.
You only have to look at the budget. In Budget Paper No 3, 2011-12, have a look at primary education. This is where this government is racist - institutionalised racism where it accepts second best, which it targets for. It says in the last budget it targeted for non-Indigenous students in primary education to achieve an attendance rate of 100%. For Indigenous, it wanted Indigenous people to turn up, 80% of the time or more, at 33%. That was the target: 33%. The government expects 33% of Indigenous Territorians to turn up at school 80% of the time. Was this achieved? It should not be too hard, but no - 32%.
This year - hold the phone – the government has decided to notch it up a level. To appreciate the outcomes it is trying to achieve under COAG, it has now gone from 33% to 34%. Big increase! We have had an intervention in 2007 - only a four-month intervention by Mal Brough in the Howard years. It has all been Labor since. You like to call it Mal Brough’s intervention; it is all Labor’s intervention. We had four months. We did not even have it set up - four months. It is four years now of Labor. That is the reason the money has come in for dialysis, for housing, and for BER.
It is not from your doing! It is not because you have spoken up about anything. I do not think I have ever heard the members on the other side stand up and preach about the need for reform - apart from the member for Arafura who walked out and came back. At least she had the gumption to say something. I have not heard anyone else say anything. You just talk about: ‘This is how much we spent because we are told to by the feds’. You keep getting it wrong.
Look at the Johnson report, page 14:
- The capacity of the Northern Territory government is a particular concern ...
We have had that concern for a while. It went on to say:
- … as evidenced by its performance to date in housing and school domains.
However, it is not just primary education. You can go on. If you go to middle years education, this is where the failures are really reflective. Students attending middle years education is over 80% for non-Indigenous, 99%. Keep in mind, we are talking Territory-wide, not bush versus urban. The target for Indigenous students to attend over 80% of the time, in last year’s budget, was 21%. They targeted for 21% of Indigenous kids, including urban and remote, to attend school 80% of the time. To the media listening: 21%. What did they actually achieve? Did they achieve 21%? You would expect to get something like 60% or 70%, some real improvements. They got 15% of kids attending middle years education over 80% of the time – 15%. This year, they have tried to be bold; they have actually gone back to the same target as last year of 21%. They achieved 15% of middle years.
When they say things are changing, things are not changing. Have a look at the senior years. Senior years had a target of 31% and they got nearly 25%, so they have gone back to the same target of 31%. The 2007 COAG agreement, under the Closing the Gap Policy, talks about halving the Indigenous Year 12 gap by 2020. Well, let me tell you, if you count back from 2020, they are the kids who are in Year 5 now - and the Year 5 kids are not going to school. They are not achieving the outcomes.
So, it is failure. Education is appalling. You can build all the BER schools you want, but you are not achieving. You are not even getting the kids to school. When they are there, nothing is happening. You have achievement rates of 33% of kids who are turning up to school, then you have the performance of those kids at school only reaching 33%.
Let me explain that. Last year, you had 15% of Indigenous kids attend middle years education. Of those 15% of students who turned up, only 31% actually met the Year 9 writing benchmarks under NAPLAN. It is 31% of 15%; you are not anywhere near 100% - not anywhere near it. This needs fundamental reform.
There is talk about the second intervention in the Northern Territory. Let us look at what the Territory does; what it is fully responsible for. It is responsible for housing and education in the full. And they are the two things it gets wrong. I was at Ramingining a week-and-a-half ago expecting to see SIHIP houses being built and refurbished – not one. I was fortunate to see teacher housing being built in Ramingining ...
Mr Conlan: He is proud of that.
Mr GILES: He will be proud of it because it only costs $387 000 to build houses for teachers in Ramingining, including the land servicing costs.
I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: That is unlike the SIHIP houses which the minister claimed cost $450 000 but, in fact, is probably about $800 000 or $900 000 for a three-bedroom house. We do not know.
In Ramingining, the teachers get housing, but not the kids. I would love to have a teacher’s house myself, but we in this parliament are not beneficial enough to be living in teacher housing. None of us can live in it, just like Indigenous Territorians cannot live in teacher housing. We would all like to live in teacher housing but, instead, they have to live in places like this in Oenpelli, where families are forced to live in tents because they cannot get into the SIHIP houses because the work is not happening.
The Chief Minister said he is proud of SIHIP. If you like the old man and the old woman living in the tent at Oenpelli or Gunbalanya - well done. It would be good if they could have a teacher’s house, because teacher housing is so important.
I seek leave to table that, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: They are in a tent, Madam Speaker.
We heard today the minister for Education, standing next to the proudly-supporting-SIHIP Chief Minister, talking about the outcomes they have achieved. I draw your attention to this photograph of structure No 365 in Oenpelli. I was there quite some time ago around the Earth Alliance debacle by the minister for Education and the Chief Minister - another debacle by this government. As we know, the recently released Johnson report talked about the capacity of the Northern Territory government being a particular concern. This is illustrated here: House No 365 is this house here. Most people would believe this probably has not had SIHIP work done on it – but it has. You might like this, member for Nelson, you support the government. House No 365 actually has eight units in it. I am very keen to find out if that is counted eight times. I reckon it might be. This was only done 12 months ago. House 365 was the identifier, minister. I had a chat to the residents last time I was there, and again when I was there a week-and-a-half ago. So, 365 is the double counting that goes on.
I have seen plenty of SIHIP houses; I have seen some good things - they are very hard to find. I have seen plenty of failures such as at Santa Teresa where you cannot replace the tiles because the department of Housing says you are not allowed to paint the tiles. You cannot paint the rooms because they say you are not allowed to. The contractor gave the paint to the tenant, without Territory Housing knowing, because they would get into trouble and have financial implications on their contract - gave it to the tenant and said: ‘Can you paint it when the contractors and Territory Housing leave?’ So, they have painted it themselves. I hope I do not get anyone in trouble for painting their own house because SIHIP would not, even though it cost $75 000 for three floor tiles, a couple of fluoro lights and no paint.
I found another house whilst driving through Arnhem Land recently. It was not a political visit for media; just go out there and see what is happening and get some understanding and learning. I found this house in the middle of the day locked up. The SIHIP house getting a bit of work done on it, fence put on it. I thought, that is just emblematic of SIHIP. It just reminds me of the Northern Territory government’s maladministration and failures in SIHIP. I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: It is just a picture of a house. It has a bit of temporary fencing around it and clearly looks like there is going to be work done. Whether there has been $200 000 spent on this house or not - who knows? It is good for people to have an illustration of how SIHIP actually works. I am sure people will be interested in seeing that fence.
I support the Leader of the Opposition in his censure motion, as we all do on this side of the parliament. It is not about inputs, it is about outcomes. Kids are not going to school, people are homeless, Indigenous teenagers are committing suicide across the Territory as we have never seen before, and 75% of the child services issues in Little Children are Sacred and Bringing them Home are all Indigenous.
This government is failing. I expect the Indigenous members and the rural members on the other side not to play their political games, but stand up and show some guts! Stand up and come up with ideas about change. This is complete failure, and the Chief Minister should hang his head in shame. I believe the Chief Minister should pull out of it; he has done his dash in Indigenous affairs.
When you have a federal government Cabinet report - kept confidential except for FOI by Channel 7 - that says ‘the capacity of the Northern Territory government is of particular concern’, it illustrates to me they cannot do the job. They are running two different policies for Indigenous Territorians and non-Indigenous Territorians when it comes to education: institutionalised racism. Racism, at its heart, is driving your educational targets and your outcomes and that is an absolute disgrace. You have two standards for people living in bush and in town …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: There are no extensions in these debates.
Mr GILES: Two standards in bush and in town for Indigenous housing is just racist in itself. This report highlights how incompetent and how much of a failure you are. The racism at the heart of your policies ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words on this issue. It gives us an opportunity to talk about something about which I do not quite agree with the member for Braitling. Regardless of your political perspective or whether you think the government has failed, all of us know the state of affairs in the Northern Territory is pretty disappointing. Some on this side might argue the government is not doing well enough. Of course, the government will argue it is doing well enough. To be honest with you, in some of the areas I see, I do not believe the government is doing well enough. I have been out and about and seen some of the issues that face Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
I will still say to this day - and I cannot blame the Northern Territory government completely for this because it is a federal issue - that while we continue to have welfare as something that is just handed out, we will continue to have a situation in the Northern Territory which will never improve. Unless people have a job, there is no need to be educated. Unless people have a job, they do not see any future in living. I believe that is one of the major areas that has to change.
I am not the only one saying it. Galarrwuy Yunupingu was getting headlines in the paper this weekend about it. The member for Macdonnell has said it for a long time. I also know the Coordinator-General for Remote Services in all his reports – there are three reports issued by the Coordinator-General for Remote Services, Bob Beadman, and all those reports talked about welfare. This government has to start to talk to the federal government more seriously about the connect between welfare and the demise of many Aboriginal communities.
I had a chance to catch up with Ms Macklin, even though we had tried to get an appointment with her in Canberra. When I went to the Palmerston meeting, I had an opportunity. I went over and spoke to her for about 10 minutes. The first issue I raised was the issue of welfare. I believe, as Bob Beadman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, and the member for Macdonnell and others have said, time and time again, that has to change. Yet, there is no reaction from either governments in relation to doing something about it.
The issue of unemployment is no more highlighted than when you go out to communities - and we talk about SIHIP houses; the member for Braitling had a bit of a side swipe there, which is fair enough. The point is I have some major concerns and have raised those concerns over the last number of years in relation to the money that has been wasted.
Another issue I raised with Ms Macklin was about the refurbishments. I believe the refurbishments should be in the hands of the shires. In every community I visited recently on the Sandover and Plenty Highways – and I visited four Aboriginal communities in that area - each shire service manager said refurbishments should be a shire responsibility, for the reason they would get better value for money.
People would have seen a photo of a house at Maningrida that ended up on the front page of the NT News. That was my photo, which had to be censored because some of the graffiti on the front of it was atrocious. What we were trying to highlight was the fact that you are putting money into these houses and only half finishing them. That does not send a good message to the community that the Commonwealth is fair dinkum about upgrading the houses. If you spend $75 000 on a house, painting the inside, fixing up the kitchen, the shower, the laundry, and leave the outside of the house in a terrible state, it does not send out a good message.
Another area which I believe has failed - and the government has to come back to the people with - is the future of outstations. I thought it was about outstations, but during the Estimates Committee, when questioning the department, I said what do you call Nauiyu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Milikapiti, and Garden Point? They said: ‘Small towns’. So I asked: ‘What is their future?’ There appears to be no future in relation to new houses. There is a policy vacuum regarding the future of these communities. What I am worried about - and I talk here about Daly River, Nauiyu - is that since their local government was amalgamated into a larger council, there seems to be - and I add into this list - very few jobs. They have no belonging anymore because they have lost their local government council, and they have no future because there is no one saying whether that community will have any more new houses. It is one of the best communities in the Northern Territory.
I believe there have been two recent suicides. I never knew of suicides when I was there. I knew of many people who died because of the effects of alcohol, but now we have people committing suicide. I wonder whether it is because things have changed where people do not see a future. I know the government will say it is doing its job, and this was 18 months ago, but the reality is I do not believe things have changed that much. They might be trying their best, but the Johnson report is showing the best is not working, and there are far too many - I only have the executive summary, by the way, of the Johnson report. From what I read in there, I also see in Bob Beadman’s report many of the things that have been spoken about.
I have never been a great supporter of the large councils. However, the councils are as they are. I believe they are too large, and they should have been made smaller. The reality is they were never going to be financially sustainable without help, either by taking on responsibilities like agencies, or unless government supported them.
The classic example is the pool. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Santa Teresa pool. What you have is a case of something coming home to roost. Many of us in local government, when all this started off - No Pool, No School - knew that councils were a little blinded by the light when it came to having swimming pools in their community. They said: ‘Wow, that is great, terrific’. However, was there anyone getting up and stating how much it cost to run a pool, how much to maintain a pool? Many of the councils, when they first got their pools, had such small budgets they were taking money from essential services to keep the pools upgraded.
There was a time when the Nguiu or Bathurst Island pool was closed simply because they could not afford to fix it. You would be given this nice present by the government, but the other side of the equation was not being told. Therefore, what you see now is something government does have some responsibility for. They put forward the idea of No Pool, No School. I think the Commonwealth also invested money in the pools. However, were they really being up-front and truthful with those councils saying: ‘Do you know it is going to cost this much money? You are going to have to find that money to maintain that pool’. I do not think those ramifications of what was a good idea was mentioned to the councils. Both the Territory and Commonwealth governments need to address that situation because it is a great strain on the core functions of councils.
I also ask about education. It has been brought up here before - and I have spoken in parliament many times – regarding the poor figures for education in the Northern Territory. It is easy to criticise from a set of figures - I understand that. I am not, in any way, supporting the terrible situation in regard to education because even if you have a job, if you cannot read and write too well, you know you are always going to be on the bottom of the pile. Your chances of advancing yourself are going to be very slim.
Education is the key and, unfortunately, finding ways to get kids to school has always been difficult. I remember when the Council of Territory Cooperation visited Wadeye and the principal of the Catholic school said: ‘We send the school bus around to pick up the kids, and the mums throw stones at the bus because they do not want their kids to go to school’. The talk was that the reason they do not want their kids to go to school is because mums want to play cards and they want the older kids to babysit the babies. That is not exactly easy to fix. I looked at some of the recommendations of Bob Beadman. With regard to the recommendations in relation to this issue of school attendance, I will start on the one that we need to really look at. I will see if I can find the page. If all the measures that the government is putting forward to try to improve school attendance are not working, he says welfare payments should be suspended.
I believe there may have been a trial in relation to that. If it is the case that, year after year, things are not changing - and there are new penalties for not sending your kids to school. Well, there were penalties before that as well. In fact, Bob quotes the number of people who were actually charged with not sending their children to school. It is pretty small. I know since this report was done, there has been new legislation. Whether that is going to make a big difference, I do not know.
Bob is asking, if parents are not sending their kids to school, is it a case that, while we blame the government we are not blaming the parents? Whose responsibility is it to send their kids to school? If parents are not taking up their responsibility, are we just going to put it in the too-hard basket? Should we be looking at what Bob was saying; that we should suspend welfare payments for those parents who do not send their kids to school?
Part of what is missing here is also the culture of education. If the parents of the children have not been to school - and this is what I think was the case given to us at Wadeye - and their parents have not been to school, it is like unemployment: why bother going to school if your parents have not gone to school? You are still getting your welfare payment, so what is the problem? That is the culture they have learnt. They have learnt that going to school is not any big deal. That is a difficult culture to change.
There are many issues in relation to where we are going with Aboriginal education, employment, and growth towns. We could talk for ages on it. I still believe the government is not doing enough in promoting the idea that welfare needs to change.
The government needs to, as it has done with the cattle industry recently, publicly support those people in the Northern Territory and tell the federal government it has to change welfare payments in the Northern Territory. If you are going to have councils, they are the ideal place for employment - if those welfare payments could be given to the councils and topped up to a reasonable wage. We have to remember when you are paying $10 to $13 per kilogram for capsicums, it is hard to encourage people to eat fresh food or pay for it if their income is pretty low. The wages have to be reasonable and the councils have to have sufficient money to provide the equipment for that employment. At least you have a base and, with that, you hope people can make some decisions about moving to other jobs. At least people have jobs; at least people have pride.
Every community I visited along the Sandover and Plenty Highways, except Bonya, was in need of some major work. There was long grass, rubbish, houses that needed maintenance, footy ovals where even the behind posts were down on one side. I do not know what happened when they kicked to the left-hand side of the goal. No one bothered to pick them up; no one painted them. There is plenty of work out there for people. It is sad to see governments being too scared to make a decision about welfare when the legacy of that decision will be an ongoing reluctance by people to work, and will continue a culture of unemployment rather than employment.
The government can, in this debate, put much spin on things, and the opposition, rightly so, can criticise the government for its performance. This is such an important issue. It is wishful thinking, but it is one of those issues where it would be great to work together. Under the ‘we are doing better than you’ and the party system to some extent, people are not always willing to say things are crook, because it might not win them votes at the next election.
If the government is saying this report was 18 months ago and things have improved, I have not seen that improvement. The government had 12 months to show it is improving things. It is saying things have changed. The people of the Northern Territory will judge that; Aboriginal people in remote communities will make the decision as to whether it is spin or fact.
If numbers of kids going to school are rising, let us see them. If more people are employed and not sitting on welfare, let us see those figures. If we are getting better value for money from SIHIP – and the minister says there are many good houses out there; it is a great program. I have nothing against the new houses out there, but people come to my office fairly regularly saying there is wastage.
I have sent some of those matters to the Auditor-General to investigate. I have looked at the houses that have been refurbished, and I shake my head and ask: ‘Where is that money?’ Where has that $75 000 gone? Where is the employment? You hear the government – this is one of the worst spins – say there are outcomes for employment for Aboriginal people in SIHIP. Yet, we have received figures – and these are generalised figures - for one community which has had about 230 people employed on SIHIP, and only one of those people has lasted more than 26 weeks.
The federal government attended some awards down south and was congratulated on reaching the target of 30% employment. Did anyone ask what that 30% employment was made up of? Were they counting the 236 people who were employed, or did they count the one person who was employed for 26 weeks?
That is where it is sad that spin takes away from the facts. If we are to join together, we have to admit there are failures - and there are failures. We also have to admit the opposition clouds the criticism to make it sound worse than it is. However, it is not good. I looked through Department of Education figures every estimates, and I have not seen any great improvement. I have seen where the estimates figures were changed so very remote communities were removed from the figures for numeracy and literacy - you would be in for a rude shock – and it is not shown anymore. Maybe it was not shown because they were so bad.
Madam Speaker, this is an important debate. Perhaps it would have been good if the government, instead of waiting for the opposition to bring on a debate through this method, announced it was going to debate this issue. It would have given me more time to sit down and look at some of the facts and figures, instead of having half-an-hour this afternoon to try to put something together. It would be good if people are going to criticise the government, then they look at positive responses and alternatives. It is such an important issue, it just cannot be criticism, criticism and, on the other side, it cannot just be spin, spin. It does not get anywhere. We need to be working together to achieve some goals and change things.
I agree with some of what I read in the executive summary about too many agencies. There are too many government programs on the ground. When you look at the Northern Territory there are 200 000 people and 40% of them are Aboriginal. What is that? That is about 80 000 Aboriginal people. Why do we have so many people involved in helping people? I am sure there are not that many people involved in my life at Howard Springs. Have we just created an industry of bureaucracy that feeds on itself instead of achieving anything? This is highlighting that fact. That is really where we have to start. The summary mentions that. In the summary, it mentions starting to thin those numbers of programs so you can start to put the money exactly where it is needed to achieve things.
Madam Speaker, there is a long way to go. This government, if it reckons it is doing something right, has 12 months to prove it, otherwise people are going to make that judgment then.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I will touch on the final comments by the member for Nelson regarding the many agencies involved. I want to begin with this in response to what I absolutely disagree with in the censure motion.
Let me go back to what it is that Aboriginal people on the ground see. In the words of the CLC CEO, David Ross, sometimes, for Aboriginal people it is like watching many politicians come and go with different policies, different views, on how they wish to improve the lives of Indigenous people. However, the one fundamental thing that has been missing in the decades of policies for Indigenous people across this country - and not just here in the Northern Territory - is talking with Aboriginal people ...
Mr Tollner: Oh, rubbish! Oh, wake up!
Ms McCARTHY: … about the policies. This interjection …
Mr Tollner: They have been consulted to death. They want a bit of action.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: The interjection from the member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: They do not want more talk. Oh, you are pathetic!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms McCARTHY: … who calls these communities ‘hellholes’ - that is what the member for Fong Lim, who represents the party that never bothered about these communities ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: … hellholes the member for Fong Lim calls the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory. Let me refer to those comments. According to the member for Fong Lim, most of these communities are hellholes ...
Mr Tollner: They are! It is your policies that made them that way.
Ms McCARTHY: So much so, they will never invest in the regions of the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: The CLP has shown it in their history - the CLP policy of years. They have never, ever invested in these communities in a genuine attempt …
Mr Conlan: Who put the schools there?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: … for traditional owners working with country, working with culture. That is what this shameful opposition stands for ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister knows she is misleading the parliament. The world did not start in remote communities the day Labor was elected …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: It is just absolute arrant nonsense.
Ms McCARTHY: That is what happens when you put the facts on the table, Madam Speaker ...
Mr Tollner: Oh, you drop kick! You drop kick.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdrew that comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Ms McCARTHY: Hit a very raw nerve! Page 13 of the report says:
- A clear message from the recent past is that policies and programs must be targeted to local needs, in close engagement and active partnership with the people they are designed to assist.
Let me say to this House that that is exactly what we have been doing since November last year at the beginning of the signing of 13 of the 15 RSD sites across the Northern Territory. There are 29 remote service delivery sites across Australia; 15 are in the Northern Territory. What has the Northern Territory government and the federal government done to work with people on the ground? Let us have a look here. This is the engagement …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms McCARTHY: This is the engagement that has been lacking from the other side of the House in working with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. Let us have a look at these plans and documents the people in Ngukurr, Umbakumba, Angurugu, Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Ntaria, Yirrkala, Milingimbi …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms McCARTHY: … Lajamanu, Maningrida, Ntaria, Gapuwiyak …
Mr Tollner: You are gammon, sister.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She has pointed out there are two of those arrangements in Ntaria. Which one is the true one? You said Ntaria twice.
Ms McCARTHY: The point is, Madam Speaker, we are very conscious this has to be about working with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The one thing that has to be focused on here is the coordination of both the Northern Territory and federal governments, with the bureaucracies, with the system of governance that occurs in both the Northern Territory and the federal governments, to improve and work with Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
It is not a perfect model, but we have gone a long way to where we are now, with the SDCU under the leadership of Mathew Fagan, and with the agencies across the Northern Territory and federal parliament to improve the lives of Indigenous people - this report from February 2010, and these reports in November 2010.
As an Indigenous minister in the Northern Territory, I say to the people, not only in the agencies at the federal and Territory level, but all our people across the Northern Territory, keep this a living document - make sure the Northern Territory government does what it says it is going to do, and the federal government is going to do what it says.
I also say to the people of the Northern Territory: you do what you need to do to get your kids to school as well. These are genuine agreements to try to make a difference, so that all of us at the local government level, the Territory government level, the federal government level, and the people in these communities are vigilant about improving their own lives, as well as keeping governments accountable.
In regard to the local implementation plans across the Northern Territory, let us also have a look at what we have done under Treasury and the Treasurer, Delia Lawrie. We have invested a significant amount of funding. It is historic funding, unlike anything the Northern Territory has witnessed in these regions - close to $1bn investment across our regions - after decades of systemic neglect ...
Mr Giles: What are the outcomes? 15% school attendance!
Ms McCARTHY: These guys here call them hellholes. These guys over here are telling everyone to ‘leave your country and culture and forget who you are. Go elsewhere because where you come from are hellholes’. That is what the member for Fong Lim stands for …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling!
Ms McCARTHY: That is what the member for Braitling should be ashamed of.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the truth hurts.
Let us look at regional transport, bus trials, barge and airstrip upgrades. This government was committed to wanting to seal every single airstrip across the regions of the Northern Territory because we knew the health risks to people in the regions because they could not get out as there were no sealed airstrips in many communities when Labor came to power. We have focused on that. We still have a hell of a way to go, but we have made that commitment.
These guys on the other side would withdraw all that funding. They would withdraw any commitment to these regions. They would withdraw every piece of capital investment we are putting into the regions. We do that with the federal government. These guys over here rejected the BER program - rejected every single piece of investment in these regions in education. It is the Northern Territory Labor government that pushed for senior students to finish high school, to get high school certificates from Year 12 once we came into government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: These clowns on the other side never even considered Indigenous people come through schooling. Shame on you!
Members interjecting.
Ms McCARTHY: And you sit there and accuse us!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Braitling! Member for Greatorex!
Ms McCARTHY: There were major road upgrades under the close to $1bn Treasury funding announcement last year. More renal services and remote health clinic upgrades, and children and family centres. Let us have a look at that - I know we are going to come to that later on, when we come to the member for Araluen’s MPI.
The Labor government has a plan. Unless we improve the infrastructure, the facilities, for all our families across the region, we know it is extra difficult for the children growing up in these places. Do you think we do not care about those kids out there? We do care! That is why we are investing where it is required the most – in our schools and our families. We want to see these kids come through with a solid and genuine education, with genuine jobs at the end of it.
Our government has worked with the federal government this year to find 500 extra jobs in the local government sector alone. We have committed to the people of the Northern Territory that we will have three years of further funding to ensure our shires across the Northern Territory can fund those positions for people who require those jobs. That is the commitment of this Labor government to the rest of the regions of the Northern Territory, to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to all people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, this censure motion is an absolute disgrace. We are not failures. We are there for the people of the Northern Territory. We are there for the Indigenous people. We will not stop, and we will continue to improve the lives of Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind opposition members that the convention is two speakers from each side and also from the Independents. That is a bit strange.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That convention has been ignored by this House for some time …
Madam SPEAKER: By the opposition members; that is correct. I am just reminding you.
Mr ELFERINK: And accepted by government. I have told the government Whip that if they wanted to have two on two, it was very easy: the last speaker had to finish with putting the motion. Now, I did not hear that, so …
Dr Burns: Oh, go away!
Mr ELFERINK: I told your Whip. If your communication with your Whip is not up to speed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you will speak to me, not to other members.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it is our view in government that there has been a long-standing convention that with censure motions it is two and two, with the Independents. We do not agree with the opposition’s view that they will run through and waste government business time on this spurious matter.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Araluen has stood on this. I will allow you to speak. I indicate I would like the government and the opposition to sort this out for any further censure motions in this House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Speaking to that instruction, that was sorted out. I made our position clear. It is not tricky …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not sorted out.
Madam SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, it is two on two, member for Port Darwin. It needs to be sorted out and someone can talk to me at a later hour, thank you.
Mr Elferink: If your Whip was up to his job, it would be easier.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important motion. I have listened intently to the arguments put forward by the government defending the accusation it has failed to provide adequate policy and support for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
The member for Arafura said they care and I believe that - you do care; there is no doubt about it. However, caring does not equate to competence, which is where the government has failed. The government has not demonstrated competently it is able to govern by providing adequate care, support, and services for Aboriginal people throughout the Territory.
I was fascinated to hear the member for Arafura say in the beginning of her response that over the last decade or two …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you refer to the ‘member for Arafura’ by the correct name? It is a bit confusing for you, but it is the member for Arnhem not Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. It is the Minister for Local Government anyway.
Ms LAMBLEY: I beg your pardon?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the member for Arnhem but, in this case, it is the Minister for Local Government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am terribly sorry. I apologise profusely ...
Mr Conlan: They are rather hard to separate because they are both hopeless.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to pick up on the member for Greatorex referring to how the members for Arnhem and Arafura look the same. What does that mean?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. I did not hear it.
Mr Conlan: I said their incompetence is exactly the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, just calm down a bit.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I sincerely apologise. I should be au fait with the exact titles of everyone in the room. Member for Arnhem, please accept my apology.
I listened intently to the beginning of her response when she said over the last decade or two governments have failed to listen to …
Mr Conlan: The minister for trailer trash over here in the front row.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like you to withdraw that comment.
Mr CONLAN: I withdraw that.
Ms Lawrie: That is unbelievable. You are very low grade.
Mr Conlan: You are!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex referring to trailer trash in this House is disgusting. It is denigration of women of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, minister. The member has already withdrawn the comment. Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Arnhem mentioned in the first part of her speech she was aware governments over the last decade or two had failed to adequately listen to Aboriginal people. I found it amazing that the member for Arnhem, an Aboriginal woman herself, would admit to not listening to her people and attributing the failure of her government to the lack of intention or goodwill to listen to Aboriginal people. The portfolio of Local Government demonstrates that. The failure of the shires in the Northern Territory could be attributed to the fact that local people were not spoken with, not consulted, and their local power bases were stripped.
The reason I stand before you this afternoon is to talk about the most endemic and long-term failure of this government. It has consistently failed in the area of child protection. It has failed dismally for 10 years or more. Successive Cabinet ministers placed there to protect the children of the Northern Territory have failed.
At least 75% of children in the care and under the supervision of the Minister for Child Protection are Indigenous children. If you talk about a system failing 100% - systematically failing - you are talking about failure for Indigenous Australians through failure, cover-ups, negligence, maladministration and repetition of mistakes, impotence, poor leadership, and scandal after scandal after scandal. There is no better illustration of failure of this Henderson government than in child protection.
Here I go again. The list is alarming, horrific, but crystal clear in the community. This government has failed to recognise problems despite all manner of reports - the six or seven inquiries and reports that have been handed this government over the last 10 years with hundreds of recommendations in them. This government has failed to adequately respond to any of them. In failing to provide leadership, we have had a succession of ministers who have failed to lead the government out of this spiralling mess that is called child protection in the Northern Territory. Failing to implement the recommendations of the report and improve the services across the Territory has affected many Indigenous children. We have been witness to a system in meltdown; a child protection system that has been unable to respond.
In October last year, the board of inquiry into child protection, commissioned by the government, handed down its 147 recommendations. The board of inquiry described the system as an overwhelming failure. The inquiry’s three co-chairs said it was important to focus on systematic failures, not the many hard-working, thoughtful, dedicated people struggling to cope with limited resources in an environment characterised by extreme need. Their own inquiry had uncovered a:
- … ‘tsunami of need’ that could be addressed only by immediate action to deal with an overburdened system, preventative measures to deal with problems upstream and a dual response
system to helping vulnerable families …
The Growing them strong, together report is the latest in a stream of reports illustrating - demonstrating without a shadow of doubt - this government has failed; it cannot respond to child protection adequately, it has been given more than enough time. It is probably good that the election is coming up in 12 months time so, hopefully, another more equipped party can take over.
We had successive ministers, starting with the member for Nightcliff in 2001. The member for Arafura took over from her. In 2005, we had the member for Karama. She was then succeeded by member for Arafura, followed by the member for Arnhem, followed by the member for Casuarina as present Minister for Child Protection. All of these ministers were shuffled sideways, shot out the back door, with the latest minister, the member for Casuarina, holding the fort, so to speak, hopefully taking us through to a change in government in 12 months time.
The Little Children are Sacred report, which came out in 2006 during the time the member for Karama was the minister, included 97 recommendations. This was the cornerstone, the impetus, for the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Because we have had subsequent reports, and the board of inquiry report that came out last year, we have not heard what has come out of many of those recommendations - the implementation of those 97 recommendations pertaining to the sexual assault of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. We seem to have got lost in the administration and the burden this government has found itself under. The fact is more and more reports have been loaded on to the government, more and more recommendations burdening the system and further demonstrating the failure of this government to provide child protection services.
Following that in 2007, the Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit came out with 30 recommendations. What has happened to those, minister? We have not had any talk about those recommendations and your implementation of them. Those recommendations focused on the usual themes regarding the failures in the system, case management practices, risk assessment, case loads, case allocations, staffing, adherence to time frames, and generally responding appropriately to the requirements of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
Then we went on to the June 2009 Review Report of Northern Territory Families and Children Intake Services - 41 recommendations - under the leadership of the member for Arnhem. What has happened to those recommendations? More recommendations, trying to urge the government to improve their systems, to reform, to review, to do things better - nothing changed. They had opportunity, time and time again, they were nudged, they have been pushed, they have been thrown in a corner and beaten up by these reports, and nothing has seemed to improve.
Sadly, in June 2009, were three coronial investigations relating to the deaths of children known to the Department of Children and Families. This probably was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people when - and dare I use Deborah Melville as an example, but in honour of that poor girl dying, her death signified that things were really at the lowest point they could possibly get to. This poor girl, weeks from her 13th birthday, was left to die under a tree. This girl had been in the care and protection of the minister for the Department of Children and Families from 2000 to 2007. The last seven years of her life, she depended on the Department of Children and Families, the department responsible for child protection, to look after her, to provide her with what every child needs: care, education, and health. This little girl ‘died appallingly and needlessly’, quoting the Territory Coroner, Greg Cavanagh, in his report he tabled in January 2010.
At the time of her death, as I said, she was in the care of the Minister for Children and Families. She was placed with family, her aunt, who failed to provide her with adequate care. At the end of the day, the Coroner came to the conclusion the inquest had heard considerable evidence about the serious deficiencies and systematic and individual failures of the department. It was the department that was responsible for this little girl’s death because of its failure to monitor the case, to monitor the safety and wellbeing of Deborah Melville, to provide adequate reviews required in the act at the time, the Welfare Act, and failing to visit and properly assess what was going on in that family.
What have we learnt since Deborah Melville died? On the surface it does not appear that we have learnt much at all. Children are still in the care and protection of the minister, the CEO of the Department of Children and Families, and they are still not getting the care they need. We hear on the media and off the record there are still very serious problems in the out-of-home care system, and we are still hearing the department is breaching the laws by which it is commissioned to abide.
Deborah Melville, the case that was documented so clearly on the Four Corners program, Dangerous Territory, last year, was horrific. It showcased the failure of this government in child protection. It was a documentary that talked about not only Deborah Melville’s death, but also the death of an infant who was also well known to the department. So, when you talk about failures for children in the Northern Territory, Indigenous children, and the inability of this government to respond adequately to the needs of Indigenous children, you cannot go past child protection. In the Johnson report, it said that the Commonwealth spending of $3.5bn annually over many years on Indigenous-specific programs has yielded dismally poor returns to date and, too often, the outcomes have been disappointing at best and appalling at worst. The same could be said for the Northern Territory government in the Indigenous programs it has been offering the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
In 2002, we were in a state of denial, and we have heard the government try to shirk responsibility for that. That came soon after it came to government. Let’s face it: the government has been given 10 years to reform, to pull up its socks and look at other states and territories in Australia that have been able to successfully reform child protection systems. It has been given a great deal of support from professional people throughout Australia on how it might proceed. The 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report from October 2010 went through in a very detailed manner how this government can move forward. That was 10 months ago. We are hearing very glowing reports of how things are progressing in reform within the child protection system, but in reality we know it is not doing quite as well as we believe.
We have had the government trying to kill off any public criticism of its performance regarding child protection. The Ombudsman, who has a rather long relationship in bringing the government to account in its child protection record, was gagged. She was stripped of her child protection responsibilities and, basically, told to focus on other areas. The Ombudsman is an important person in our community, who has held the government to account over child protection. She has been very up-front, very courageous in her public analysis of aspects of the child protection system. In February 2010, she labelled an official inquiry into child protection ‘a facade’ and accused the Henderson government of trying to muzzle her. That was as a result of her making fairly damning comments - which were damning but quite realistic and reasonable given the extreme nature of what the inquiry uncovered.
She has accused the government of failing the most vulnerable Territorians. In the Four Corners report, Dangerous Territory, she said:
- I think it would be fair to say that at least 80%, …
Of cases:
- … there was an adequate response and in 50%, no response at all to what any normal person would consider was a risk-prone, terrible, neglectful, harmful situation for any child.
She has proven she is a force to be reckoned with by the government, and it shut her up. It gagged her; blocked her from telling the truth, from exposing the government for failures in child protection. It saw her as a constant reminder of failure and incompetence. So, what did the government do? It got rid of her. The Ombudsman was marginalised and gagged by the government.
Then there was the case of Susan Mansfield, a social worker employed by the Royal Darwin Hospital, who had very serious concerns about the management of certain cases involving children she felt were at risk of serious harm and abuse. The government has, effectively, done the same to Susan Mansfield as it did to the Ombudsman. It shut her down. It marginalised her. Now it is investigating her for aspects of her conduct when, really, Susan Mansfield’s allegations and concerns around the wellbeing of a child turned out to be extremely well-founded.
We all know this government has failed in child protection in the Northern Territory. On 23 July 2011, the Northern Territory News did a four-page spread on the failures of this government with regard to child protection which was unsolicited. I did not comment; none of the opposition commented. It was an obvious article to write, given the lengthy and morbid history of child protection over the last 10 years. I believe it goes without saying that the people of the Northern Territory are fed up with the failures in a system that has to work, that has to protect the children of the Northern Territory. The government should be seriously censured for its failure to provide support and care for Indigenous children, as well as non-Indigenous children, throughout the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I repeat I am very concerned about the breaking of convention in this House in relation to censure motions. However, I will call you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not certain we had such conventions we were breaking. In any case, I appreciate your call. It would be a sad day for any parliament to try to shut down debate on such an important motion. I am glad to see that it is not happening today because this is a very important motion.
The Northern Territory’s future is inexplicably tied to the future of Indigenous Territorians. Talk to anyone who knows anything about anything and they understand the importance of Aboriginal policy and assisting Aboriginal people into mainstream Australia being the most significant and important issue we have in the Northern Territory.
I have been in the Territory for a few years and remember a long period of Labor Party politicians belting the daylights out of Country Liberal Party politicians, accusing them of racism, saying we had dropped the ball, we had done nothing at all to help Aboriginal Territorians. Lo and behold! Here we are after 10 years of a Labor government in the Northern Territory, five or six years of a Labor government in Australia, and guess what? There has been no finding of the Holy Grail and no great advancement of Indigenous hopes. In fact, things have only gone backwards. It is an appalling situation to have to listen to the diatribe from the mouths of Labor people, and an Independent who is nothing but an apologist for this pathetic, moribund Labor government running the show in the Northern Territory these days.
The reality is things have become worse. They have worsened despite the bucket loads of money poured into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory - right around Australia for that matter. Listening to the member for Nelson, I was horrified. He is nothing but an apologist for this Labor government. He gets his own way on most things. He set up the Territory Council of Cooperation - or the council of love, or whatever he calls it. It conducted an 18-month inquiry into SIHIP housing. He seems to think he is some sort of expert in this area, having chaired that, Now, we see reports tabled 18 months after they were first presented to the federal government which shows things are much worse than he suggested in his Council of Territory Cooperation.
The whole thing for the member for Nelson is for us all to run around and holds hands, have a gay old time, and not point to the problems or argue the issues we have in the Northern Territory. For some reason, the member for Nelson hates rigorous debate. He hates seeing politicians go hammer and tongs at it and will do whatever he can to reconcile the two sides, irrespective of whether that means covering up all the great failures of a moribund and useless government.
The other thing that sticks in my craw is to hear the minister for Indigenous affairs suggest many of the remote communities across the Northern Territory are not hellholes. What sort of rock has she been living under? I tell you; you do not have to go to too many communities to see there are many absolute hellholes. I could not imagine anything worse in my life than having to live in some of these communities. Every single house is falling down, every house is covered in graffiti, litter and rubbish is strewn around the place, and there are no meaningful jobs. The only jobs in most of these communities are government-funded pretend jobs. There is no private industry anywhere. Everything is community owned or government owned or government funded. It is absolutely disgraceful. We heard the minister talking about all these wonderful communities.
One of the things about the intervention was we would have town plans and a secure system of tenure in remote communities. Which ones have happened? We know the Tiwi Island people say they have a long-term lease and a plan. We know on Groote Eylandt that has happened. However, both of those occurred under the previous federal government. Since then, in how many places has it actually happened? We heard Jenny Macklin saying: ‘We are not going to build a house on land we do not have secure tenure on’. Where is it happening? The member for Arnhem - the audacity of the woman to say there was a complete absence of talk, of discussion, with Aboriginal people in the past and this government has brought that forward and is sitting down talking to Aboriginal people. What a load of absolute arrant nonsense!
The fact is these people have been talked to death. They have been consulted to death. We have had streams and streams of bureaucrats going into these communities, lobbing on their doorstep wanting to talk to them. People are absolutely sick to death of the consultation, of the talk, of all the nonsense. What they want to see is action. They do not want to see money spent, but they want to see an outcome. They want to see their lives improve, and that is not happening.
We will see one after the other after the other of these ministers stand up and try to defend the indefensible. The reality is things have become worse, not better. They have become worse under this government; they are wasting more money. One after the other, these guys will stand up being proud of the money they waste. In fact, it is the only argument they have: ‘We have wasted more money than anyone else’. That is the only argument they have. The only thing they can ever point to is the amount of money they have absolutely wasted.
This censure motion is spot on. We constantly lower the bar for Aboriginal people to the point now we are saying: ‘Oh, we will have 90% of non-Aboriginal people turning up to schools - that is where we set the bar at - but only 33% or 34% of Aboriginal kids have to turn up to school and we are a success’. Every time they do not meet that target, what do they do? They do not work at fixing it, they lower the bar.
Here we see damning stories of child protection coming out, time and time again. What is the result of it? They now want to make child protection into a race issue. We now have a child protection authority for non-Aboriginal Territorians, and we will have a child protection authority for Aboriginal Territorians, as if there is some difference in raising a kid from an Aboriginal background as opposed to raising a kid from a Greek background, an English background, a German background, or a Chinese background. Somehow Aboriginal kids are different; we have to set up a whole new agency created specifically for Aboriginal kids.
Guess what? The standards are lower. You would not have kids of non-Aboriginal descent raised in the circumstances we allow Aboriginal kids to be raised in. You would not accept school attendance levels for non-Aboriginal kids we are getting from Aboriginal kids. No, this government seems to think that is all right. It seems to think because it spends more money that is, somehow, more progress, irrespective of the fact that everywhere you look these days, every single piece of writing on Aboriginal affairs, these ideas have been cast aside.
We have government members here who are like dinosaurs. We have people talking all around the world of how welfare is poison, but what does this government do? It says: ‘Oh, no, we are quite happy to keep pumping more and more money into these places’.
Talking about building schools, I have a paper here called Rivers of Money Flow into the Sand, which was written by Professor Helen Hughes. I do not think that there is a single person in this parliament who would suggest Helen Hughes does not know what she is talking about. She said in this article:
- About 215 000 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are dependent on welfare. Most of these - about 140 000 - also live in major cities and regional towns. Most have dropped out of, or never entered,
the labour force, so they receive single parents’ and disability rather than unemployment social security payments. These welfare-dependent Indigenous Australians live side by side with
non-Indigenous welfare-dependent Australians and mostly receive the same benefits and government services.
Most Indigenous funding is for the 75 000 Indigenous Australians in remote communities. When allocated across to these remote Indigenous Australians, government expenditure is more than $100 000 per
person per year - $400 000 per family of four. In three years, this amounts to more than $1m per family. For such sums an Indigenous family could pay rent in Toorak or Vaucluse and send its children to
a posh private school.
That is the level of funding we are talking about that goes into those remote communities: $100 000 per person, per year - every man, woman and child. That is an extraordinary amount of money. For a government to come into this place and say it is doing a good job because it is making more of that money available is just madness.
As they say, when you are in a hole, stop digging! But not this government. They come in here and say: ‘Oh, no, we are spending more!’ Why? It is just ridiculous. Not only does it spend more, but it lowers the bar to accommodate its own failure. Then, it comes in here and runs nonsensical arguments saying: ‘Nothing was ever done prior to 2001 because that was the days of racist CLP government, which we all knew did not want anything to do with Aboriginal people, did not want a bar of them and they did nothing’. Somehow, these communities, these houses, these people, just magically appeared after 2001. The CLP had nothing to do with that. Goodness me, these arguments the government puts absolutely defy common sense.
There is $100 000 per person, per year - man, woman and child; $400 000 per family of four per year - husband, wife and two children. Any family on $400 000 per year living in a normal, decent house, should not have a problem getting a decent education, for a start. The big problem is there are no jobs, so these people are not earning the $400 000 that is going to the family, because there are no jobs for them to do it. The reason there are no jobs is because there is no private enterprise. The reason there is no private enterprise is because the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has precluded pretty well all forms of private activity on Aboriginal land. Everything has to be community owned or communally owned.
Have a look at the number of mines that have started in the Northern Territory since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We would be lucky to have half a dozen on Aboriginal land. Have a look and count how many butcher shops, shoe shops, bakeries or clothing stores - privately owned businesses - have set up on Aboriginal land since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Almost zero. There is nowhere on any Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory where you can find a thriving private sector. I defy any member on that side of the House to tell me where it is happening, which community I can go to and see a butcher shop, a bakery, a shoe store, a clothing store, a hairdresser, a movie theatre - any of those things we associate with mainstream communities.
That is where people want to live. That is the sort of lifestyle people want to have. That is why I say many of these places are hellholes, and I do not resile from that one bit. This government is racist because it continually divides on racial grounds: one law for non-Aboriginal people, another law for Aboriginal people; one set of standards for non-Aboriginal people, another set of standards for Aboriginal people.
I know quite a few Indigenous Territorians, and not just the ones living in the city, but ones in the bush. I can tell you most of them want the same thing. It is the same as you and me and every member of this parliament has; that is, access to jobs, schooling for your kids, decent health services, and a decent lifestyle. It is not that much to ask.
Why are we constantly stuck in this paradigm? It is because this government refuses to change. This government refuses to take the hard decisions. The hard decisions are there. Where are these township leases? Where are the public roads going into remote Territory communities – government owned roads? There are none.
Instead of saying what is right, this government is happy to pander to the well-heeled hierarchy of the Indigenous establishment. They are not interested in dealing with people on the ground. They want to get the support of those people who run land councils, who are the chiefs of the Aboriginal industry, the Aboriginal bureaucracy, because they are the ones who direct the poor plebs on the ground as to how they are going to vote and all of that sort of stuff.
If you talk about racist political parties, it is the ALP. It has always been that way. It is always the first one to play the race card or scream racism. Do not listen to what they say, look at what they do.
Madam Speaker, we have two streams of education, child protection and health services all based on race. They are not based on income or social standing in the community, but based on race. It is disgusting. That is the reason why I support this censure motion.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to comment because I have been in the Territory since 1993. I recall coming to the Territory and thinking I was coming to Utopia because the weatherman was always outside in a different territory.
We were listening to the member for Fong Lim going on about different systems for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. I had the opportunity to work for the Territory Health Department, then for a non-government organisation, an Indigenous medical service. I recall the Indigenous medical services of the Territory were established under the regime of the CLP, not the Labor Party. I refer to Danila Dilba. I remember very well the then CLP minister coming to our organisation telling us what the organisation provided to Indigenous Territorians, how good the services they provided were, and how he was looking forward to the Health Department working with Danila Dilba. He also offered them a piece of land in Palmerston.
Do not tell us about how good things were in your time; or that the ALP is a racist party that created different systems, when many of your ex-ministers - not only Territory ministers, but federal ministers - not only encouraged, but actively assisted the establishment of a separate health system, and quite rightly so. That is a way to go; that is a way to offer service in the bush. You had to do something different, and you had to do it in a way that would be very close to the people and provide the services the people needed at the time.
I also recall, member for Fong Lim, you were a member of the federal government. I cannot remember you ever asking to reverse the Aboriginal land tenure legislation, so we could have a free economy …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do not mislead the House, minister, because that has happened several times.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have never said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Mr Tollner: We got through an offer to patriate you back, but Clare Martin rejected it out of hand.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, people would think the CLP, 37 years later, suddenly discovered Indigenous Territorians and wants to become a strong advocate for Indigenous Territorians. In my portfolio of Child Protection, all you have to do to find out what the CLP did or did not do in its days in government is to look at the report titled State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory. The State of Denial looked at the last 10 years of the CLP government with regard to, exclusively, the provision of child protection services. I quote from page 13 of the executive summary, a paragraph which says everything about the CLP and how much it cared for Indigenous Territorians:
- Rather than address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children the Northern Territory child protection has in effect withdrawn from service provision, abandoning the most impoverished
children and families in Australia.
That was child protection in the last 10 years of the CLP government. To put it more broadly, some of the key findings of this report were:
the number of child protection notifications, substantiations and placements of Indigenous children in out-of-home care … in the Northern Territory are the lowest for all states and territories
…
the Northern Territory child protection system is not meeting its statutory obligations to protect children or provide for their welfare with chronic levels of poverty, homelessness and preventive diseases amongst children often viewed as ‘normal’ for Aboriginal children and therefore not requiring any child welfare response
Sick Aboriginal children were normal, Madam Speaker; there was no requirement for any child protection intervention:
the narrow investigative approach of the Northern Territory child protection system tends to blame Aboriginal parents and families for factors which are beyond their control - such as poverty
and homelessness
That is the State of Denial, the report about child protection in the Northern Territory in the last 10 years of the CLP government ...
Mr Conlan: What have you done to change it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you very much, member for Greatorex. I will tell you exactly what we have done since then.
Mr Conlan: We have highlighted that …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Araluen mentioned an article that appeared in the newspaper on Saturday, 23 July 2011, about the situation with child protection services, and blamed our government. What she failed to mention is what the reporter said in this article:
- One thing you can say for the NT government is that, even before the inquiry, it spent more on child protection than its CLP predecessors ever did.
This government …
Mr Westra van Holthe: All about money …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is never about the outcomes, it is always about the money, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you do not have the call.
Mr VATSKALIS: The other thing they tend to forget is in the 1980s and 1990s, child protection became a very important issue in Australia; it was highlighted. What the reporter said, quite rightly, is the Labor government came in at a time when expectations were shifting and they were literally left holding the baby. Yes, it is about money because if you do not allocate money you do not get outcomes. With $7m in the last CLP budget you did not get much child protection. Let us remind members opposite who have such a short memory that during the CLP days there was no out-of-hours child protection system to notify and protect children. That was introduced by us, when we first came to government. Do not talk to us about money and outcomes because, if you do not have money to put in place you do not get any outcomes.
We are the government that has undertaken the most comprehensive review of child protection in the history of the Northern Territory. We responded immediately to the board of inquiry recommendations, and said we are going to adopt every single one of them. It has been 10 months since the board of inquiry into the child protection system in the Territory handed down its report Growing them strong, together. There were 147 recommendations made for the former Territory’s child protection and children and family services system. The government acted immediately and put an extra $130m over five years on top of the current budget to overhaul the child protection system.
We are committed to these changes. We are committed to reform, and we established an independent committee of national and local child protection experts to monitor and report on the progress regularly and openly: the Northern Territory Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani. The committee met for the first time in February 2011. Since the formation of the committee, it has held two face-to-face meetings in Darwin and Alice Springs, and a number of teleconferences. A third meeting will take place in Katherine later this month.
The terms of reference of the committee require it to report to parliament twice per year through me, as the Minister for Child Protection. It is, therefore, my privilege to table today the first report of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. Madam Speaker, I table the report of the committee.
It comes as no surprise to the government that the committee report found the department of children services is, essentially, on track with the reform process, and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to be so.
The substantial changes achieved to date highlighted in the report include: the reduction in the backlog of child protection investigations identified by the board of inquiry from 870 cases in October 2010 to zero by May 2011; the introduction of new assessment tools; better support for frontline workers including reforms to the central intake system to create a 24/7 response to child protection concerns; the establishment and founding of new partnership arrangements with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Create Foundation, and Foster Care Northern Territory; the establishment of a new system of reward and recognition for foster and kinship carers including the carer’s excellence awards which it was my pleasure to host on 17 June 2011 to recognise the commitment and dedication of our carers; the founding of AMSANT to establish an Aboriginal child, youth and families peak body, and the appointment of the first executive of this body, Ms Josie Crawshaw.
The committee report also notes the change of this magnitude to the child protection system is ‘a challenge comparable with changing course of an ocean liner’. Real and effective changes that benefit Territory families will take time, patience, energy, and a clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes and necessary qualities.
As part of its meeting, the committee has received briefings from the Department of Children and Families on progress of implementing the board of inquiry recommendations, and has met with foster and kinship carers, staff of the department and other non-government organisations, representatives of the Northern Territory Family and Children’s Advisory Council, and the then Commissioner of Public Employment, Mr Ken Simpson. The committee also took the time to visit several non-government organisations during its Alice Springs meeting, included the healing centre, Alice Springs Youth Hub, as well as visiting a number of town camps. The chair of the committee also appeared before the Council of Territory Cooperation. The committee also noted in its report that it was impressed with the openness and candid discussion with the departmental staff and partner agencies.
The committee noted these challenges faced during the roll-out of these reforms include: the ongoing difficulties in recruiting and retaining professional child protection workers; the challenge of sourcing housing in remote communities for staff delivering service in the regions; the time, effort and commitment that would be required to build new relations of trust and through partnerships across government with the non-government sector, Aboriginal communities, staff of the agency, and with foster and kinship carers.
The department’s budget for 2011-12 provides $24.5m as part of the $130m of additional funding to address the strategic issues facing the department. This includes: the ongoing work of reforming child protection and creating new child protection family support systems for the safety and wellbeing of children; incorporating $3.6m to continue to reform the child protection intake system, increased family support programs and support the roll-out of community child safety and wellbeing teams in Territory growth towns; $5m for increased payments for foster and kinship carers, provide additional funds for Foster Care NT, reform and residential care services; $2.4m towards community education, to establish hospital-based intervention teams, and provide incentive payments to non-government organisations; $6.4m for additional child protection workers to support improved case load ratios, implement an incentive package for frontline staff, and increase training and support for Aboriginal employees; and $1.5m for an Aboriginal child, youth and families peak body and Aboriginal childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs.
It is not surprising the Territory poses the most challenging context in the nation in responding to child maltreatment and abuse. Child maltreatment in the Territory disproportionally affects Aboriginal children and young people, and is marked by poor housing, poverty, remoteness and intergenerational unemployment. However, the committee echoes what the government has been saying all along: that child safety and wellbeing requires not only a whole-of-government, but a whole-of-community approach.
A report into child protection prepared by the Northern Territory Ombudsman, which was deemed to be tabled today, reinforces why our child protection reforms are so important. The Ombudsman’s report, which was prepared over an 18-month period, supports the reforms recommended by the board of inquiry. I acknowledge the Ombudsman’s recommendations and will consider them being compiled in the Department of Children and Families’ ongoing implementation of the 147 reforms recommended by the board of inquiry.
Members opposite reject the findings of the expert board of inquiry, but this government believes child protection is an issue for society and our community as a whole and, as a government and a community, we must provide every opportunity for our children to thrive. Government cannot achieve it alone. We need the support and commitment of our entire community if we are to make a real difference.
It has been the Labor government that has built up the child protection system in the Territory. In accepting the board of inquiry’s recommendations, the Northern Territory government committed to establishing a separate agency with responsibility for child protection, child safety, and family wellbeing. A complete government department in its own right, with its own Chief Executive Officer who is responsible to me, as minister, not being tied to another government agency. As of 1 January this year, we established a new Department of Children and Families, which has its own Chief Executive, Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes.
On Saturday, 23 July, the NT News highlighted the poisoned chalice that Labor was handed when it came to power in 2001 in regard to the child protection system. It said the current NT government has invested more in child protection than its CLP predecessors ever did. It is apparent the members opposite have no understanding of the child protection services, or the response of this government to children at risk. Children’s safety and wellbeing is the overriding priority.
Let us now compare what we have delivered to the legacy of the CLP. What did the CLP deliver when it came to child protection? The State of Denial report of 2002 found the Northern Territory system under the CLP was failing dramatically:
- The evidence from this research shows that the Northern Territory has the highest levels of unrecorded child abuse and neglect in Australia and the Northern Territory child protection system is failing
in its statutory obligations to protect Indigenous children and provide for their welfare.
The government is committed to making a difference when it comes to protecting children, and I am more than happy to compare the commitment of this government and the Country Liberals. When the Country Liberals were in office, the contribution was $7m only. There were no after-hours services to respond to child protection issues of this nature. In fact, the annual report from 2001-02 even stated: ‘Not all reports resulted in a child protection investigation being undertaken. Only 54% of the reports resulted in a child protection investigation being undertaken’ - 1 in 2. In contrast, we take child protection in the Territory seriously. Notifications have risen by 400% since 2001-02, which means that people now are prepared to report their suspicions about vulnerable children. Investigations have risen from 784 to 3600 since we came to power, and the number of children on care protection orders has risen from 286 to 696 since 2001.
As a government, we have created the position of Children’s Commissioner for the Northern Territory, providing an independent oversight. Members on the other side even opposed greater powers for the Children’s Commissioner to investigate issues around child protection services, which was passed in the Alice Springs sittings earlier this year. They opposed the recommendations of the board of inquiry.
We want a society in which children have a safe and healthy start to life; children develop well and be ready for school; children and young people live in families in appropriate housing where physical, emotional and social needs are met; children are safe from harm and injury; and children and young people in families have access to services that are responsive. These principles and aims are universal in children’s services systems across Australia. These principles are also consistent with the target established in the Territory 2030 strategy.
A functional child protection system is reliant on a healthy, functioning society. Territory 2030, A Working Future, correctional reform, alcohol reform – these initiatives are about establishing the building blocks to improve life outcomes for all people in the Territory. This is why we have committed more resources to children and family services.
After 27 years of a minimalistic approach by consecutive CLP ministers and governments, Labor inherited a system so broken that there was no quick fix. Child protection is an issue for the community as a whole, and it was important that everyone in our community had an opportunity to be a part of this reform, and continues to be part of the system.
Madam Speaker, it is clear from the action of this government that we have developed and implemented numerous policies, and will continue to do so, while the opposition has not. It is this Northern Territory government that has put in place a child protection family support system that puts the safety and wellbeing of children first.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak on this but I have to say I am somewhat astonished. Whilst I have not read the whole of this document that has just been tabled by the minister, I am concerned about one of the aspects of this document which highlights the ongoing problem with child protection.
We have so many experts in the field of child protection that sometimes I believe we are too busy being experts to realise this is just about protecting kids with some basic standards.
There is a tendency in the intelligentsia of this country to be just as condescending in their policy approach to the protection of children and Aboriginal people as any policy approach which has been so far outlined in the history of this country. I find it surprising with the intelligentsia and the industry that is building up around child protection, particularly in the area of Aboriginal child protection, that they would start to use comparisons with cavemen to draw a parallel with Aboriginal people. If you think I am kidding, I quote this from page 25 of the document that was just dropped on the table:
- Anthropological studies also report evidence of comparatively high rates of contemporary and pre-colonial interpersonal violence, particularly involving women in remote Australia compared to other populations.
I pause here. These are the populations that the minister would compare the Aboriginal people in remote Australia with:
- In Neolithic British and Iron Age Italian remains, between 7% and 13% showed skull fractures compared to 20% or more in Australian pre-colonial remains, with female rates being up to double this.
Minister Macklin reports (6 June 2011) that Indigenous women and girls currently are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence assaults than non-Indigenous women.
Aboriginal men in Central Australia have acknowledged and apologised for the violence perpetrated against Aboriginal women.
The comparison of Aboriginal people with cavemen is nonsense. We live in a civilised society in which the citizens of this society should consider themselves to be safe. They should feel they have a right to go about their normal business in the community safely. Parents should feel their kids should be safe in the community, and kids have a right to feel safe from their parents if those parents abuse them. This sort of condescending nonsense comparing Aboriginal people with Neolithics and Iron Age people from Europe is just the sort of nonsense which this government has completely allowed itself to get sucked into.
This is why they do not lead; it is because they are being led. They are being led by people who have all the best intentions in the world but who are as condescending and - I struggle to find the words - so offensive in their condescension of Aboriginal people that you are going to see more of the same ‘we know what is good for you’ policy.
If you want to fix these problems in Aboriginal communities, accept the former federal government’s offer to patriate the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory, and allow leases to be developed in Aboriginal communities so it generates jobs. Those jobs will require people with education. There is no point educating people if there is no job at the other end of it. Put the skills in place, absolutely, but also enable those people to have jobs, and stop comparing Aboriginal people to cavemen!
Motion negatived.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
The Century of Northern Australia
The Century of Northern Australia
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I present a ministerial statement around the Century of Northern Australia.
I have said many times before I believe the 21st century will come to be known as the century of northern Australia. Whilst New South Wales and Victoria - in particular, their capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne - were pivotal to the nation’s development for much of the 20th century, I firmly believe it will be northern Australia and the resource-rich jurisdictions of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory that will drive economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century. Make no mistake, it will be northern Australia and, in particular the development of Darwin as the northern Australia gas hub, that leads the way when it comes to the major projects and investments that will turbocharge our national economy; it will be northern Australia that leads the way when it comes to creating new jobs and new opportunities for our people; and it will be northern Australia that leads the way in forging new and dynamic relationships with the rapidly growing economies of Asia.
The Northern Territory and our capital city of Darwin will be at the heart of this new 21st century economic paradigm. The transformation is under way. Indeed, one look at the national economy today and it is clear this transformation, this economic power shift, is well and truly under way. The figures speak for themselves: economic growth in the Northern Territory has averaged around 4.5% annually for the past six years; and Access Economics predicts annual economic growth of 4.2% for the next five years. These figures explain why business confidence in the Territory is high, and why business confidence in government is the highest in the country. When business is confident, businesses will step up and invest, which means more jobs and more opportunities for Territorians.
When it comes to job creation, the Territory is a national powerhouse. Over the last year, unemployment in the Territory has been at its lowest since records began. We have recorded the lowest unemployment rate in Australia coming up to two years in a row. Importantly, we have achieved this at a time when our labour force participation rate is close to the highest in the nation. If you want a job, come to the Territory.
The Territory economy has never been so well placed, and our government is determined to keep it that way and stay on the front foot when it comes to managing our economy and ensuring we continue to grow in the years ahead. That means keeping Darwin’s annual zone tax rebate in place to encourage the investments and skilled workers we need to continue to grow our economy and our community in the Top End.
With all due respect to our friends in Western Australia, now is not the time to be abandoning this rebate. Indeed, now is the time to increase the rebate and lock in support for this great Australian city and the northern Australia alliance. The next wave of prosperity will be the LNG wave. Whilst the mining boom has helped drive our economy, we understand it cannot last forever. That is where LNG comes in. LNG will provide a cleaner, more efficient energy source that will make northern Australia the engine room of the nation’s economy.
My government is actively pursuing the development of a marine supply base in order to maximise the economic benefits derived from the existing and future developments in the Timor Sea and the Browse Basin. The proposed development will consist of a dedicated marine berth and adjacent marine facilities to service the offshore petroleum industry. The marine supply base will be located adjacent to Darwin’s East Arm Wharf. We are currently undertaking a staged procurement process which is planned to be finalised in the fourth quarter of this year. Construction will begin shortly after, timed to capture opportunities arising from new developments such as Ichthys LNG, Sunrise, and Prelude LNG.
The marine supply base is set to increase Darwin’s marine capacity and capability, facilitate growth in local rig tender movements, contribute to the growth of both existing Territory business supporting the offshore petroleum sector, as well as new investment in Darwin. A marine supply base will make Darwin well placed to respond to increased opportunities arising from the current, new, and future activity in the Timor Sea and the Browse Basin.
The petroleum supply and service activity is also supported by my government’s initiatives through the Land Development Corporation to ensure there is suitable serviced industrial land for this and other strategic industry. The Land Development Corporation is currently developing a number of areas of industrial land on the East Arm Peninsula in close proximity to the East Arm Wharf.
LNG will, quite literally, power our national economy over the next century. Indeed, the switch has already been flicked. For example, in the next five years just in Territory waters alone, companies are forecast to spend around $1bn on exploration - and that is outside of the projects already planned to come on stream, including the INPEX Ichthys pipeline which will employ approximately 3000 people during construction, and a further 200 to 300 people for the life of the project.
Projects such as INPEX are truly transformational but they are not confined to the Territory. There is Gorgon in Western Australia and Gladstone Coal Seam LNG in Queensland, to name just two. Together with the Territory, Queensland and Western Australia are set to ride the unstoppable LNG wave deep into the 21st century. These projects not only offer immense economic opportunities for northern Australia, they will also bolster the Territory economy for many years to come.
I believe the development of the north is inextricably linked to our ability to address Indigenous disadvantage and close the gap in the Territory. A strong economy and increased prosperity will mean more schools, better health facilities, more housing options, and healthier and more sustainable communities in our regions. It will mean a real working future for more Indigenous Territorians - real jobs and real commercial opportunities not only in Darwin and our major centres, but in towns and communities across the Northern Territory.
Rapid change also throws up some big challenges. That is why I am working with Premier Bligh from Queensland and Premier Barnett from Western Australia to pull together a cross-government task force to manage this growth now and into the future. That is why I visited Aberdeen in June; because I wanted to see firsthand the economic miracle - the oil and gas inspired miracle - that has occurred in that great city. I wanted to learn more about the challenges that have been thrown up along the way and how they have been managed.
Just over 40 years ago, Aberdeen was on its knees. The local economy was in dire straits, people were losing their jobs, businesses were closing, opportunities for young people were scarce, and the region’s population was declining rapidly. That was when the miracle happened. The Americans discovered oil in the North Sea and the future of the granite city was transformed. The discovery of oil generated more jobs, more opportunities, greater investment, and better services for the people of Aberdeen. Of course, all of this meant more people were staying in Aberdeen, more people were choosing to settle in Aberdeen, and more families were choosing Aberdeen as a place to raise their kids.
Today Aberdeen is a prosperous, vibrant, and optimistic city. Like Darwin, its future is inextricably linked to the vast natural resources that lie beneath the ocean. However, the sudden and unexpected revival of Aberdeen threw up some major challenges. Like Darwin, the city faced issues such as skilled labour shortages, rising house prices, and the need to invest in the kind of infrastructure that growing cities with growing populations need. It was not an easy process.
The good news for us in the Territory is that after a decade of planning and record investment we are better placed than most to manage the growth. When it comes to developing and maintaining a skilled, flexible workforce we are ahead of the game. When it comes to providing affordable housing today and in the years and decades ahead, we are certainly coming into our own. When it comes to investing in the infrastructure that will set up our community for years to come, we are well and truly ahead of the game.
I am also pleased to inform the House that after visiting Aberdeen, Charles Darwin University is to train Territorians to compete for the big-paying jobs in the Territory’s own gas industry. The CDU website states that an agreement has been signed between Charles Darwin University and Robert Gordon University as a result of the fact-finding mission to Aberdeen. I was privileged to be at the signing of the memorandum of understanding. I congratulate our Vice-Chancellor at the university for his tremendous enthusiasm in embracing this industry and working with Robert Gordon University.
Robert Gordon University is considered Britain’s leading modern university and comes in the top three when rated for the number of graduates finding work immediately after qualifying. Robert Gordon University will be collaborating and sharing information with Charles Darwin University in training and upskilling workers to world-class standards. The university is a specialist in training students to work in the North Sea oil and gas industry.
Our university also hopes to use expertise from Aberdeen College, a renowned trade skills institution, to help upgrade the skills of workers, as many of the courses offered in Aberdeen, such as training electricians to work in an explosive environment, could now be offered in the Territory. World-class workers for world-class projects; that is what the Territory is about, and all signs indicate that this is going to increasingly be the case.
Let me turn to one of our most valuable assets; that is, our workforce. Our government has backed Territory business from day 1 by investing in our people and building a skilled and flexible workforce. We said we would train 10 000 apprentices and trainees in just one term of government, and we will deliver on that commitment ahead of time, as we delivered on a similar commitment in the last term of government.
The number and sheer size of these transformational nation building projects throw up other workforce challenges as well. Premier Bligh, Premier Barnett, and I will focus on three issues in particular. We want to ensure we are not cannibalising each other’s workforce as more big projects come online. We want to ensure we do not lose workers in crucial frontline sectors such as teaching and nursing to the well-paid resources projects. We also want to ensure the community still has access to a skilled and accessible workforce - our builders and plumbers and business people, the people who have played such a vital role in building the Territory and creating one of the nation’s great lifestyles. Our aim is to act early, collaboratively, and decisively to ensure the ongoing integrity of our respective workforces.
We will also work closely with business, unions, and schools and trade training centres to ensure we have the right pathways into these new 21st century jobs. As I said in the House earlier today, it was great to be able to speak to those Year 10 students at Palmerston Senior College last week about the very exciting future they have in the Northern Territory.
Of course, new industries, new jobs, new opportunities mean that more and more people will be heading north in the years to come. That is why we have acted early and decisively to ensure our future workers and their families can forge a life for themselves in the Territory. Our aim is to ensure that all Territorians continue to have access to affordable, quality housing now and into the future.
We have fast-tracked land release - the fastest land release ever to meet the demands generated by our rise in population. We are creating new suburbs in and around Darwin such as Bellamack, Mitchell, Zuccoli and Johnston in the Palmerston area, and Lyons and Muirhead in the northern suburbs. Planning for Weddell, which will create 10 000 new homes and be the Territory’s newest city, is well under way. We are keeping 15% of all new land release for affordable housing with the first already online in Bellamack and Johnston.
In addition, we have reduced stamp duty, increased the principal place of residence rebate to $3500, and introduced the seniors reduction of $8000. We have also waived stamp duty for houses up to the value of $540 000 for first homebuyers which, essentially, means that most first homebuyers can purchase their own home without paying any stamp duty at all.
Our government has invested around $5.9bn over the last decade in the kind of infrastructure we need to broaden our economic base, attract new and sustainable investment, and give Territory families the facilities and services they so richly deserve. These investments have improved our port with upgraded facilities. They have given us new roads such as the Tiger Brennan Drive extension, they have given us a new suburb of Palmerston East and they have funded new schools like Darwin and Palmerston middle schools, and the state-of-the-art Rosebery Middle and Primary Schools.
It also assists us in funding all of the schools in the bush to have significant upgrades, to have seven new secondary schools in our remote communities, and also to build new schools in our remote communities where schools did not exist previously. They have also funded upgrades to Territory schools and ensured our kids have access to more sophisticated learning facilities and quality education programs, regardless of where they live. I speak regularly with teachers who have come to teach in the Northern Territory from the other states, and they are all amazed at the quality of the infrastructure and the facilities we have in our schools, compared to the public system in the rest of Australia.
These landmark investments have also transformed our health system, including a new Super Clinic in Palmerston providing after-hours services to patients in need, a world-class cancer care treatment at Royal Darwin Hospital, and the new 26-room Barbara James House in Darwin. As well, as I spoke about today in Question Time, there are real investments in health facilities in our remote communities, particularly investments in renal dialysis that has improved the quality of care and the life span of Indigenous people right across the Territory.
You cannot talk about the 21st century and about transformational infrastructure without mentioning the National Broadband Network. More than 2300 km of fibre-optic cable connecting Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and now Alice Springs to the eastern and southern seaboards is now being laid. The NBN will not only deliver world-class broadband infrastructure to all Territorians, it will also deliver cheaper and faster services. It will deliver jobs, education and health benefits to all Territorians for many years to come. The NBN is a smart investment for the Northern Territory and for our nation, and the kind of infrastructure that will transform the way we do business and live our lives in the Northern Territory.
Alice Springs is well on its way to becoming Australia’s clean energy leader as one of only seven cities around Australia to be selected to participate in the Australian government’s Solar Cities program. This significant venture will certainly make Alice Springs a model for the rest of Australia and, indeed, the world. The information at hand estimates the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be approximately the equivalent of taking one-quarter of all Alice Springs vehicles off the road.
I am also pleased to inform the House of another important step forward in this major project. Alice Springs has recently been declared as home to the 1 MW Uterne solar power station, which is the largest solar tracking solar power station in Australia. The fact is that Alice Springs enjoys around 200 sunny days a year, which makes it perfect for large solar projects such as this, and now the eyes of the world are on Alice Springs. This project has confirmed Alice Springs as the city of the future, and there is no doubt it will continue to attract solar investment from around the globe.
An integral part of the A Working Future plan, our largest remote communities will be developed into strong towns, boasting services and amenities such as those found in similar sized towns around Australia. These towns will become economic and service delivery centres for their regions. They will be regional hubs with good transport options; places where people from the surrounding region will access schools, police stations, courts, health services, aged care and disability facilities. People will travel to town from outstations, homelands, and smaller towns to go to work, school, shop, see friends, or see a doctor.
Territory growth towns will have proper infrastructure including water, sewerage, electricity, and community facilities. They will have good roads that help people to get to work and school, good Internet access, and will attract new business and connect remote towns to anywhere in the world.
Central to the vision of Darwin being the capital of northern Australia, and northern Australia driving a powerhouse of growth for the Australian economy is to give the Territory government and the national government the funding to commit to our A Working Future program to develop these communities into strong towns with a strong future.
I will speak briefly about our Defence support industries. It is well-known that around 10% of the Australian Defence combat forces are based in the Territory, and it is home to the ADF’s newest and most advanced platform such as the Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters, Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks, and Armidale class patrol boats.
This government recognises the importance of the Defence presence to our economy and our community. To assist the growth of the Defence sector and provide support to the defence community, this government has two dedicated ministries: Defence Liaison and Defence Support. There is also a Defence Support Division within the Department of Business and Employment. The Defence Support Program aims to help businesses that support Defence to become competitive, grow their capability, win Defence-related contracts, attract investment by Defence industries in the Territory, to leverage economic developments from the Defence presence in our regions, and to ensure a strong, reliable, informed and supportive relationship exists between the Territory government and the Defence community.
The Territory government is committed to the growth of industry to support Defence in the Territory. A new 53 ha support industry park close to the home of the 1st Brigade at Robertson Barracks, Palmerston, will further assist business and industry to grow and align their capabilities to meet the needs of Defence in the Territory.
I also point to our Defence minister at the national level who has just released a discussion paper about the positioning of our Defence Force in Australia for the years to come. That document expressly references Darwin and Perth as being central to and growing in importance to the Defence strategic positioning for our nation. We expect to see more of that Defence base build in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, the Territory is coming of age. It is growing up and the 21st century is, indeed, our time. We are on the cusp of an exciting new era in this country - an era of great prosperity driven by the economies of northern Australia. I believe the Territory is right on track to accommodate this growth and make the most of the many opportunities that lie ahead. We cannot rest on our laurels; we have to continue to work to support confidence for investing in the Northern Territory, but our time is here, it is now. It is a very exciting time for the next 20 to 50 years in northern Australia, with Darwin as the capital of northern Australia. The future is in our hands.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I agree with the central idea that this is our time. The centre of economic gravity has moved to our region with the rise of China and the strengthening of regional economies. Therefore, there is this opportunity. It is not hard to notice what is happening and, as the Chief Minister rightly identified, there is an opportunity which needs to be responded to. Whatever comes from opportunity only comes but through a plan and hard work; it does not happen by accident.
I have long noted the Northern Territory, being close to the region, does not automatically make it the gateway to the region. We have seen planes developing greater capacity and flying over Darwin. We have also seen developments around the country and in remote places where those who invest make decisions to fly in and fly out. It does not necessarily follow, if there is increased activity within our region, it will automatically result in benefit for the Territory. We have to get ahead of the game.
I acknowledge that INPEX is a game changer; it is a very significant project. I acknowledge the work of Clare Martin and her role in attracting the attention of INPEX to the possibility of Darwin. Make no mistake; the Chief Minister reaching into a shallow pond to find something to fight back with, asserting INPEX would not come if the Country Liberals were in government, is nonsense and no one will buy that. The issue has always been, and remains, the requirement for a strategic and long-term plan. The issue always was that there needed to be the continuation of the longer-term planning that had been put in place by the previous Country Liberal government for a place for heavy industry to go. There needs to be a range of options.
That issue was not progressed when Labor came to office in 2001, almost 10 years ago. The location was the fundamental issue, not INPEX. The location was only made available as a result of the failure to provide any long-term planning. That has been the issue; to highlight the lack of vision. Although they may assert and try to argue that lack of vision is not the case, they will be alone in that argument. There are many who make long-term decisions in business in the Territory who have a deep sense that there is no long-term strategic planning of a real nature; it is largely something that is constructed to satisfy what Labor will see as a political problem - that the community has that view so they will produce a 2030 plan to alleviate any pressure they may have over their failure to plan. People do not actually believe you have long-term, strategic planning of a real kind, but your response is, largely, a public relations exercise rather than real planning.
We can debate that but, essentially, I am of that view, and others would support me in that. I am reflecting what I have seen by evidence, and what I hear repeated up and down the track and across the Territory. Yes, this will be a place of great opportunity, but there needs to be a response. I can still remember the member for Karama, with her portfolio responsibility of Lands and Planning, stoutly defending her government’s position not to release land and arguing that we were going to flood the market, and the Country Liberals were going to be economic vandals who were going to wreck the market and destroy the value of people’s properties. She refused to entertain our call – our repeated calls from 2007 and before - for a release of land.
Obviously, there was a change of mind because they started to listen and recognised there needed to be a response. Unfortunately, by turning their attention so slowly to a very pressing and real issue, we now have a situation where the property market values are so high the essential and key workers we need to take advantage of the opportunity are finding it hard to get their toe on the first rung of the home ownership ladder. That is a fact, and people will blame no one else but this Labor administration because of its failure to act in a timely manner and get ahead of the game - which is evidence there was no long-term strategic planning.
The evidence is seen all around us. You only have to talk to young people who are making plans. Those plans are almost beyond reach and they lose hope. There, once again, is the evidence. The evidence is in the Bureau of Statistics’ figures. This is evidence of the lack of long-term strategic planning because there are more people leaving the Territory than arriving. Every month, over 100 people make a decision to leave the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister can bang on about the opportunities the Northern Territory has, but those opportunities require a meaningful and proper response: balance the supply of land with the demand; get ahead of the game; and ensure you can get young people with their toe on that first rung of the home ownership ladder.
For a case study, you would only have to look at Karratha if you are going to work collaboratively with Colin Barnett. Look at what happened in Karratha, a place that is, in some respects, similar to Darwin. The rents there are $1500 per week because there are constraints around the release of land. It has an overheated economy. There are people on high incomes from the oil and gas sector, but the average person - the one who works at Coles, the teacher, the nurse, or the mechanic - cannot find a place to live. That is why this is so important.
Going back to INPEX, the Chief Minister talked about how big the project is. He talked about colossal numbers. The Labor Party members seem all excited about this. They see this, largely, as a great political opportunity for them and a public relations exercise; that people will think three cheers for the Labor Party because INPEX has changed the Territory economy. You are placing great pressure on INPEX; that when INPEX comes everything is going to change. It will change; there will be opportunity. However, it could change for a heck of a lot better if, rather than spruiking, you actually get down to the real business of ensuring there is a place in the market for people on all levels of income. Also ensuring the things you talked about 10 years ago - and I remember the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, talking about this, because it sounded like a good idea at the time. People said: ‘Hmm, that is evidence of a long-term strategic plan’. That was to have an oil and gas institute. We now have - to the great credit of the Vice-Chancellor of CDU, a decade later - the initiative being taken by the university to have a Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon.
What happened to the fine-sounding words, the pledge and the commitment, and the recognition of long-term thinking 10 years ago? That was the time to get ahead of the game. That was the time to invest then. That sounded good at the time. However, it was really to create an impression rather than to actually do anything. Many people - long-term thinkers, people with a strategic view on development - now see it is right here. However, we are finding that people are leaving. Why are they leaving? Because it costs too much to live here. That needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed swiftly, along with the investment in training.
There has been a 10-year drift there. We now have the university, and I am pleased the Chief Minister has shown support and provided that contribution for this initiative of the CDU. These matters are of much greater importance than politics. I did the same, promoting the Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon in Japan. There was interest there in developing links with Japanese universities and centres for higher learning with CDU. That is also continuing. It is good we are working on both fronts. I acknowledge the initiative has largely been CDU’s, with some support now from the government, which is welcome.
You can say all these things in here to create an impression, but we are tired of it because, after 10 years, we are hearing the same fluffy stuff about what could be and what might happen, without anything tangible. The basics are there to demonstrate this is a government that is actually not that serious and is not being taken seriously. If they were taken seriously, we would have already occupied this space rather than, basically, in the last year of this Labor government’s term, we are now talking about these things.
People cannot easily afford a place to live. Yes, there has been some effort around training, but it has largely been through an investment by INPEX and the Larrakia Development Corporation with not a cent from government, except for perhaps a machine simulator in the corner. It has been the initiative of the private sector. They got ahead of the game because government was making all sorts of sounds but not doing anything.
If this is the case, I would like to have heard the Chief Minister, rather than saying they have a long-term strategic plan actually say where the heavy industry will go, and what infrastructure is being put in place for that to occur. Where will the future residential development take place that is affordable and matches the specific needs of people on a range of incomes? I know you have spoken of the 15%, but it is not really addressing the problem in a substantial way because people are still leaving.
I wish the Chief Minister had described his comprehensive strategy around Asian relations and trade; how every department and every enterprise of government is coordinated around a central strategy of Asian relations leading to trade. That goes into all areas, including education, our cultural pursuits, and our business engagements at diplomatic levels. The coordination needs to be there in order to drive that advantage and get ahead of the game.
There needs to be discrete strategies around Indonesia. Indonesia is a growing economy and it is developing very well. We have lost our presence there; we need to work there and build a presence on the ground and develop those deeper links we once had. If we had done so, if we had not abandoned our post, we would have been in a better position to pre-empt, hopefully, what was already brewing underneath the radar around live cattle. There was talk of this occurring. If you had someone on the ground there, that could have been dealt with, and we could have gotten ahead of the game. It appears to me that we have lost that link; we have lost that understanding. The cross-cultural understanding seems to have faded, as has a comprehensive strategic view around Asian relations and trade.
Further evidence of this government not taking this whole business very seriously is the assertion that we need to get things right on employment around our Indigenous Territorians. That sounds good, but that is said in light of the damning report that has been the subject of much discussion in this Chamber today; that the government has not performed very well at all. The problem has been given millions and millions of dollars and the results have been appalling - in fact, a terrible response. It is not just a program that has not been delivered. The programs to improve people’s lives, education and health have deteriorated under this government because of its inability to actually run programs that produce results.
I am very concerned, if government continues to defend and pretend that things are actually going okay. We are in the real world and this is real money. There are those who take their responsibility seriously. I fear that if this continues there will likely be decisions made federally that will take greater control over the money that flows into the Territory because they cannot put it into the hands of a Territory Labor administration.
We have a great deal of ground to make up to restore our credibility in real and practical terms. We can talk about how great the opportunities are within the region yet you cannot take control of the streets. The Labor government spends its attention and our money on having a whole new strategy in its last year of its term around how it looks and feels – an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in re-badging and rebranding how it looks and feels. This is down to the point of conducting focus groups so people get an opportunity to express their views about the government, so government can respond. It is not about the agencies which are delivering services, it is about the government.
It is not about the government - that is the tragic fact. It is about what government does. It is about the people of the Northern Territory. They have grown tired of the empty talk after 10 years, and the evidence is there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I agree with the central idea – there is a tremendous opportunity with the demand for resources within the region, with the economic shift from the United States to China, away from Europe to China, India, and in the region. Do not underestimate Indonesia and what is happening within the region with Vietnam, with places that are strengthening and developing. It is a great opportunity. However, the opportunity requires a thoughtful response, strategic consideration, and leadership in order to capitalise on this opportunity, otherwise the opportunity may come and go.
I agree with the central idea, but it requires some practical response that means something. To illustrate, in my meeting with the INPEX Board in Tokyo, the conversation was around the significance of the project and the impact this project would have on the Northern Territory. That is good; INPEX is a fine company and is going to great pains to do what it must do in order to engage our community - and it has engaged it very well. It has an interest in the long-term relationship. I believe it can’t be faulted in the way it has engaged our community, and I commend Sean Kildare and the members of the board for their diligence in attending to their side of the responsibility.
However, I have to say the practical response of a government would be to ensure there is a place in the market for people to live. That is around the balance between supply and demand and the supply of skilled workers. You can say it, but you have to do something. We are in opposition and we say these things. Maybe our opportunity will come and we will say exactly what we will do. We certainly will be doing that. They are the practical responses in a meaningful way. You cannot keep talking about the opportunities; you have to have a meaningful and practical response.
Over to the government; let us see what it will do. This appears to be - to steal a word from the member for Greatorex - something that sits in the same category as the pluff piece …
Mr Conlan: Puff!
Mr MILLS: Is it puff? Sorry; it could be pluff. It all sounds good but it does not tell it like it really is. There is something missing, and it is the reality about what needs to happen in order to make the opportunity real.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Chief Minister on his statement on the future of north Australia and, in particular, on the hub of the economic activity in Darwin and the Northern Territory.
Our future is bright in the Territory. Our growth is currently strong. When you look around not just at our nation, but what is happening in economies around the world, we are very well placed and have a strong growth underpinning where we are now. If you look at the reality of the oil and gas boom, we are on the cusp of quite a significant economic growth boom in the Territory. Essentially, the Territory is a fantastic place to be if you are in business, and if you want a job and the opportunities that flow out of the dramatic oil and gas opportunity we have.
Regarding the potential across the Territory, we have that wealth of natural resources. We also have fantastic tourism opportunities. We have a large number of Defence personnel already in the Territory, and you can expect this number to grow if you look at the indications coming out of the Commonwealth White Paper.
Business confidence remains high and our economy goes from strength to strength. Deloitte Access Economics predicts the Territory’s economy to grow at the second fastest rate in the country over the next five years - no small call when you look at the size of our jurisdiction. This growth is impressive when you consider, even more so, this prediction does not significantly include any growth arising from the INPEX Total Ichthys field project, of which we are awaiting a final investment decision in the last quarter of this year.
That is not to say life in the Territory is without its challenges. With activities in the northern part of Australia driving growth in our nation, and with Darwin as the northern capital, the Territory is definitely heading in the right direction. We are in the right place at the right time with the right set of policies to foster economic growth.
This government has worked hard to build a sustainable economy and to support jobs and prosperity. Since 2001, more than 22 000 new jobs have been created, and we certainly had the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past 22 months, and the highest jobs growth.
The Territory is resource rich and we are focused on maximising opportunities in that sector. We have been very strategic with our policies and our investment as a government with that mining investment attraction strategy. If you look at exploration, mining exploration is at record levels with a record $166.7m invested last year. That is up 12% on the $148.4m spent in 2009. In 2009, the Territory was the only jurisdiction to increase exploration expenditure during the global financial crisis, testament to the significant efforts this government goes to, to attract that all-important investment.
We are working to take advantage of the gas industry, an industry that will confirm northern Australia as the driver of our nation’s economy. Over the next five years, companies have forecast to spend about $1bn on gas exploration in the Territory. Darwin has already landed large gas projects such as the ConocoPhillips Bayu-Undan and ENI’s Blacktip developments. As I said, we are hopeful that final investment decision being positive in the final quarter of this calendar year in the INPEX Total Ichthys field project. INPEX putting the green light on that project would put about $30bn of investment into construction of both onshore and offshore facilities, and will contribute significantly more than that to our national economy over its lifetime.
A large mining and energy industry will ensure the continued strong growth of our economy as our neighbours to the north increase their demand for the Territory’s resources. Maximising the opportunities arising out of our strategic location is not happening by accident; it is quite deliberate policy and resource decisions being made by our government in our budget settings.
Obviously, the government is driving the development of a marine supply base which will be located at East Arm. The marine supply base will provide support facilities and berthing for the offshore petroleum industry, ensuring that valuable service and maintenance contracts land in the Territory. Over the coming years and decades, as the Chief Minister said, it will be northern Australia, and particularly Darwin, as the northern Australian gas hub that will lead the way in major projects and growth for the national economy. It will be northern Australia that leads the way when it comes to creating new jobs and opportunities for people, and Territorians will benefit from this.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk, you would think the Centre of Excellence at Charles Darwin University was just a beast of the university itself. That is not true. The Chief Minister has driven the Centre of Excellence for Hydrocarbon at Charles Darwin University. He has worked very closely with the university, and he has ensured the government has backed its support in providing resources to the university and heading up delegations to Aberdeen. You would think it was just the work of the university alone. It could not be further from the truth. The Chief Minister has driven that role in the Centre of Excellence for the university, and ensured our government has supplied resources to foster the growth of that Centre of Excellence at the university.
Infrastructure investment has been critical to ride us through the post-global financial crisis period, to ensure we are keeping our construction sector capacity in the Territory, and to ensure we are tracking well to make the most of private sector investment flowing into the Territory - that we hope to start to see the return to more normalised levels. The latest Deloitte Access Economics’ report indicates that growth in private investment in the Territory.
In excess of $1bn consecutive infrastructure spend from the last three budgets has underpinned the construction sector in the Territory. I know the opposition has been opposed to that critical infrastructure spend, but it has supported 3000 jobs. A combination of all those infrastructure spends meant we have been providing about $4.6bn into that all-important construction sector to support something like 12 000 new jobs in the post-global financial crisis period - a period, obviously, we are not yet out of, if you look at the global market uncertainty as a result of the PIGS in Europe and the gridlock that occurred in the US in the decision around the increase of their debt levels and the $3T in savings they are going to have to make to meet the result of that gridlock.
Central to a strengthening economy is a continued high public infrastructure investment in the Territory to protect and create jobs, but this has been complemented through investment by the Commonwealth government, particularly in that critical area of the Defence industry, which is a significant employer in the Territory. We recognise the importance of Defence in our community, but also to our economy. Although we have recently lost 7 RAR to South Australia, showing that nett interstate migration, 5 RAR is here, and we are advised they are building up to full strength, and a large number of Australian Defence Force personnel are continuing to be based in the Territory and will grow in numbers.
This government is committed to building a strong and supportive relationship with the Commonwealth government, Defence, and our local Defence community. We have dedicated resources to the Defence support sector in an effort to help Territory businesses leverage the opportunities out of the all-important Defence establishments in the Territory. We have been competitive in working with the Defence industry network in pursuing Defence-related contracts. Establishing that Defence Support Hub near Robertson Barracks further assists our own businesses in the Territory grow and leverage those opportunities that come from such a significant Defence presence in the Territory, one that we know - if you look at the White Paper and the direction of the Commonwealth - is set to grow even more significantly.
In tourism, we have tremendous potential. We have an enviable climate and lifestyle, with unique cultural experiences on offer for people from all over the globe. Getting out there and proactively marketing to ensure they have plans to visit the Territory is very much a focus of our Minister for Tourism. Around 19 800 Territorians are employed in the tourism sector - 10 400 directly and some 9400 indirectly. This is roughly 9% of all Territorians directly employed in tourism, and a further 8.1% indirectly employed. Tourism is estimated to have added approximately $1.4bn to the Northern Territory economy during the year ending March 2011 via direct visitor expenditure. The latest figures show that in excess of one million visitors came to the Northern Territory during the year ending March 2011, with some 720 000 of these holidaying here. These numbers are down slightly, about 8% on previous years, as we are seeing those continuing effects of the global financial crisis. However, we are still holding our own in our market share of national interstate visitors, at about 3%.
Tourism opportunity certainly exists throughout the Territory. It is great that our minister for Parks works so closely in enhancing those visitor opportunities to our parks, working with the traditional owners of the parks. Enhancing the cultural experiences is going to be a great marketing advantage for the Territory. I congratulate our Minister for Tourism, who is putting an increased emphasis on going after the market of China. There is a real opportunity in that with the growth in the middle-income earners in China and we are strategically located in flight distance times from that all-important market of China.
In having a strong economy that means, in having Territorians in jobs, we need to ensure we get the balance right in providing quality education, healthcare and services for Territorians. Having a strong economy enables us as a government to have the resources to maintain and build these services. We will have more revenue for hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure, to the benefit of all Territorians regardless of where they live. The Territory is definitely a place of opportunity.
The business community has every reason to be confident when you consider these opportunities on the horizon, and that the Territory’s economy is predicted to grow at 4.2% on average over the next five years. These are predictions from Deloitte Access Economics - tremendously solid growth. Our employment growth over the next five years is also predicted to be the second highest in the nation at 2.6% on average, behind Queensland. This is good news for families and young people coming through school and our university and thinking about their future careers.
To a Labor government, underpinning the importance of economic growth is that all-important indicator of jobs. Over 22 000 jobs, as I said, have been created in the Territory since 2001. We have a Jobs Plan; we have updated the Jobs Plan. There was no Jobs Plan prior to Labor coming to government.
We have made doing business in the Territory attractive. We have supported those small- and medium-sized enterprises by changing our taxing regime, particularly in payroll tax, making us the lowest-taxing jurisdiction for small- and medium-sized enterprises in the nation, saving Territory businesses about $368m in foregone taxes since 2001.
We have a strong record of committing to training our own. In this budget, we have committed something like $21.8m towards training and supporting apprentices and trainees to grow that all-important own skilled workforce.
Our government will continue efforts to ensure Territorians across the Territory can benefit from our economic opportunities, to continue to make this great Territory of ours an attractive place to live, work and play.
We have the most expansive land release programs in place right across the Territory from Darwin and Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and we have new suburbs being created. We have put innovative home ownership packages in place. We have updated that all-important Homestart NT. We have BuildBonus in place at the moment for a construction stimulus to get into the marketplace, for first homeowners, principal place of residence, and investors. We are quite proud of all these strategies and efforts we employ to make cost of living better - whether it is opportunities for apprentices and trainees, but also supporting our seniors, pensioners, and carers with the most comprehensive pensioner concession scheme in our nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with a bright future in our economy that will deliver and improve services across our social sectors, we have a record of working very closely with the non-government sector in service delivery - whether it is in our capital city, our regional towns or putting those services into the growth towns; ensuring a strength of policy around the growth towns through the hub-and-spoke model.
North Australia, as a statement, marks - in time where we are right now, right here, today - a very exciting boom period coming for northern Australia, recognising the challenges we have in the skilled workforce and the work the government is doing, led by the Chief Minister in his discussions with both Western Australia and Queensland with regard to attracting a skilled workforce to meet those significant private investment project demands, as well as our large construction projects including the marine supply base, the prison, and a hospital at Palmerston. These are three significant government-funded construction programs, with the prison in a PPP.
These are exciting times in the Territory. As Treasurer, I get out and talk to many business people. I listen to their issues which are primarily attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. They recognise the work government is doing in turning off land across the Top End but, also, across those regional centres of the Territory.
We have seen evidence of what is flying out of the housing market regarding the moderation of housing prices and a relaxing of the rentals and vacancy rates. What we, essentially, see is a housing market returning to balance. A great number of investment strategies, as well as the right policy settings, has led us to being in an enviable place in our nation, in economic growth. As I am fond of saying, there are many Treasurers interstate who would rather be in our situation here in the Territory than what they are facing with their economies in the southern parts of our nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not going to hide under a bushel; we are very proud of where the Territory is; we are very proud of what we have achieved and we are very proud of where we are headed. I commend the Chief Minister for his statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, having gone through this statement, it is a little disappointing it is so thin in regard to trying to demonstrate what the Northern Territory government has done for the Northern Territory and its future direction.
On page 1 there was reference to resource-rich jurisdictions; however, the bulk of the paper does not address any issues remotely linked to the resource-rich land-based minerals projects, and associated infrastructure and deficiencies in infrastructure.
I see on page 2 references to economic growth; the average growth being around 4.5% - and the key word is ‘average’. The last two years have been pretty dismal - and that is from my discussions with business and industry - and hiding behind an ‘average’ is not good enough. It is actually closer to about 2% in the last two to three years. This government will try to tell us that all is rosy in the business community and with industry, so let us look at the situation more closely.
Our economy is project-driven and, while large-scale projects are welcome and supported, there are not too many on the horizon. If we take the proposed INPEX project out of the picture for now, where are the next big projects coming from in the Northern Territory and where are they going to be located? Where is the next major mining project with a 20-plus year mine life? Where and what will be the next big infrastructure project that helps boost the economy? Where is the planning for any downstream processing or value-adding of projects? Where is the planning for the heavy industrial industry if and when it should come to the Northern Territory? Where is the planning for an industrial waste facility to support the marine supply base? Yes, industry may well invest in it, but government has to plan and facilitate development of such a facility if the marine supply base is to be truly successful.
There is reference to the Territory being a national powerhouse when it comes to job creation. Good in theory; however, in reality we are not a powerhouse for job creation and, under this Labor government, quite the opposite. We have seen successive job losses in the last couple of years. This government failed to support Arafura Resources and its proposed processing operations, which it wanted to base either in Central Australia or in Darwin. That saw upwards of 400 permanent jobs lost to South Australia.
There have been job losses from the lack of support by this government for the Batchelor Area 55 Project - 100 to 150, job losses from major exploration companies shutting their Darwin-based offices, job losses from the collapse of building companies because the regulatory regime and the management by the Northern Territory government is so poor. There were job losses from the closure of Universal Engineering, which was closely linked to the Montara incident in the Timor Sea.
Of late, we have seen job losses as a result of the federal Labor government’s reckless and devastating ban on the live export industry. Estimates put the losses at 160 direct employees; I am sure it is much higher. Only last week we heard at the Senate committee looking into the export ban that was meeting in Darwin, one of the major pastoral companies operating in the Northern Territory stated they had put off eight Aboriginal stockman, full-time employees, and they would not employ another 50 people used in contract mustering as it would not be happening this year. They went on to say these 50 contract workers were usually sourced from the nearby Aboriginal communities on their cattle stations.
Heli-mustering maintenance companies were in attendance at the Senate committee and told stories of how they were putting off employees. In addition, the businesses that maintain the helicopters were also putting off employees, including apprentices. That is fairly specialised work. I do not believe those young apprentices will get work elsewhere in the Territory given much helicopter work is involved in the pastoral industry. No doubt, we will lose them or they will drift on to the dole queue.
One of the major road transport companies, Road Trains of Australia, has put off 13 full-time employees. All these people have lost their jobs as a consequence of the unwise, reckless way the federal government went about banning the live export trade.
Not to overlook the agricultural and pastoral industry; they seem not to be mentioned too much by this government. They have also suffered terribly because of the ban on live cattle export because many growers in the Douglas Daly region and around Katherine specifically, grow all their pasture and product for the live export market. What is going to happen to these people who specialise in this line of work who cannot cross over to other employment in the NT? I suggest they too will leave the Territory. All these latter job losses are a result of the federal Labor government’s knee-jerk reaction. Apart from job losses, it has resulted in pretty much 50% of the Territory’s land mass becoming almost worthless, and hundreds of families not knowing what is ahead for them, their children, their families, their stock, and their properties.
On page 4 of the statement, it said: ‘If you want a job, come to the Territory’. I agree with the sentiment. However, when the person or family gets here, they are hit with the highest rental levels in the country, the second highest cost for purchasing a house, are confronted with poor land release policies, high costs of living - and the list goes on. Darwin is the most expensive capital city to live in with a median price for rental at a staggering $520 per week, and Darwin is the second most expensive place to buy a house. These figures have not changed over the last few years, and are a result of this government’s poor planning and poor management. People cannot buy a property so they try to enter the rental market. As a consequence, rental prices get pushed up, creating an inflationary impact in that area. When they get just too high and it is too tough and they cannot survive up here financially, those people and individuals also leave the Northern Territory, taking with them their skills and their families.
On page 4, there is reference to increasing the annual zone rebate. This is one position I can agree with the government and support. I also agree with forget the Western Australians. While the City of Darwin and greater rural areas may not be considered remote or isolated, there are many other areas of the Territory where employment takes place that are remote and isolated, and we need encouragement to get skilled people to go there, work there and, hopefully, stay there. The current rate of $390 is way too low. In fact, this figure has not changed in over 20 to 30 years. Yes, the rebate is a federal government matter. It is all very well talking about how the rate is not enough, but just what is this Labor government doing to change the rate? What lobbying work is it undertaking to get the rate increased? I suspect nothing - all talk and no action. Chief Minister, we need to get the rebate upwards of around $1500 per year. In the next statement, let us find out from the government exactly what work it is doing to get the rebate increased to something much higher than the $390 it currently is.
The reference to the mining boom is interesting. Yes, there is a mining boom going on across the country, and the maps of the states of Western Australia and Queensland are dotted with new projects. Yet, in the NT, the boom is almost passing us by. Yes, we have good levels of exploration expenditure on the ground, but the conversion to a new major mine is just not happening. I have no issue whatsoever promoting and pushing the offshore oil and gas industry, and believe government does have a strong role to play in facilitating investment and development. Additionally, government has a role to facilitate the onshore support and service industries for the offshore oil and gas industry.
Let us not overlook the value of the mining industry. I encourage the government to get its INPEX blinkers off for once, and to really look harder at what it can do to increase the activity level of the mining industry onshore. It is still what underpins this economy, and will continue to do so for many years into the future. Industry is growing more and more frustrated by this government’s inability to fully push, promote, and support the industry. Yes, the government says it supports the industry, but the proof of how much support is given is shown by the number of greenfield projects opening. I can tell you there has been no major greenfield project opened in the NT of any substantial size in over 20 years. The Territory is slipping behind relative to the mineral competitive states like Western Australia and Queensland. These states are capitalising on the minerals boom, but not us.
While we all know the geological potential of the NT is high, and we rate very well still in the Canadian Fraser Institute in regard to our geological potential, we are let down by our poor and ageing infrastructure. Roads are not maintained, the port is inadequate, and areas of regional development lack the basic services that exploration and mining companies desperately need and want.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave other parts of the statement to my colleagues to comment on. Suffice to say in closing, it really does not address the serious issues we are confronted with in the Northern Territory when it comes to our growth and our future direction from oil and gas and mining. It is disappointing. I look forward, sometime in the near future, to when government really can stump up and tell us exactly what it is doing to fully promote and push not only the resource industries, but also primary industry and the commercial seafood industry.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, we see puff pieces come into this place all the time. We know the government is filibustering because it has nothing better to do with its time. This one takes the cake! The Century of North Australia is its title. The Chief Minister delivered this ministerial statement, The Century of North Australia. Well, there is nothing about a century in it at all. He, fundamentally, talked about gas production, which I do not think, in the wildest dreams of anyone, would suggest it is going to last 100 years. Talk about gilding the lily; these guys are good at it. He decided he was going to come in here and talk about 100 years of north Australia, all based around gas.
The reality is, as the member for Goyder so aptly put it, the government has the INPEX blinkers on. It is INPEX, INPEX and INPEX. Good on INPEX. We welcome them here; we like to see them in the Northern Territory. However, the Northern Territory is much more than just one project. This government is a one-trick pony. It is the only thing it knows to talk about. It sees its whole future resting on INPEX. Of course, the Chief Minister ran the whole basis of the last election around certainty for INPEX. I do not think too many people in the Territory believed them. In any case, it was a big signal to everyone that this government feels its future is tied to INPEX, and it is the only thing it is interested in talking about. What about the other great industries of the Northern Territory? What about mining? What about tourism? What about agriculture?
We have seen the most appalling decision in history, as far as a Territorian is concerned, made by the Julia Gillard/Bob Brown Labor/Green government. I have never seen a greater attack on the Territory than that posed by this current federal government. We are seeing a whole industry wiped out of north Australia. We have no ships going overseas, the trade has stopped, farmers are going to the wall, and people associated with the industry are going to the wall. Within a few short months time we will see tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cattle starving to death or having to be shot in the paddocks. Everyone here knows that is the reality.
Even the best-case scenario - the 180 000 head of cattle that permits have been issued for exported to Indonesia is not even a third of the previous trade. It means there will be in excess of 400 000 cattle left in north Australia - cattle there is no room for. Fodder is being eaten down. The expectation of farmers across north Australia is that those cattle would have been exported, making room for new calves, for weaners being taken off cows, and all of that sort of stuff. Now we have more than 400 000 extra cattle that really should not be here; they should be preparing to put them on boats. All of a sudden, we have to do something with those cattle and there is no market for them.
I hope the government will come good with some sort of assistance program in that regard. Really, the federal government should be buying all of those cattle at market price. The federal government can determine what they do with them. Most likely, they would have to shoot them because, as I said, there is no market for them. They are going to starve where they are. This is an environmental and an animal welfare crisis. It is an absolute animal welfare crisis, but nothing in the Chief Minister’s statement addresses that.
It is almost like he has kissed the cattle industry goodbye; that he has said it is time up for the cattle industry, it is time up for the mining industry, it is time up for the tourism industry, because we have gas. We have a century of gas, we have INPEX, if you flick through this. To walk in here and deliver a statement like this is just bizarre. He talked about the Ichthys LNG, Sunrise and Prelude FLNG - FLNG is floating liquid natural gas. I remember in 2001-02, the Martin Labor government was absolutely outraged that Shell was suggesting they would build an FLNG plant at the Greater Sunrise field. They got Team Territory together: Steve Margetic, Dave Malone and Bruce Fadelli all significant players in industry up here at the time - they still are. The Martin Labor government got them together, organised a bloke called Steve Brain, an economist from interstate, to put together an economic report talking about the damage that FLNG would do to the Northern Territory.
The argument was - and I was part of the argument; I totally agreed with it - we should be getting that gas onshore, and the Territory should benefit from all of the downstream jobs and all of that. FLNG was a big downer; no one wanted a bar of it. Government spent a fortune promoting gas onshore. That was the whole debate: we want gas onshore!
Now we see a Chief Minister coming in here promoting floating LNG. What an absolute reversal! It is giving it up: ‘Well, we have lost that argument; let us try to spin it the other way now so we can, somehow or other, get this project to look good for the Territory. We have a marine supply base’. There is a great deal of argument out there in industry as to whether this is the right way to go or not - the location, the people involved, all of that sort of stuff. There are plenty of people and businesses involved who want to be involved in the marine supply base. It has been cut out, left to one side. It is a supply base but, for what? We still do not have INPEX here - cross our fingers they turn up, they establish in the Territory; I pray they do, I trust they will. However, when Sunrise floating platform is built, good stuff. Maybe then we will be ready for a marine supply base.
I have to say it is hardly something that is going to underpin the Territory for the next 100 years. Goodness gracious, we know there is a food crunch coming; there is a food crunch already. What have we done about that? Have we got in there and supported our cattle industry the best we can? We know the Chief Minister has been to Canberra and, I have to say, he has taken a pretty tough approach to people like Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie - and good on him for that. However, I still think there is a hell of a lot more this government can be doing to save our north Australian cattle industry.
There is much more that this government can do to get agriculture off the ground in the Northern Territory. Maybe freeing a bit of water might not be a bad start. Maybe doing what you committed to do at the Ord River project – maybe getting that thing off the ground. Maybe opening up the Douglas Daly to more farming, rather than putting land clearing moratoriums and anti-water pumping moratoriums in place. The government could get out there and support some industry in those rural areas. That would be a good start.
Maybe we can do something on tourism and try to market our tourism product a little better than we currently are. But no, this government is a one-trick pony. It is focused on INPEX, INPEX, INPEX – that is all we ever hear: get on to INPEX. It is coming, it is coming, the Chief Minister tells us. Every second line is: ‘It is coming. I have been in Japan. I talked to INPEX. It is coming. They are spending money. They have given the Larrakia Development Corporation some money’. It just gets repetitive when they have nothing else to talk about.
Here we are, in the middle of our biggest crisis affecting Northern Territory industry - certainly since I have been alive. Maybe there have been greater ones in the last century, but I am not aware of when. I am not aware of a time when thousands of farmers or graziers have been put to the sword by a federal Labor government in such a manner. It is just anti-Australian.
This is an iconic industry, something most Australians relate to - the drover, the rough rider, the man on the land. We all want to see that industry continue. However, we have a government which seems to be completely anti-farming and anti-grazing. Do away with the Berrimah Research Farm, we do not need it. Forget research into agriculture and cattle. Why do you need the Berrimah Research Farm when you are not having any farms? They will bring in some native vegetation legislation, make it almost illegal to clear regrowth; cannot break a dead branch off a tree without risk of fines. All this adds up to the most anti-farming, anti-grazing government in the history of the Territory. It is anti-Australian. I could not imagine anywhere else in the country where a government could get away with the nonsense this government is getting away with.
The regulation around tourism is throttling the industry: accreditation programs, money being poured into Territory Discoveries, money being poured into prop up government businesses such as the Territory Wildlife Park and the Desert Park. All this is hurting the industry. If you are a tourism operator why do you want a bunch of bureaucrats hanging around your business to accredit you and tell you whether you are doing a good or bad job? The best form of accreditation is the marketplace. If you do a good job you succeed; if you do a bad job you go broke. Why do you need government involvement? Government’s job should be to get out of the way, but, no, not in the Territory. Our government decides it will speed up the process of ensuring they go broke. It is appalling!
Going through the Chief Minister’s speech, some things amaze me. Aberdeen was a classic. Aberdeen was on its knees a few years ago then it found the oil industry - that is the same as the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is not on its knees and should not be on its knees. If it is on its knees there is only one reason for it, and that is this Labor government. It was not on its knees for 27 years of CLP government. There was no better place to come. It was the place of opportunity, the place to get in and have a go; where anyone could have a go. Not anymore.
The Chief Minister talked about the miracle happening 40 years ago because they found oil in the North Sea. If you go through this nonsense, you will see some of the things he comes out with. Infrastructure investment - what a beauty. He said: ‘Our government has invested around $5.9bn over the past decade in the kind of infrastructure we need to broaden our economic base’. ‘Our government’ he said.
What does he go on about? Tiger Brennan Drive. The lion’s share of Tiger Brennan Drive did not come from his government. The majority of funding for the Super Clinic in Palmerston - almost 100% of the money - did not come from his government. The cancer care treatment centre at the Royal Darwin Hospital, the majority of money did not come from his government. The National Broadband Network, the NBN - I wonder how much the Territory government is contributing to that little baby? How much of the $5.9bn he talked about being invested is coming from the Territory government for the NBN? This is something ‘we are doing’ he said. It is the royal ‘we’, isn’t it?
He talked of the Alice Springs Solar City. It would be interesting to know how much money the Territory government is putting into the Alice Springs Solar City. I recall it was a federal government initiative - not the current one, or the previous one, but the one before that. The Solar Cities program originated from a federal government of a different political stripe than the one that is in there now. However, the Chief Minister is claiming it: ‘We have a solar city, one of seven in Australia’. I wonder who picked the seven? I tell you what; it was not the current government. In any case, the Chief Minister has claimed that. It just goes on and on.
Housing: ‘We are building houses everywhere’. How much money is the Territory government putting into that? Schools: how much money is the Territory government putting into that? He claims all this stuff, which he has nothing to do with - absolutely zero to do with. When you want a Chief Minister to stand up for your industries, to stand up against a dictatorial federal Labor government, where is he? He is found wanting - always found wanting. As I said, you come in here and see the stuff they put forward.
There is a bit at the end talking about Defence support industries. Again, whose money is Defence, who is actually supporting it? He talked about the Defence Support Hub, that great white elephant out there opposite Robertson Barracks. I do not know when we are going to see a business out there. They tell me they are lining up at the door to move in there. I have not heard the name of one. A year or so ago – a bit more than that, I think - there was a suggestion there was going to be a trailer company manufacturing truck trailers out there for the Army. Another one, I think, was building railway line carriages. None of that has eventuated. It would be interesting to know - and maybe the Chief Minister in his summing up can tell us all - of the economic activity that is going on out there at the Defence Support Hub. Maybe there is something there. Maybe that will get us through the next 100 years.
Madam Speaker, this statement is a complete joke. I am embarrassed to be in a parliament discussing this nonsense. I could believe it if it was coming from the member for Daly or the member for Stuart - someone like that - but it has actually emanated from the Chief Minister’s Office. This is the leader of the Northern Territory who has come in here with this nonsense. He said: ‘I am a one-trick pony. Here is the next 100 years of north Australia’. I do not think INPEX will even commit to being around in 100 years time. I know it is a big resource they have there. I know ConocoPhillips has a big resource; Greater Sunrise is a big resource. It will be interesting to see how many of them intend being here in 100 years time.
The Chief Minister’s statement titled The Century of North Australia is nothing about the next 100 years; it is nothing to do with north Australia even. All it is to do with is one business which the Chief Minister hung his hat on at the last election. He is hoping against all hope that that eventuates and will, somehow, save him a few seats when we go to the next election. Somehow or another, I cannot see it, because the fact is this government has neglected so many industries across the Northern Territory ...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member to be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Sanderson. Good on you. I was just winding up, but there are a couple of other things I would like to say.
I never really got to say exactly what I thought of a Chief Minister turning up here with such a statement. It makes him look silly. He looks silly hanging his hat on one project, saying that is going to deliver 100 years of economic growth and that, somehow or other, we are going to be emblematic of Aberdeen.
He has included FLNG in his argument when, not even 10 years ago, the previous Chief Minister was so outraged about FLNG she sent delegations to Canberra, spent money on consultants, economists and the like doing reports, to show how detrimental FLNG would be to the Territory economy and how much better it would be to have gas onshore.
There is no mention in here of those other potential energy projects. What about Central Petroleum southeast of Alice Springs, sitting on probably the world’s largest coal resource? No mention of Central Petroleum. What about the crew at Borroloola who say they have coal seam gas there, or underground gas? I know there are projects across the Territory. What about plans to build a methanol plant in Darwin? I know one of the owners of Evans Shoal to our north, is very keen to bring gas onshore and construct a methanol plant here. No mention of that. All of these are things are out there on the horizon. If you want to talk about a century of development for north Australia, how can you overlook projects like that? Goodness me!
I had a short briefing with Central Petroleum, and they said they have more than 1000 years of coal sitting there. But the government does not talk about that. Why do they not talk about that? They are talking about doing underground coal gasification, bringing the gas to the surface and turning it into diesel - fantastic project. Wouldn’t it be great to have a source for transport fuels right here in the Northern Territory? Where is the focus of government on those sorts of projects? It is just amazing! Magellan has plans to develop the Evans Shoal and to have a methanol plant here, hooking up with Dow Chemical. We might get some downstream production happening in that regard, of petrochemical industries and the like. We can have some downstream industry.
What are we talking about with INPEX? They turn up here, they pump the gas out, they chill it down, they put it on a boat, and it is gone. Where is the value added? There is a bit of value adding with LNG, but where is the petrochemical processing, our plastics manufacture - all of those things? They are not even in the same area as the Chief Minister’s mind on this. The Chief Minister is just solely focused on INPEX. If he wanted to do a statement on INPEX, why could he not have come in here and said: ‘I am doing a statement on INPEX’, rather than come in here and say: ‘I am doing a statement on a century of north Australia’, and then just talk about INPEX? Just talk about INPEX, INPEX, INPEX, INPEX, INPEX.
What about developing the rest of the Territory? What about developing our regions? What about developing the centre of Australia? The Territory is a great place, we have resources the length and breadth of the Territory, but there is absolutely no mention of any of that in this statement. It is shameful, and I am ashamed to be in a parliament with a Chief Minister …
Dr Burns: What about Cameco? You want to mention that?
Mr TOLLNER: What about Cameco? The government chased them away too. There is a whole heap of things you are quite prepared to chase away. You had one of your …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You had one of your greatest internal battles for years based around whether or not you would allow McArthur River Mine to divert a river for 5 km. It tore you to bits. You had ministers crossing the floor, not being around for the vote. How pathetic! There was 5% of the Northern Territory’s gross state product coming out of that one mine and you almost self-imploded - what an appalling joke you are. Political correctness, Labor philosophy, all of that sort of stuff thrown into the big cauldron of hatred, and where do you end up? Fighting and carrying on – what an absolute joke.
We have projects the length and breadth of the Territory. We have iron ore projects, copper projects, coal projects, and methanol projects trying to get off the ground. No mention of any of that. Cattlemen doing it hard, people talking about building abattoirs here, a world food crunch happening around us as we speak, but there is no mention of any of that. We have one-sixth of Australia’s land mass, and probably a third of Australia’s rain falls in the Northern Territory. We have water, we have clean sky, we have an able-bodied population, and we have a bunch of unemployed people sitting out there in remote areas. This is where the next 100 years is taking us. What is the Chief Minister talking about? Nothing - absolutely nothing.
A member: INPEX!
Mr TOLLNER: INPEX, INPEX, INPEX. By God, I tell you what, if you do not fly a helicopter out to the rigs, what do you do?
We saw ConocoPhillips turn up here - another great project, do not get me wrong; a couple of thousand workers constructing it – and it very much disrupted the Northern Territory economy. I remember at the time we could not get a plumber; we had to fix the toilet because every single plumber in Darwin was working at ConocoPhillips. People could not get an electrician in to fix a power point; old ladies could not get a fan fixed because there was not an electrician to go around because ConocoPhillips was paying two, three times the market rate for all the tradesmen in Darwin. They all got sucked out there.
We went for two, three years in the construction of that and when it was constructed - guess what? - they all moved out and left and we have – what? - 50 ongoing jobs for it all. As I said, I am not negative on ConocoPhillips at all. It was a foundation customer to get our gas industry going. Thank God for previous CLP governments with their vision in getting that up and getting the project going ahead It has allowed for further development of other projects such as INPEX. Cross our fingers INPEX will come here. However, there are others that are just as worthy. We should be working on that; we should be trying to get as many spin-offs as we can. We should be working to try to get as much downstream industry as we can - not just servicing centres for the rigs offshore but actually getting some downstream industries such as petrochemical work and manufacturing work happening. All these sorts of things are possible. But, the Chief Minister has not mentioned any of that in his statement. I believe it is a complete joke and it is an indictment on this whole parliament.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the statement and I will provide a few comments on the comments the Leader of Opposition-in-waiting just made. He has just come into these portfolios, brought back from the backbench and - see you later, Mattie, thanks for coming, nice to see you. He has been out in the cold for a while, and perhaps he needs to come along and have a chat about what we are actually doing for many of those areas he talked about. In other words: get a briefing, a constructive briefing.
The member for Fong Lim is the only one on that side who is genuinely interested in business, except for the member for Katherine who likes to start his own businesses - but we will not go into that; used car salesman.
The member for Fong Lim should well know you can do more than one thing and, this is what this government is doing. We are focused on gearing up for the biggest project ever in the Northern Territory - the biggest ever single investment in the Northern Territory’s history. Obviously, we need to gear up for that; we need to be prepared for that. More so, it is changing the Northern Territory economy dramatically. This is what I have been talking about in these forums. Perhaps I will invite you along to some of these forums, member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: Good on you. Keen to get to them as well.
Mr KNIGHT: We are getting to this tipping point where Darwin is a second, third, or fourth consideration for business to establish and open a regional office. It has come to that stage where it is the obvious location. If you look at it on the map, you can see the proximity to Asia, to the Timor Sea - and to the Arafura Sea in the future, and I will talk about that in a minute. You see that proximity, you see a rail head, an international airport, a port, a big harbour, and you know that is the best place to take advantage to exploit the oil and gas industry, to be a gateway out of Australia for our pastoral industry, for our mining industry, and a gateway for imports from Asia, the factory of the world, into Australia, cutting off time to southern markets. Darwin is getting to that tipping point.
What the Chief Minister is trying to say in his north Australian statement is we are getting there and we have to be ready for it. What he saw in Aberdeen - I guess we will be bringing more information to the business community and the wider community in the Northern Territory - is it will fundamentally change our economy. It will introduce a whole new industry and a level in our economy which does not take anything away from the pastoral industry, the mining industry, or any other industry operating in the Northern Territory now.
This is a new industry, a huge industry, which is fundamentally going to change the state of our economy, of what we do, and how we do it in the Northern Territory. It is going to change our health system, our education system, and our infrastructure. It is going to change almost everything in the Northern Territory in a radical way because it is so big. Darwin is getting to that tipping point of being the obvious place to set up business, to build any sort of plant, or establish a marine supply base.
You mock the marine supply base and make comments about floating LNG. At that time – and you would be aware of this, although you have failed to acknowledge it - the question of where Sunrise was going - Timor onshore, Australia, or floating - was up for grabs. The best result for the Northern Territory at that time was to bring it onshore to Darwin, and we fought that battle right the way through to a very pragmatic decision ...
Mr Tollner: What happened? What happened?
Mr KNIGHT: You talk about the market; you talk about get out of their way …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The Timor-Leste government was pushing extremely hard. They employed a consultant, did their own feasibility study for bringing gas onshore to Timor-Leste. Ultimately, the decision was made to go to floating LNG - perhaps a pragmatic decision. That is what they are trying to produce there.
There was the announcement of Prelude as well, being perhaps the first one to get a guernsey. Talking to industry people, they say it is technically possible to do, and they are certainly well under way now. As well, PTTP is also looking at getting in first with the FLNG. It is not the first prize, which would have been to bring it onshore here; however, ultimately, after intense lobbying, the decision was made that it was going to be FLNG. Therefore, the second best prize for the Northern Territory is to service and supply the floating LNG ship and all the supplies that go with that.
With a marine supply base, we will be able to service not only the facility at Sunrise, but the six or eight FLNG proposals on the table in the Timor Sea alone. That is what is up for grabs at the moment.
We would not be servicing ConocoPhillips and the INPEX gas plants here. We will be servicing six to eight or more in the future of these stranded gas fields or oil fields which have not been able to be exploited. Once the technology is cracked, you will see these FLNG plants all over the Timor Sea and around the world. We have this unique opportunity to supply that. It is not just about flying out to a rig on a chopper. There are hundreds and hundreds of different occupations that service the oil and gas industry. Drilling on a rig, which everyone has a vision of, is only a small fraction of the occupations which service this particular sector. What we want to do is to be able to provide, right from the high schools through to the university, the educational opportunities for people to branch off into that field.
We are an extremely strong supporter of the Charles Darwin University’s oil and gas or hydrocarbon institute. It is great to see industry is also behind that particular project.
When you go to Google now and type in ‘oil and gas training’, there is very little there, and what is there is in Perth. We have the unique opportunity, in the future, when you look for oil and gas training, it is Darwin - and it is obviously Darwin. You can fly out to the rigs for training. You can work in Darwin in a tropical environment as, obviously, those gas rigs are, and do the training here – world-class training. There are already facilities here. There is a Russian scientist they have already recruited, and they have some special machines out there where you can actually see the LNG in these tubes. They are doing tests out there at the moment. To be a research institute, training the trades which supply this industry in the research area is the future the Territory could have.
That is what this statement is about. It is saying what is possible. It has been this government - amongst a heap of criticism from the opposition which preaches doom and gloom and that things are not possible – which has cut through that. We cut through with the INPEX project. If it had not been for Clare Martin and Paul Henderson, we would not have INPEX making an FID decision in November/December this year. It would not be there. What would happen to this economy here? It would be in a pretty poor state. The economy would be in the same state as other states and territories around Australia. We have an economic boom about to happen here, and this is just the first project.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim talked about the situation around ConocoPhillips. We truly acknowledge that. When I got the Business and Employment portfolio, we looked at the INPEX project and understood what it would mean for business and for our community. That strip-out effect is a scary thing for the SMEs around the greater Darwin area. INPEX will not have a problem in getting a workforce; they will just add a few zeros to the end of a number, and they will come from everywhere. They will come from Winnellie, Yarrawonga, Berrimah; they will be stripped out of our community now. Good luck to those young men and women who would like to get the experience of working on an international standard LNG plant and get those skills and, obviously, get a lot of money for doing it.
What those businesses need is replacement of those staff. We saw that very early on. We have done modelling on the occupations and the numbers, and also the ripple effect into the economy as well. That is what we are working on. That is why we have been working with Western Australia and Queensland to get a proposal to the federal government around skilled migration. Our primary goal is to get Territorians into those jobs; into any sort of trade in the Northern Territory. With the lowest unemployment in the country, because the economy is so strong here you can pretty well get a job anywhere you like, those people are pretty well taken care of.
We have tried interstate campaigns to attract workers here. Compare our projects to Gladstone. There are four projects there. Potentially, there is anything between 12 to 16 trains on Curtis Island, and that is just downstream. Because it is coal seam gas, they have the upstream side as well. There are something like 10 000 workers required to drill 50 000 holes over the life of those projects. Then they are building a whole new coal-loading wharf there which is a massive project. They also have some rail marshalling yards. Then, chuck in Wheatstone, and Gorgon, and there are not enough workers in Australia. They are short by tens of thousands, not by thousands or hundreds.
Therefore, it is very unlikely we will get workers from interstate. We might attract some of our own guys back to be closer to family and friends, but the reality is most of our workers coming back in to be able to backfill our SMEs will come from overseas. That is why we have been preparing a proposal, and working with the federal government, to come up with a more flexible and responsive migration scheme so we can provide that assistance to the businesses because, literally, they will be in a great deal of trouble if half their workforce chuck in their resignations and head off to the construction camp of the INPEX project. That is our focus at the moment.
As well as that, we have established gearing up local businesses for major projects - this is not just about INPEX, it is about other projects that are coming online - and getting our businesses ready, getting an understanding of the workforce demands that are required, the levels of accreditation which are required for our Territory businesses to get work with these projects. That has some fairly big hitters on it - industry, the unions, the CEs of major government departments - trying to get a handle on this. The comments I have received from the Master Builders Association, INPEX, and other proponents such as ENI joining that group as well, is they find it extremely productive. They can have a real conversation with government.
Government can change the way it does things, as far as a curriculum for schools or training packages which are offered, to try to get these workers in. I do not agree with the member for Fong Lim, but I agree that there is a unique opportunity for many of our more remote people to take advantage of these projects, because the work is here. It is not there at the moment, so come here and do it. Come in and get your training and get these high-paying jobs. Go home on weekends, or when you have your week off - you have four weeks on, one week off, or something like that – that is the opportunity.
Wherever I go, to outstations or communities I have a bit to do with, that is my message to people. Mobility is the key. You have to be able to move to work. Whether you live in a remote community in outback Northern Territory, or a small town in New South Wales, the issue of jobs and the lack of them in those places is real, and the solution is moving into town temporarily, or whatever it might be. The solution certainly is there.
Madam Speaker, it is a great time to be in the Northern Territory. I have been here 23 years. I was not here for the Defence build-up and post-Cyclone Tracy and all those various stages. You could see the economy pick up at those stages. This time, I am here to be part of the next biggest and the most significant economic growth we will have in the Northern Territory around oil and gas. We will have those other industries such as the pastoral industry. I am sure the minister for Primary Industry will talk about the pastoral industry and how important that is. There is also the mining industry. We provide an extreme level of support to keep those industries going.
I heard criticism from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but we do not hear that same criticism coming from the industry. The industry, whether it be the Cattlemen’s Association or the Resources Council, appreciates the work this government does in investment attraction, trying to get investment into small projects in the Territory, and the geospatial mapping we do free in trying to get that investment going.
Also in relation to exploration, while the rest of Australia was going backwards during the GFC with exploration, the Northern Territory was actually going forwards. That has only come about because of the attitude of this government saying we want to chase business and investment, because investment means better health services, better jobs for our young people, better infrastructure, and better education as well. That is what we are all about: people in the Northern Territory and growing this economy to go from strength to strength. That is what the focus has to be in this project.
INPEX is a key part of that puzzle. I must congratulate INPEX. The member for Fong Lim was somewhat critical of them ...
Mr Conlan: No, he was not.
Mr KNIGHT: He was so.
Mr Conlan: He was critical of the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I welcome back Matt Conlan. The INPEX project is significant and I must congratulate them. They signed an IPP, an industry participation plan, and are genuinely committed to that project. I guess that Japanese culture of respect is coming through the organisation. They are truly committed to allowing businesses to participate in this project.
We had a forum, it was February or March this year, with INPEX and some other major projects, talking to industry. INPEX was genuinely saying: ‘We want you to be part of this, but, geez, you have to step up’. The quality of tenders that were coming through, the lack of accreditation with businesses was a wake-up call for businesses in the Northern Territory. These are major projects that operate on international construction standards, and that is what the marine supply base will be. Also, businesses have to get international accreditation. They have to step up and, if they do, they will get much out of it.
Either within the department of Business or in conjunction with industry, we have run a series of upskilling and accreditation workshops with businesses. There are many businesses which participate. There are many businesses that still do not think INPEX is going to come. Sure enough, the morning it is going to be announced, the people will say: ‘Oh, you did not tell us it was going to happen’. It is a very significant project, and we do need to gear up for it. That is what the tone of this statement is all about: we have to get ready for this major project and, then, we have to get our whole economy shifted around to accommodate this boom that is going to happen.
If you look at the exploration permits which have been released, they are only in the Timor Sea. We still have the Arafura Sea to go, so there is a huge …
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: That is a lovely pink shirt and tie you have on, member for Braitling. You are man enough to wear it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you can contain your comments to the statement, please.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, this project is significant and, underneath all that high-level work that goes on, our programs for SMEs continues. October Business Month is coming up and that month of activities is getting people aware of upskilling and business support programs. Everyone I have spoken to has favourable things to say about it.
With regard to the work of the department, I congratulate all the client managers and staff of DBE who support businesses. That is why those businesses keep telling the Sensis Business Index we are the most supportive government of any government in Australia, because we are truly committed to those SMEs, making them strong, supporting them, starting up businesses. To go to some of these getting into business workshops, it is really inspiring to see the work done by the department to get people prepared for getting themselves into business. These are exciting times.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim talked about Defence, which is a significant part of our economy. Defence procurement works in very mysterious ways, member for Fong Lim, and we will keep trying to get people in the Defence Support Hub because, working in conjunction with industry, they were saying that was the best thing to do. The Abrams contract was only recently awarded and they have been here for quite a few years. We are still talking to the contractor about getting them into the Defence Support Hub. It is a very good location. We have done everything we possibly can to attract people there.
The most significant thing in the Defence area is the Defence review about where Defence should place assets and the way it should do business. We will be chasing the consultants undertaking the review about the significance of Darwin and having more Defence assets placed in the north - whether they be Army, Navy or Air Force - because this is where the defence of Australia is going to occur. This is where the strategic economic interests of Australia are: in the mining and oil and gas reserves we have in the north. The protection of those assets requires Defence assets. We are the best place to have them stationed.
We look forward to putting in a very strong submission, lobbying very strongly to have a new Navy Base built in the Territory, to have more facilities, more brigades stationed here and, more significantly, to have all the service and supply into those assets done from the Northern Territory.
It really irks me to see assets broken up here, shipped all the way down south to be fixed, then shipped all the way back to the Territory to be put back on. It is a ridiculous system that is in place, and is something we will be pushing very strongly to change. It is cheaper to do it all here. I have been through many of the prime contractors’ factories down south, and there is nothing they do in those factories we cannot do here. It is something we will continue to lobby for.
With respect to the attractive place to do business in the future in the Territory, the money we are spending on the Power and Water Corporation and the assets we have around the water, sewerage and electrical area is the biggest injection in the history of the Power and Water Corporation and its predecessors. That is because of the decades and decades of neglect that occurred. We are rapidly catching up - if not already caught up - to the generation capacity required in the projections for having electrical generation capacity.
The raising of the Darwin River Dam wall by 1.2 m will increase the water supply capacity reserves to 20%. That is getting on top of this growth; this growth which is denied by the opposition but, in reality, exists and is going to continue to exist.
People are going to come to the Territory. With the land release happening, as the Treasurer alluded to, the balance in supply and demand with housing is starting to get back into some equilibrium so we get some realistic prices for land. However, it is one of those really attractive places to come because there is much work here and many high-paying jobs.
You can pick up a house in Cairns for $200 000 to $250 000 because there are no jobs. The economy is stuffed because they built their industry on one thing: international tourism. That is it. The economy we have built here is multidimensional. If we have a downturn in the pastoral industry we are able to support it with the mining industry, the oil and gas industry, Defence, or the public sector services. That is the difference in our economy; in what has been constructed here. It has been taken to a whole new level over the last 10 years with the Labor government. However, it did pre-exist that, but we have taken it to a whole new level.
The investment we have put into infrastructure has been unparalleled in the history of the Northern Territory; to have new schools, new hospitals, a whole range of new services this government has put into this community because we believe in this community. We are not doom and gloom like members of the opposition. We believe in the future. We believe in the next 100 years of economic boom in the Northern Territory. Why would you not strive for that? Why would you not strive for not only your kids, but your grandkids and your great-grandkids to be able to stay here and have a well-paying job, live in a nice home, and have all those excellent health and education services, and have the greatest lifestyle in Australia?
Madam Speaker, that is what we believe and that is exactly what we are going to strive to do.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on northern Australia. We are heading in the right direction. Northern Australia it is the place of opportunity right now, and Darwin is well positioned when it comes to powering Australia’s economic engine room into the future. It is the place to be.
I never thought when I first came to the Northern Territory in 1993 - the original plan was for two years before I went back to Perth to resume my profession as an Environmental Health Officer - that come 2011, I would still be here. I also never thought that coming to work for the Health Department, one day I would be the minister responsible for the Health Department. That is not a unique story; most of us have come here from somewhere else for a limited period of time, and we find ourselves staying here for a longer period of time, and having jobs we never dreamed we would have.
There are tremendous opportunities in the Territory, but that has not happened just by chance. It is due to a great deal of hard work by Territorians and a belief that anything is, indeed, possible. Yes, we are can-do people, we have a can-do attitude and, when things get tough, we really find a solution and do not just dwell on our problems.
Our government’s economic credentials are well-known. We are doing a great deal to ensure the Territory continues to be the envy of the rest of the nation. Our mining and energy sectors provide a solid foundation when it comes to its contribution to our economy, particularly in seeking out opportunities to our north and positioning the Northern Territory as the gateway to Asia, or the entry point to Australia.
Our key markets remain strong and the demand for resources continues to grow. A strong economy assists in improving the health outcomes for all Territorians and ensuring that every child has an opportunity to prosper. It underpins the work we are doing to tackle Indigenous disadvantage, and the steps we are taking to spread opportunity to our people in all communities across the Territory - not just people in the urban areas, but those people in remote communities in areas where the pastoral industry or the mining industry are ones that can provide not 10 odd jobs, but hundreds of jobs.
The reality is Australia is experiencing a two-speed economy. Here in the Territory we are well geared to the resource sector. Mining is the largest industry in the Territory, contributing 25% of the gross state product in 2009-10, the second highest proportion after Western Australia at 30.6%. Nationally, mining accounts for only 9.4% of gross domestic product.
If you want a job come to the Territory. Our economic growth has averaged around 4.5% annually for the past six years, and Access Economics predicts annual economic growth of 4.2% for the next five years. The resources boom has been integral to the growth and our development, and will underpin future growth. With major projects such as the $12bn INPEX gas project on the horizon, it tends to overshadow our resource and commodity sectors.
You need to look no further than recent announcements of the mining sector over recent weeks. ERA has now committed to exploration of the Ranger 3 Deeps at an estimated cost of $160m; GEMCO has just announced a $US280m expansion on Groote Eylandt; MRM is to spend $270m to increase mine production to approximately five million tonnes per year; Newmont recently announced a $0.5bn expansion of the facility in Tanami; OM Holdings Ltd increased capacity at the manganese processing plant and Bootu Creek; and, of course, there is increased iron ore production capacity at the Territory Resources Frances Creek Mine.
When it comes to potential mineral development, I mention Minemakers, the Sherwin Iron and Western Desert Resources, Australia Ilmenite Resources, Nolans Bore rare earth, Redbank Mines Ltd, and HNC Australia Resources Pty Ltd in Batchelor, to name a few.
Exploration is a success story of the Territory. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia, during the global financial crisis, which saw an increase of expenditure in the Territory. In the first three quarters of 2010-11, the expenditure was $140.3m, and we believe it will exceed $180m by the end of the year. We are one of the jurisdictions with the biggest exploration expenditure when you compare what we are and where we are. We are not Western Australia - and I would like to add we are not Western Australia yet - but we go that way because of the simple reason the Territory has a great deal of uncovered potential.
It is not only base metals people are looking for; they are looking for uranium, and the most important is onshore oil and gas exploration. Currently, in Dunmarra, Falcon Oil and Gas is conducting exploration. Their prediction is they will find 10 to 15 times more than the INPEX project. Seismic surveys for oil and gas are being conducted in the Beetaloo Basin, southeast of Katherine, and the Georgina Basin, southeast of Tennant Creek. Drilling will be undertaken in Beetaloo Basin and Georgina Basin and in Central Australia – not to mention Central Petroleum near Alice Springs, Central Australia, is talking about investing in future exploration for its coal gasification project. Talking about close to Alice Springs, that is a relative figure because ‘close’ in the Territory means 100 km to 200 km.
This did not happen by accident, it was a big investment by our government. It was a policy developed by our government. Looking to the future, we decided if we were going to attract the miners here, we have to attract the explorers first. That is why we announced Bringing Forward Discovery. Earlier this year, I announced a three-year $11.4m extension to the Bringing Forward Discovery initiative. The flagship program includes geophysics and drilling collaborations to encourage exploration in underexplored or greenfields regions of the Northern Territory. We pay 50% of the cost to a maximum of $100 000 to assist companies with the cost of exploration, geophysics, or drilling in remote areas. Seven programs have received funding, including five drilling programs and two geophysical programs, for the total of over $600 000. Successful companies were Eclipse Uranium, Mincor Resources, Redman Copper, Crossland Uranium Mines, Natural Resources Exploration, AusQuest Limited and Anglo Australian Resources.
In the last sittings, I recall the member for Goyder mentioned there are not many exploration companies in the Territory anymore; they have all gone away and there are only six left. Last time I counted, there were 18 exploration companies with offices in Darwin, or in regional centres around the Northern Territory. I suggest the member for Goyder have a look, or talk with the Minerals Council to find out the real story, rather than playing politics.
We have an international investment attraction strategy for China and Japan, and that has also paid dividends. We have managed to attract significant companies in the Territory. Most recently, we have seen the signing of an agreement between TNG and ECE. ECE has established a company in Australia with headquarters in Darwin, together with the Anhui Exploration Bureau. We have Chinese companies making agreements with Australian companies, Territory companies. I mention the following: Tricoastal Minerals has 7.5% equity in Matilda Zircon, the Anhui acquisition of Territory Uranium exploration licences; the CGNPC with 66% equity in Energy Metals for the Bigrlyi Mine; HNC and Compass, the Jiangyin Huaxi equity in Sherwin Iron, the China Minmetals in Westco Resources, ECE 17% equity in Arafura Resources, and ECE 30% shares in TNG Limited I referred to before. We now have a number of companies in Darwin from China: ECE, Legend International Investments, Anhui, Gemstone, and HNC.
Of course, this does not happen by chance. You have to have vision and you have to put the hard work in. Our government had the vision, and I have to say, my department and I put the hard work in, spending time in China, talking to people in China, attracting investment from China to the Territory. Our program is so good that one of the southern states approached us and asked us if they could partner with us to go to China to promote their state. I kindly declined because my target is the Territory, not any other state in Australia.
We have significant interest in China, but we are also moving in to Japan, where we are attracting Japanese companies. Japan is looking for resources with regard to metals and energy. Of course, we had many meetings with Japanese companies in the past few years. In the past four years since the strategy started, we have had an investment of approximately $185m from Japan and China.
Now we have to focus on other markets. An emerging market in Southeast Asia is Korea. The key focus appears to be energy. We will continue to explore potential opportunities in Korea. My department has already had a number of visits to Korea talking to senior government officials and senior company officials. We plan to visit Korea and Japan in November 2011.
We have delivered an agribusiness strategy, which was developed not by bureaucrats, but by the people on the ground in the pastoral, horticultural and agricultural industries. It demonstrates we see a bright future for the industry. There are some confronting challenges, particularly for the pastoral industry. Of course, like everyone else, I was shocked to see this vision on Four Corners on the ABC. I have to admit that I worked for a year in an abattoir. I had to do that to get my qualification as a meat inspector. I never experienced these kinds of handling practices in an Australian abattoir. It was really shocking and, of course, something had to be done. However, it probably could have been done in a different way.
Our government, once again, was in the forefront; we were the first ones to contact the federal minister’s office. I was the first minister to offer to travel to Indonesia, something the minister asked me to do on his behalf four weeks later - go to meet with senior government officials in Jakarta and advise the minister for Trade. I conveyed the messages to the federal minister, Senator Ludwig. I was very pleased that, on my way back to Australia from Jakarta, I was advised by his office he considered the information I provided and was going to reverse the ban.
We have to do something different. I was always horrified to have all our eggs in one basket. We have to do two things. First, we have to find new markets and, second, we have to find new breeds. If we cannot sell to Southeast Asia, at least we should be able to sell it in the local markets because, currently, the beef we supply is great for Southeast Asia, for Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries but, unfortunately, our local supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths will not touch it because, according to them, it does not meet their standards.
One thing I am proud of is that we stood by our pastoral industry. The Chief Minister and I worked very hard talking to our federal counterparts, and to Indonesia. I was also very pleased today to see we have put a two-year holiday on pastoral leases for the people who have been affected by the banning of live cattle export. We will continue to work very hard to reinstate the export to what it was before. Not only the Northern Territory, but northern Australia relies on that export. Our friends and many of our relatives working in the pastoral industry are relying on this export to survive. It is the only product they can produce in very good quality and large numbers. We have to reinstate the live cattle export as soon as possible to Southeast Asia.
Madam Speaker, because of the economy, we have invested heavily in health. The CLP said: ‘You put in money, where are the outcomes?’ Yes, we put in money. I recall when you were the first minister for Health, the first budget for Health was about $400m - $440m, if I remember well. Now, it is $1.2bn. In 10 years, it is $1.2bn. The member for Katherine said: ‘You put in the money so where are the outcomes?’ I will give you some of the outcomes.
Because we spent the money and we invested in health, we now see a four-and-a-half year improvement in the life expectancy of Aboriginal women from 1996. The Indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 37%. The anaemia rate for Aboriginal children has been reduced by 20%. Cervical cancer rates have fallen by 61%. There is a dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer: 64% in non-Aboriginal women and a staggering 92% for Aboriginal women. The people who have renal disease can now survive on renal dialysis the same as the rest of Australia; an improvement of seven years in their life expectancy. These are real outcomes. These are real people living longer than they were living 10 to 20 years ago.
If you compare that with the CLP and the previous Liberal government, I tell you what they did. Under the leadership of John Howard and Tony Abbott as Health minister, from 2003 to 2007 the Liberal government slashed $1bn from public hospital and reduced the level of funding from 50:50 split with the state and territories to 40:60. That means the Commonwealth would give $1 for $1 before, or 50 for every 50 the states would spend. Then the Commonwealth changed it and will pay 40 and the states have to find 60. The problem in the Territory was even worse because we actually had to find 70. The Commonwealth only puts in 30 for every dollar spent on hospitals.
When the CLP was in government, from 1996 to 1999 it slashed 200 nursing positions. It closed hospital beds and complete wards such as 3B, and chronically under-resourced the health system. Even now, Mr Abbott promises, if elected, they are going to slash super clinics, e-Health and electronic health records, and cap the number of doctors and nurses in training. That is their policy for improving health outcomes. This can only harm the Territory and take our health achievements on a dramatically backward slide.
Our government continues to deliver strategies to improve the health system for all Territorians. We have opened over 127 extra hospital beds. We have employed an extra 720 nurses and an extra 250 doctors from June 2009 to 2011. With the Gillard government, we have delivered the Palmerston Super Clinic, a new $10m facility operating through a partnership with Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. We have student doctors training in Darwin. We have urgent care from the super clinic every night. We are now talking about a super clinic in the northern suburbs.
One of most important facilities is the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, and the 26-room Barbara James House in Darwin for Territorians undergoing cancer treatment. This facility is one of the most modern in Australia, with two linear accelerators and no waiting lists.
I have talked to Kim Hames, the Health minister from Western Australia, who was absolutely staggered we do not have any waiting lists because the waiting lists in Perth for cancer treatment are enormous. Despite the fact they have two linear accelerators in Perth and one in regional Bunbury, they still cannot meet demand and they want to talk to us about treating Western Australians from the Kimberley, and the Pilbara if necessary, at the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre.
Planning is under way for the Palmerston hospital. We have committed $110m together with the Australian government. We are talking to clinicians and community leaders to ensure the planning process takes into consideration whatever they have in mind. We will have 60 beds, an emergency department, day surgery, and some specialist services.
The CLP promised, at the last election, a $100m hospital based on no planning and no beds until 2023.
In February this year, together with Prime Minister Gillard, we opened the $28m first full Northern Territory Medical School with the partnership of Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. There is an opportunity for Territorians to grow up in the Territory, go to school in the Territory, go to university and become doctors in the Territory. The most important one is the Indigenous Territorians who currently train at this facility. We have found with nurses, midwives and engineers, if you grow them here, they will stay here. If these Territorians grow here, they know the conditions and they will stay and that will fill the gap. The current gap we have is half the number of GPs per 100 000 population in the Territory, compared with Sydney and Melbourne.
Kidney disease is a huge problem in the Territory. We have made massive investments in dialysis care and preventative health to provide the best care possible and keep families together. We opened new renal dialysis services in regional centres like Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, Santa Teresa, Ramingining, Umbakumba, Galiwinku, Wadeye, Tiwi Islands, Barunga, Yirrkala, Maningrida, Ngukurr and Ti Tree. We have made dialysis available in people’s homes in Milingimbi, Wadeye, Umbakumba and suburban areas such as Nakara, Wagaman, Durack, Nightcliff and Humpty Doo. We have expanded services in Alice Springs, Katherine, Palmerston and Darwin.
We must have good services because the Western Australians have signed an agreement with us to send all the people east of Warburton, Western Australia, to be treated in the Alice Springs centre. We must be doing something good.
We are investing in infrastructure and in the future. The electronic health records we have put in place are one of the best in Australia - so good that the Queensland minister for Health and Deputy Premier came to see it personally and find out how it works. It is also supported by the Australian government with $13m.
I will now turn to something very controversial; child protection. Child protection is not an issue for government – any government - it is an issue for the community. Unless government and the community work together we are not going to solve the problem.
The member for Araluen laughs; however, her interest in child protection can be shown by one incident. Recently, Professor Vimpani went to Alice Springs to meet with different stakeholders and people in Alice Springs. The member for Araluen has such a big interest in child protection she did not meet with Dr Vimpani because she went to a financial planning forum. She chose to attend a financial planning forum rather than meet with Dr Vimpani. That shows how much real interest the member for Araluen has in child protection.
The member for Araluen tries to talk to us about Indigenous child protection. The member for Araluen made many statements. She talked about prostitution in Alice Springs; made no real claims, no evidence, and no names. Police investigated and could not find any evidence of child prostitution in Alice Springs. She likes the headlines, I can see that. The reality is if we are going to solve this problem - because it is not going to go away next year, it is not going to go in away five years …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, the CLP in its last budget, allocated $7m to child protection, with just over 100 workers - no after-hours service and, of course, foster carers were very rare. Now, we have put a $130m for five years on top of the $182m that is the budget this year. They say: ‘Oh, no, this is not only for child protection’. Well, yes, there is $35m directly for child investigation. What about the money for sexual assault referral centre? What about the money for foster carers and foster parents? These are part of the child protection system. So, $182m over $7m shows you who cares about the child protection ...
Mr Elferink: No, that is dishonest. You are still a dishonest person. You should tell the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that last comment.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I withdraw that he should tell the truth, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS: We had the board of inquiry, the most comprehensive inquiry of child protection in the Territory’s history, that came out with 147 recommendations. We said we would accept them. You have a state of denial, on the other hand, of the last 10 years of the CLP, that tells us the government had walked away from the child protection system because it could not deliver or did not want to deliver. That shows you exactly who really cares about a child protection system.
Again, I say there are significant problems with the child protection system. As Alyssa Betts mentioned in her article, the system was really bad, it was in crisis, and the Labor government was left holding the baby. She also acknowledged in her article that no other CLP government had put as much money in as this Labor government has put into the child protection system. Yes, we put in the money as we want the outcomes. We will get the outcome, because we are committed to increase the workforce, to support the workforce, and to develop a workforce and child protection places where they did not exist before; namely, the Indigenous communities. For the CLP, if it was outside the northern suburbs, it was not worth making any decision ...
Mr Elferink: That is not honest.
Mr VATSKALIS: Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. All children are entitled to live safely and in circumstances that enable them to thrive physically, intellectually, and emotionally.
Madam Speaker, northern Australia is the place to be. It is the place of opportunity right now and heading into the future. Northern Australia will continue to be an increasingly prosperous part of Australia. We are, indeed, heading in the right direction. What we are doing is an investment for the future and our economy growing gives us the opportunity to do things that we could not do before - things in health, education, and in child protection.
I am very proud to be part of the Territory. I am very proud to call myself a Territorian. I am very proud to have come to the Territory from another state and, 19 years later, still call the Territory home.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when I read the heading of this statement today, I admit that I thought there must have been an error. I thought it might have been the century of the Northern Territory, but it said The Century of North Australia. It got me thinking; maybe it is time we thought of north Australia as a state. I had a quick look around, and there has been, from time to time, discussion whether the north of Australia should be a state. I do not want to disappoint those people who live in the south in Alice Springs - they might get a bit upset at that. They can always break away, and they would not have Darwin people to blame if anything went wrong.
We talk about the prosperous north from the Kimberleys through to north Queensland. When the Chief Minister issued this statement, he said:
… I firmly believe it will be northern Australian and the resource-rich jurisdictions of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory that will drive economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.
Maybe we should make our state boundaries where the economic growth and prosperity is, rather than worry about where longitude and latitude is, because those things are purely convention. Maybe it is time we looked at dividing Australia up into areas of economic growth. It was interesting when the Chief Minister brought this forward; I thought it might be an opportunity to, at least, suggest that. The government spent millions of dollars discussing whether the Territory should be a state. I may be more interested if northern Australia should be the state. We have much more in common with one another than down south; we live in the tropical climates; we have issues of isolation; we have a cattle industry, a mining industry, tourism industry and we have large areas of land that is Aboriginal land. In some ways, we are a different part of Australia, culturally.
If we believe this area is going to be the heart of a prosperous 21st century for Australia, then maybe we should look to see whether the dynamics of the way our country is divided up is the right way for the future. It might be that we all seem to die on the stake for being a Western Australian, a Queenslander or a Northern Territorian, but we are all Australians. If changes to the way we are governed meant that some of those boundaries are changed, well, so be it. There would be many more people the southerners might call northerners.
We might also start to get a population base which cannot necessarily be sneezed at - the Territory only has 200 000. If you add north Queensland and northern Western Australia, we might be up somewhere around 500 000, and then we can get good representation as a state. We can argue the case for 12 senators because it would be easier to ask if we had a population base that was higher than we have at the present time. I just put that out, not so much, as people might think, for amusement, but at times we have to look out of left field and ask if this is the way we want to go into the future. I believe it is worth discussing.
In relation to the statement, whilst it mentions a couple of nice things about INPEX and a few other issues, I have always said areas such as agriculture and horticulture seem to get missed in some of these statements. We talk about economic growth, but economic growth needs to be diverse. One of the tragedies that has come out of the live cattle export bans is that, because we basically had all our cattle in one basket - that is, most of it went to Indonesia - when something happened – and I also agree with the member for Fong Lim – one of the worst decisions in Australia’s history in relation to an industry has occurred this year. We have now seen what can happen when most of our cattle go to the one market. We need to diversify our economy and push for other areas that do not get representation.
We know mining is one of the big industries. As the member for Fong Lim asked, was Central Petroleum mentioned? I had a briefing with the company this week as well, and I was astounded at the size of what they are talking about. I would have thought that would end up in this statement, but perhaps that might not fit into the century of the northern Australian state, it is more in Central Australia. The point is, it is in the Northern Territory. If that takes off, most of the rest of our mining will look like chicken feed. I believe it could contribute to the industrial development of the Centre of Australia. The employment opportunities for Aboriginal people would be colossal. Of course, that is where we also have to ensure that - going back to the censure motion today, you can put oil and gas in Central Australia, but if people are not educated, they are not going to get a job.
I hope the government is talking to people from Central Petroleum and making sure there is a big effort to get people moving in that direction. It may take some years. My undertaking is this project could go for at least 100 to 200 years. Hopefully, we have people educated by then who can get skilled jobs. There is an area we really could talk about. Economic growth and prosperity has to include Aboriginal people in the employment strategies. This Central Petroleum project in Central Australia appears to be one avenue where this can really occur.
Getting back to horticulture and agriculture, we all know of the tragedy of the live cattle export ban. We also need to understand that with agriculture it is not just cattle and live exports. It is about improving cattle production and pasture production. People would have seen an article in one of the Territory magazines about the new rice varieties. That is an exciting prospect for the Northern Territory. Our climate is suitable for lowland rice. Many discussions have been had about Humpty Doo in its day. There were many reasons why Humpty Doo failed. It was actually a soldier’s settlement project. People forget that. Many of the people who worked there, as they did in soldier settlement places in Victoria and New South Wales, did not have much experience or the knowledge we have today about the rice varieties that are available.
If you go to the Philippines, from memory, you will find one of the biggest rice research stations in the world where varieties of rice are bred all the time. It is good to see there is some development in that area at Tortilla Flats. I hope to get some time after the sittings to go there to look at what is happening. That is a good area the Territory should be looking at. We used to grow a lot of rice in southern New South Wales. Of course, it used a large amount of water and when the drought was on, our production went down to a miserable 5% of normal rice production. If we can establish an industry in the north where we know there is going to be a plentiful supply, at least in the Wet Season, then there are great opportunities to expand the rice industry.
There are also crops we once grew here in the Douglas Daly, when Fleming was developed - soy bean and sorghum. We now tend to grow hay or improved pastures for cattle. We should not be too shy to ensure we are still looking at developing these particular crops. We know we can do it in the Ord River. I do not see why we cannot do it in parts of the Northern Territory. Some may say we are limited with where we can grow crops. The Sturt Plateau is one of those areas we can grow many crops. Ali Curung is another area with its watermelons. My understanding, from visiting the Ali Curung watermelon site, is there is almost boundless water and good soil there. I will put ‘boundless’ in inverted commas but there is plenty of water and is rechargeable. It is not like Ti Tree; it has a good supply of water.
There will be an interesting discussion about vegetation management plans the government is putting through. My feeling is you have to balance this with food production. When we are talking about agriculture and horticulture, we are talking about feeding the expanding world population. Whether you like it or not, the world population will continue to grow. We have soils, we have water, and we need to have the ability to develop those. What we are clashing with today is, to some extent, some ideologies. I am not necessarily saying they are wrong, but there are issues of biodiversity, carbon captures, and climate change that are also muddying the waters as to which way we go in developing our economy.
Regardless of all that, growing crops is an important part of our economy. The fact is we have to eat. This statement does not deal with agriculture or horticulture. When governments issue statements about the growing prosperity of the north, I believe there is reason to ask why that particular area of our economy is not part of a central focus in these documents.
If you look at the Ord River - and if anyone has been there in the last couple of years you will see it is expanding. Ord River Stage 2 is up and running, or on its way to up and running. I believe they are developing the channels now. There is forestry; there are many seed crops being grown by companies like Pacific Seeds. There is very similar soil on the Northern Territory side, not just on Stage 3 near Legune Station, but around near Kildurk Station and areas like that, about 60 km to 80 km inside the Northern Territory border. Very similar soils, and we also have good water from our rivers like the Negri. Many people do not know that river very well, but I visit in the Dry Season. It feeds into Lake Argyle, and I keep telling Western Australians their good crops grow from our good water.
Agriculture has much potential. I laughed when this government spent quite a bit of money helping the trials of GM cotton. We spent seven years growing GM cotton and issued a report saying GM cotton was quite good, reduced the amount of spraying, and did not affect the environment. There was seven years of work at Katherine Research Station which I visited. Because we have a mindset through Australia that GM is somehow scary - or all GM is bad, which is the problem - we do not allow GM crops such as cotton to be grown in the Northern Territory if someone wants to grow it, yet 95% of cotton in Australia is GM cotton. That has had the effect of greening that part of Australia because there is less spraying, which means fewer tractors running up and down, less fuel, less soil compaction and less chemical sprays. You have had a change in the whole production system. Most people used to be scared of cotton production because the history of cotton production, especially in Kununurra, was not good. However, with some scientific research and some intelligent use of GM, we lead the way in growing cotton in a green way.
Sadly, we have a group of people who have an agenda which says no GM. It is like people who say we cannot have any nuclear. It is not as though we could advance the technology to overcome their fears; the point is there is no GM, there is no nuclear. That is sad because we have not progressed in society today by not taking risks and not looking at changes in technology. We have come to a grinding halt in public perception that some of these things are bad. They are only bad when misused. We have opportunities in the Territory to use some of this technology.
Take the new banana varieties being looked at through GM …
A member: They are straight!
Mr WOOD: They are straight, are they? They are very good. I do not know if straight bananas will be a good marketing ploy but they will pack much easier.
GM bananas are being trialled in the Top End. We had a fantastic banana industry that was booming until someone came in from overseas and brought in Panama disease and destroyed that industry. Yet, we have the water and the soils to grow bananas. We had the alternative area to Tully to grow bananas so, if there was a cyclone in Tully, production in the Northern Territory would take over as has happened in recent times. You still have people talking about how terrible GM bananas are. They do not even have seeds; they cannot produce anywhere else. What is the difference between a GM banana and a non-GM banana? You can see how rabid people get when they mowed down a crop of wheat in Canberra recently - the GM cotton was being grown to prove whether it had any health effects. The people did not want GM so they mowed it down. That is an act of terrorism. Someone does not believe that technology could be tested.
We also have the mango industry. Our largest horticultural industry is not mentioned here. It is mango time already. There are mangoes to buy at the Palmerston markets. We need to keep developing these industries. We have the advantages of different times for different crops in the Northern Territory. Katherine comes in a little later than Darwin; Kununurra comes in a little later than Katherine. We have the advantage in the north of having a series of climatic differences that allow crops to be sent south at different times of the year. That is a great advantage over the rest of Australia.
We are still just scraping the edge of horticulture in the Northern Territory. Asian vegetables have gone, over many years, from being a nothing crop which no one would eat, to the Territory being one of the main suppliers of Asian vegetables in southern markets. With the introduction of Vietnamese through the boat people when they came to the Territory, those people showed us how to grow Asian vegetables, and the Asian vegetable market has boomed.
We supply how many cut flowers down south? It is a great production in the Northern Territory because we have a warmer climate in winter, so we can send all these flowers down south. We have a nursery industry. We supply many plants, especially to Western Australia. We have a forestry industry, for better or worse. Sometimes, it has been done more for carbon capture than being grown for the timber itself, but we certainly have the potential for more forestry. These are the areas we have to develop.
We can talk about the big stuff. We can talk about the mining which is great, but we have to ensure we diversify. When times are tough, if your industry is relying on just one thing, for instance, if you are relying on tourism - we know what happened to tourism in Central Australia when Tiger Airlines collapsed - you get hit hard. If you have an economy that is broad, the effect of the downturn in the global economy at least is a bit easier to handle.
There is an opportunity, when these statements are issued - and there have been many over the years; they are very broad statements – for a little more oomph in them, a little more about what the Territory’s future could be about, rather than about just running on INPEX. I have nothing against INPEX, but it is only part of it. We have not talked about commercial fishing, Aboriginal fishing, or recreational fishing. That is all part of our Territory economy we should be trying to develop.
The minister mentioned Defence, which is an important industry, and also the Defence hub. There is nothing sitting in the Defence hub, I can tell you. It is a nice …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I note the Chief Minister mentioned the Defence Support Hub. It is a little nice - put it that way - because there is nothing in the Defence Support Hub. One of the problems is it is too close to Wallaby Holtze Road. The other problem is some of it is built among the magnetic ant hills, and you can get that reflection in the Wet Season. The rest of it is built on high ground, but there is nothing there yet. I understand the government is trying to encourage industry to that park, but nothing has happened. It will be interesting to see whether it is actually going to happen.
Madam Speaker, there probably were just a couple of issues I may have gone over. I spoke about the forestry. The other area is an area we forget. The member for Fong Lim spoke about whether the Territory is going to develop until we open up these growth towns, and we get public roads into those areas. Growth towns are meant to be real towns in the sense of Mataranka or Katherine. We still have a long way to go before that occurs.
Regarding Aboriginal employment, people say to me: ‘Let’s start up market gardens’. I can tell you now, I have been down that path and, unless you have people willing to work those long hours - because it is not that simple to develop those industries if people are not willing to work seven hours per day. Vegetables have to be watered all the time. When we talk about industries in Indigenous areas, we have to be realistic about what we are doing. The idea of Indigenous cattle stations is good. I have been out to Mistake Creek. I went out to Alcoota recently. Both are Aboriginal cattle stations. Alcoota is a very successful station employing quite a few Aboriginal people. We have to do more work in that area if we are to develop our agricultural industry, especially for the benefit of Aboriginal people.
If you go to most cattle stations these days, most people who work there do not come from the Territory. Even the non-Aboriginal people come from down south. If you go to the Katherine Rural College - and I remember the Country Hour was doing a little promo with them, asking the kids where they come from, and they came from Melbourne and Adelaide and all over the place. There were not too many from the Territory. There is room for much more Aboriginal employment.
I was in Katherine, the home turf of the member for Katherine, the other night, and we saw a video of young Ngukurr students who had been working at Mataranka Station as part of the Katherine Rural College course - I think it was Certificate II in Rural Operations. They produced the video. At least, they got an idea of what working on cattle stations would be like. I am not sure how many are employed on cattle stations. If we are to develop the economy, it is not just about these big picture items. It is about creating employment for the people in the Northern Territory. There needs to be this ongoing emphasis to create a range of jobs for a whole range of people.
If the Chief Minister is to make this statement that we are going to be on the cusp of an exciting new era in this country, and if the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is 14% - because if you take people out of the Centrelink system and all those other new start systems, Aboriginal unemployment is extremely high. It will always be have and have not until we bring many of these Aboriginal people into the fold. I get concerned - and people may say it might be exaggerating - in a society where part of that society is doing quite well, and part of our society is not doing so good whether that is reflected in the violence we see in some of our centres. For better or worse, or whether it is their fault or someone else’s fault, you can see a difference. There is a group of people who drive around in nice four-wheel drives and have a nice house; there is a group of people who hop in an old Holden, unlicensed, and head off to a rundown house. There may be reasons for that. The reality is that our society in the Northern Territory does show those distinctions and we have to ensure we are aware of that and do our best to overcome that.
When I hear about Central Petroleum in Central Australia, I see opportunities to turn things around for people. It is not that simple. I know about the tall poppy syndrome, where people do well in a community and, all of a sudden, it is a shame job. I discussed this with a business in Alice Springs when I was there earlier this year. They had an Aboriginal person working for them in a steel manufacturing shop in the industrial area of Alice Springs. He was fantastic, but he was humbugged for money when he went home - humbugged all the time. In the end, he gave it away. There are some cultural issues, or other issues, we also have to work through and overcome and change, if people are to move on to a better society.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. Besides the marine base and INPEX, it is not as full as it should be. I could have gone on about many other things, other parts of our economy. I have stuck generally with the agriculture. That is the sort of statement we need. We need a statement that looks at the economy of the Northern Territory as a whole, looks at the diversity of the Northern Territory, and maybe even this debate looks at whether north Australia should be a state rather than the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, the first thing I will say tonight is, how do Territorians benefit, or is there any tangible difference from a statement like this? This House runs at a great cost to Territorians, and you really wonder what our job is if it is to come in here and listen to yet another puff piece from this government. We could better spend our time in working on programs that will make a difference to Territorians.
What we heard today was another piece of self-advertising from this government. It uses hour upon hour in this place to talk about how good it is. 18 August is the 10th anniversary of the Labor Party’s election to the Northern Territory government. That is a decade. Today, we are listening to a Chief Minister talk about what he would like to do, and brag about some of the achievements of this government, but more about what needs to happen, what things need to occur to make the Territory a good place. Well, you have had 10 years. Territorians have had 10 years and, again we listen to a statement tonight, when I believe we could be using our time much better than listening to advertising.
What does it do? It gives your side the chance to promote yourself about how good you think you are. It gives this side of the House and the Independents the opportunity to get up and belt you around the head about how you have not done everything that you say you are doing. Sometimes, ministers are a little removed from what actually happens at the coalface. You can put that down to many reasons. An analogy I use is, if the Chief Minister was going to turn up to a school, the papers are picked up, there might be some painting done, and the place is made to look as good as it possibly can, to show some pride in the school, but to always put the best face on for when the Chief Minister turns up. That is what happens in any government department when dealing with the minister; they want to put on the best face possible. Sometimes events get so sanitised that, by the time they get to the relevant minister, they really do not get a clear picture of what goes on at the coalface.
I want to talk through this statement today, and one of the first things I saw in here was the Chief Minister saying he firmly believes it will be northern Australia and the resource-rich jurisdictions of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. The truth is this government has not been as supportive as it possibly could be to some very big opportunities in the Northern Territory. Arafura Resources comes to mind, where many millions of dollars and, in fact, jobs are going to go to South Australia. Interestingly enough, I heard the Chief Minister mention if INPEX had come along, it just would have got a ‘no’ from this side had we been the government of the time. I put it to you that the development of Glyde Point would have continued many years ago, and today we would have a first-rate area in the Northern Territory for heavy industries. That did not occur under this government because you took your eye off the ball and INPEX caught you on the hop.
On page 2, the statement says the transformation is under way, looking at the economy and how powerful this economy is. The one thing it does talk about is the economic growth of the Northern Territory, around 4.5%, annually for the past six years. You have had six years of data which show growth, yet it has only been, probably in the last couple of years, where you finally turned a sod and started to release some land, and tried to play catch up. And you talk about being a well-established government that is planning well and is going to, and has been able to, tackle the growth! It is as though this has crept up on you and you had to make some decisions really quickly.
One area where there has been growth in the last few years is the public service. That is certainly a growth industry, with thousands of jobs. I can tell you - in the last couple of weeks, trying to get into the MVR and walking in the door and then straight out again - I know where the staff are not working. I know where this government is not supporting the coalface; that is, in areas like MVR.
You cannot do everything online. I congratulate the government for introducing online payments for registrations and a number of other things. However, there are still a number of things you cannot do online and you have to go in to the MVR. When you go into the MVR - in fact, in the last week or so nearly on a daily basis - and see the number of people waiting there, you wonder where all the additional public servants are. This government is not supporting the MVR. These people are willing to pay you money to drive their vehicles, to register their cars, to have their licences – they want to give this government money. The best thing you can possibly do is have this most streamlined conduit you possibly can to receive that money.
Page 4 of the statement said: ‘If you want a job come to the Territory’. I have to ask, what if you are an Indigenous person living in the Northern Territory? As the member for Nelson said, I have never really understood in all my years of living here why we keep so many Indigenous statistics separate to white Australia. Why is there a separation? Why are there separate programs? I have heard the member for Fong Lim many times talk about having programs set up - whether they be medical, legal, and so many other things - to deal with Indigenous people. We do not include Indigenous people in general statistics in regard to employment. Why is that?
We should be just one group of people called Australians, at the same time acknowledging people have different cultural backgrounds; whether you are an Indigenous person from Australia or an immigrant who came to make a life in Australia. Acknowledge people have different cultures and are from different backgrounds but, at the same time, we are all one nation and should be treated the same way, not as separate groups, as happens today.
Page 5 talked about LNG and INPEX. This government has put INPEX under much pressure. It has set a very high bar and raised the expectation in the general community of what is expected of this major company. It is fantastic that a company like INPEX is looking to invest in the Northern Territory; however, this government has put an enormous amount of pressure on this company.
Recently, when speaking about the generous $91m to use in environmental initiatives and other things, I made it clear in a media engagement I had that this does not in any way allow this government to take its eye off the ball and not have a responsibility when it comes to the environment. You cannot make INPEX responsible for everything; you cannot put your eggs in one basket. I found it interesting that the member for Daly talked about putting your eggs in one basket. There is a clear indication this is exactly what has happened with INPEX and the pressure the government has put on that company.
The member for Nelson also raised Central Petroleum. When I had a meeting with this company, I seriously hoped they were going to take some of the advice on board and talk to people like minister Burns regarding education, and see how CDU in Central Australia could work in with a company like this. To think some kids in fourth and fifth class today could be tomorrow’s petro-scientists. Those kids could be at any one of the primary schools in Alice Springs and go through to work in the university in Alice Springs, then go back to their areas and be petro-scientists within their own communities. There are so many opportunities that particular investment opportunity has. Hopefully, the right government can capitalise on and turn some of these opportunities into real futures and real jobs for Indigenous people.
When it comes to education, with all we do and all we have done, there is one thing we can be positive of; that is, whatever policy, whatever government over the last 30 or 40 years, has brought us to exactly where we are today. It does not paint a very good picture when you go to some of these remote communities and see the way people live in horrid conditions. It is a sad indictment on all of us - parliamentarians today and parliamentarians of the past. Perhaps even public servants who have worked in those areas share some of the blame in where we are today.
However, there are opportunities. It is not about how much money has been spent; how it is spent is more important. I look at some of the opportunities, particularly with education. I was visiting one of our local colleges recently and spoke to some young Indigenous chaps who were pulling cars apart and putting them back together. I was taken aback by their enthusiasm. I said to one young chap: ‘What do you want to do after you leave school?’ He said: ‘I want to continue with my apprenticeship and become a mechanic’. ‘What do you want to do then?’ ‘I want to become a mechanic, but Mum and Dad want me to come back to the community and there is not really much to do out there’. Then it dawned upon me and, if a black kid could go grey, this kid went grey, because it dawned upon him, it does not matter how hard he works in school, how hard he works in getting an apprenticeship, how hard he works to complete that apprenticeship, if there is no job at the end, it is all for nought.
Some of our major issues in this country come down to land tenure. If we can focus on one thing with all the money that is being spent over the years on Indigenous affairs - if we can focus on one damn thing, which is to sort out land tenure - we just may be one step closer to building these economies in our rural and remote areas that will support jobs for these young kids who come through today ...
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about it?
Mr CHANDLER: Well, what we have done up until now has not worked ...
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: What we have done up to now has not worked. I am not blaming one particular person, minister, not one …
Mr Knight: What are you going to do about Aboriginal land tenure?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: That is something we have to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr CHANDLER: This government talks about the future, about all the things it says it wants to do and has done. In land release, it talks about opportunities, but do you know what I see? It is the high cost of living. It talks about opportunities, and the average person looks at housing costs. It talks about opportunities and what it should be doing, and I see high electricity costs. It talks about all the things in these puff pieces and, in fact, some of the things that really do matter to people are being overlooked dramatically …
Mr Giles: The cost of living for Palmerston residents - you do not care about …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Just today, I received this e-mail, and I will read it to you:
- My partner and I have purchased a block of land in Bellamack. It was released in Stage 4A which was in June. We have started building and filled out the required online application for power to be connected to the property, and our electrician has done the same. Our electrician was contacted by a Power and Water employee today and advised there is no power to this stage release in Bellamack.
This is not Johnston, this not Zuccoli, this is not one of the newer areas, this is Bellamack - something this government has been gloating about for a long time.
- We have contracted Bellamack who advised that temporary power has been set up on each block; however, this is not the case. We have also contacted a gentleman in Perth who advised that he will look into it.
He might work for the Labor government:
- I contacted another building contractor who is building in the same staged release, who told me that Bellamack paid a bond so they could release the blocks and have been paid for without power.
I do not fully understand what that means. This building contractor is using a generator for power, and I presume all other builders in that stage are doing the same.
The e-mail goes on:
- We are currently hiring a generator at $80 per day that also requires fuel to power many tools including a scissor lift that is also hired. We cannot afford to pay $80 per day for the foreseeable future for the
hire of this generator and the fuel costs.
We are first land buyers and builders in the Northern Territory and would like to know how Bellamack is able to sell these blocks of land without the necessities of power. We also believe that we
should be compensated for the cost to hire the generators and fuel.
While this government goes on about all its releases and everything it is doing to release land for people to build houses, unfortunately, what it forgets about is following through with processes that do not leave people where they purchased blocks of land in good faith without even having electricity put on to the blocks.
Just yesterday, we had an e-mail from a person who has invested in a block in Bellamack. They invested earlier this year, and only just received their building permits. In all that time, the developer has held on to the deposit and there is not much they can do about. I had a similar issue raised with me in May 2011. I wrote to Hon Gerry McCarthy on 24 May 2011. I will read that letter out to you, because it still has not been responded to. With all their puff pieces, they forget about the people who they are supposed to be here to support:
- Dear Minister McCarthy,
Today a couple came into my office providing details of their financial predicament caused, to some degree, by the delays in releasing land titles in Bellamack.
In 2009, this person and their partner paid $17 425, a 10% deposit, for a lot in Stage 3 of the Bellamack development. This deposit was financed by a particular bank through an interest only loan.
Since that time, titles have been delayed three times - not once, but three times - to the point that, because of their current circumstances, the bank will not lend them the amount now required to
complete a house and land package.
They were at their limit when they first applied for a deposit for their new home and, because of the failure of this government to release land titles, house prices have gone up to the extent where their bank will no longer lend them the money. In that case, we have asked the minister to intervene because we are trying to get their deposit back. To this date - that was written on 24 May, we are now in August - we are still waiting to hear from the minister on what can be done to help out a family that is in genuine need.
All the puff pieces in the world do not fix some of the basic problems we have in the Northern Territory today. We have had a government that has had more money than any other previous government – forever - since we have had self-government. More money, yet we probably have a bigger debt today than this Territory has ever had before. So, not only have they had more money than any previous government, there is no doubt they have spent the money - they have spent more than they have earnt, because they have put us into debt.
I move on to page 19, where it talked about the challenges. The Chief Minister said: ‘Rapid change also throws up some big challenges’. If they were serious about meeting some of the challenges for people and helping Territorians, they would be on the phone to the Prime Minister condemning the carbon tax and the mining tax.
There is something the member for Nelson raised in regard to Central Petroleum. I thought it was quite interesting. I wonder if it is time this country starts to look at policies where people are taken to the resources, rather than the other way around, where the majority of Australians live on the eastern seaboard. We know this country was founded on the back of the gold rush, and that many years ago people flooded to areas like Bendigo and Ballarat where the gold was. Today, we have some pretty vast resources in the Northern Territory. Central Petroleum is just one of them. There are geothermal opportunities. Perhaps tomorrow’s resources - the energy side of resources - is where we should be moving people, away from the eastern seaboard into where the resources are. One of the biggest issues with geothermal, I know, is the fact it is in some of the remotest parts of Australia, away from the grid, away from where the demand is. The infrastructure required to get electricity from a geothermal plant in Central Australia to the eastern seaboard makes it uneconomical. So, is it time we start to look at ways of bringing people to where these resources are?
I will finish up quickly, because there is much more I want to talk about, particularly with the Johnson report. The last part, the conclusion, when I listened to the Chief Minister today, I really thought there should have been some background music to it - the pan pipes playing - because it really was like an advertisement. How about we just get off our backsides and try to find better ways to make this a better Territory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Member for Greatorex, bear in mind that at 9 pm we have the automatic adjournment of the Assembly.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was the option to extend for an extra 10 minutes; does that still stand?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm I will ask you what your intention is.
Mr CONLAN: All right. I just need to blow the cobwebs out. We have a pretty long sittings ahead of us and need to fire this baby up, I reckon. Five minutes will probably do, and we can continue our remarks later.
I had a look at the statement and I have to say, the region is fantastic - there is nothing wrong with the region, north Australia is absolutely fantastic ...
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to direct the member for Daly to withdraw his comments and refer to the member for Greatorex by his name.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear what was said. Minister, if you said something …
Mr CONLAN: There you go, that was the Chief Minister that never will be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Giles: He does not have the guts to challenge.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw whatever it was you said.
Mr CONLAN: Whatever you said I take offence to.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw something or other.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, stand when you are speaking to me, thank you. Please withdraw the comments.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw the comments, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The region in the north is fantastic; there is no doubt about it. I have deep affection for north Australia right across the top end of Queensland through the Northern Territory and up through the Kimberley.
It is the environment that is in trouble. I am not talking about the hole in the ozone layer. I am talking about the environment the Northern Territory Labor government has left the Northern Territory and north Australia. Our streets are out of control. Law and order has spiralled out of control in the last five to six years. Crime rates in the Northern Territory are twice as high as the Australian average and, in most cases, are significantly higher.
The biggest employer in the nation and the Northern Territory is small business. Small business is struggling; retail is down about 30% across the Centre and across metropolitan parts of the Northern Territory. Couple that with the spiralling crime and law and order, and people are vacating the Northern Territory - it all becomes too hard.
The cost of living is through the roof and, of course, the housing crisis is engulfing the Northern Territory. It is tough to rent a house if you are a low- to middle-income earner in the Northern Territory. It is tough to buy a house, let alone rent a house.
The statement is interesting because it said:
- That is why I visited Aberdeen in June; because I wanted to see firsthand an economic miracle ...
Over the page, he said:
- Just over 40 years ago, Aberdeen was on its knees. The local economy was in dire straits, people were losing their jobs, businesses were closing, opportunities for young people were scarce ...
Does that sound familiar?
- The local economy was in dire straits, people were losing their jobs, businesses were closing and opportunities for young people were scarce, and the region’s population was declining rapidly.
That was when the miracle happened.
This is from the Chief Minister’s statement today. He is hanging everything on INPEX. I have to agree with the member for Fong Lim; it is all about INPEX, INPEX, and more INPEX. We too welcome INPEX. We encourage INPEX to the Northern Territory; we hope they come. The Chief Minister hopes INPEX arrives very soon because he has done nothing when it comes to infrastructure in the Northern Territory ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: What has he done? Let us have a look. What has the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, delivered in infrastructure, member for Johnston? What has he delivered, personally signed off on in infrastructure? Everything you hang your hat on was thanks to the former member for Fannie Bay. The little that you have done is thanks to the former member for Fannie Bay and former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. We talk about the waterfront - probably the biggest thing you have delivered was delivered by the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. You spent $500 000 of taxpayers’ money having a huge booze up and a big party to celebrate the opening.
We also look at INPEX. It was all in play well before the member for Wanguri challenged the member for Fannie Bay for the leadership. Now, he must deliver. He has 12 months to the election to say in the last four years he went to the previous election for certainty around INPEX. He must deliver that within a little over 12 months, before the next Northern Territory election, if he is to have any credibility whatsoever.
You have not built one hospital, one school …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex. Order, member for Greatorex!
It now being 9 pm, do you wish to continue for 10 minutes or do you wish to continue tomorrow?
Dr Burns: One school - what about Rosebery? You goose.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: I ask that the member for Johnston withdraw that
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr Burns: You mean about Rosebery school?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you withdraw the comment, thank you?
Dr BURNS: Of course, I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to offend the member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, do you wish to continue your remarks for 10 minutes and that is the end of your speech, or do you wish to continue tomorrow?
Mr CONLAN: No, I blew some of the cobwebs away …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, which one?
Mr CONLAN: I am happy to continue tomorrow or next time.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned in accordance with Standing Order 41A.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I discuss something that should be of some concern to the Attorney-General, in particular, which relates to the speeding fines which have been brought into question as a result of the Northern Territory Police Force no longer proceeding in a matter of the police against Braddy. In that particular instance, a grave doubt has been cast over the accuracy of the vehicle-mounted speed guns that exist and are relied upon by the Northern Territory Police Force.
I have spoken to the former member for Goyder in this House, Peter Maley, who was representing Mr Braddy. Mr Maley has, with the acquiescence of his client, forwarded some material to me in relation to the decision taken.
I am very concerned about what Mr Braddy has had to say. The expert Mr Braddy relied upon when fighting this speeding ticket, a Mr Joe Mulligan, has extensive history in this country in relation to speed camera and speed gun technology. What is concerning is the fact there are some very serious questions that should be raised in relation to this technology.
I note Mr Mulligan said, amongst other things, there are numerous and significant serial number conflicts that raise concerns as to the quality or ability of the testing officer in all the test reports. This results in doubt as to accuracy and reliability of these test reports.
He went on to observe:
- I have examined hundreds of police radar test results over the years and have never seen the perfect test results as indicated in these tests that were performed over many years on three different
speed radar units; radar units that have clocked up many usage miles. The accuracy quoted by the manufacturer of the MPH Bee III radar is plus or minus one mile per hour, or approximately plus
or minus 1.6 km/h. The test results show an absolute 100% accuracy of the speed readings and a level of accuracy that is not possible for the design of traffic radar, either new or five or six years as
these are. The tick box arrangement clearly performed on a word processor is unscientific.
Mr Mulligan went on to say the radars are faulty to some extent, and he raised some very serious questions over the calibration and testing of these radars.
What he said, which is of great concern, is these test reports show that measured powered out radiated power density of 2 mW - I presume it is milliwatts - per centimetre, is alarming in the sense that the maximum power radiated from a police radar under the ARPANZA national radar standards is a maximum of 1 mW per centimetre. He went on to observe:
- Therefore, these radars are not legally allowed to be used in Australia and do not comply with numerous Australian standards that govern all police radar devices in Australia. Speed readings
produced by these radars are not legally admissible.
The Attorney-General should be explaining to Territorians as soon as possible the legal status of the millions of dollars obtained by the use of these radars over the years. I am anxious for the minister to do so.
It is one of the sad tragedies of our justice system that it is only people who are particularly passionate about having a fight, who will occasionally spend a large amount of money defending what they know is right. As for the rest of us, we will generally accept a speeding ticket. Even if we do not think it is right, it is simply more convenient to accept the ticket and get on with our lives. It would appear, in the case of Mr Braddy, he is not of that nature and he has fought this, spent the money on getting an expert, and the expert has completely and utterly canned radars 1, 4 and 5 used by the Northern Territory Police department. Not only does he say that the testing, in every likelihood, has not been done properly, but demonstrates the radars are faulty to some extent.
It is very concerning to me that the Northern Territory government has remained silent on this issue so far. It is simply not good enough to withdraw a complaint from a proceeding before a court. What should be happening is the Northern Territory government should be finding out how many of these speeding tickets they have issued rely on the use of these radars. They should also be doing an audit of all their radar systems so Territorians can feel assured the systems work effectively.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, having read the expert report in this particular case, I am very surprised – very surprised indeed - at the number of shortcomings that were found. Not only were a number of shortcomings found but the excessive generation of radiation of twice the ARPANZA standards is also a matter of concern. I am reminded of the case - and I will have to do some homework on it – where there was an increase, I think it was testicular cancer, in police officers in Texas some years ago as a result of overexposure to high radiation emitting radars. That means there is, potentially, a work health issue involved in this as well.
The Attorney-General cannot remain silent on this. The government needs to respond to what Mr Mulligan has told them. I urge the government to speak to Mr Braddy or Mr Maley to determine very quickly what they are going to do about this particular issue.
_____________________
Tabled Papers
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Travel Reports – Member for Fong Lim, Interstate Study Travel Report and Member for Blain, Overseas Travel Study Report
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Travel Reports – Member for Fong Lim, Interstate Study Travel Report and Member for Blain, Overseas Travel Study Report
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call on the next member, I table the Member for Fong Lim’s interstate study travel report pursuant to 3.15 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009; and also the Overseas Study Travel Report of the member for Blain pursuant to 4.2 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2009.
_____________________
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with much interest this morning when the Shadow Ministry was announced. I managed to not only get the announcement that was made today, dated 6 August 2011, but I looked at the previous portfolios of opposition spokespersons and office holders from 18 October 2010, which I believe is the last iteration before this one was announced today.
It is obvious there are some winners and some losers in this reshuffle ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Certainly, the winners would have to be the member for Port Darwin, who has regained Treasury; the member for Fong Lim who has come back into the Shadow Ministry with Lands and Planning, and Business and Employment; and the member for Braitling, who, as well as Indigenous Policy, has Transport and Construction and Regional Development.
Looking at the former list, the people who have lost are the Deputy Opposition Leader, the member for Goyder, who has lost Major Projects and Economic Development, Trade, and Lands and Planning; the member for Katherine, who has lost Treasury and Regional Development; and the member for Drysdale, who has lost Construction.
I have had a bit of a think about this change - obviously some winners and losers. Starting off first with the member for Katherine, who has been stripped of his shadow Treasury role, it was interesting to go back through the debate we had in May 2011, and the assurances given to the member for Katherine by the Opposition Leader. He said:
- This member … has been supported, and continues to be supported, by the people of Katherine. I stand by their representative.
Later he said:
- Now that I am in receipt of the letter …
talking about the letter or report from the Ombudsman:
- … will I remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer? No, I will not …
said the Leader of the Opposition.
It was interesting to contrast that, in the same debate, with the statement made by the member for Port Darwin, who has now inherited the loss - a quite substantial loss - by the member for Katherine. He said in the debate, and I remember it clearly: ‘I am not going to defend the actions of the member for Katherine’. Here we have the leader defending him, saying he will stand by him, and the leader of opposition business - and, I suppose the notional Deputy Opposition Leader by function - the member for Port Darwin, saying he was not going to defend him.
Out of those comments, the only one who was true to his word was the member for Port Darwin who has gained from the member for Katherine’s loss. The Opposition Leader certainly did not stand by his words, and has hung the member for Katherine out to dry. He has humiliated him - he has absolutely hung him out to dry. He has not stood beside him. I reckon ‘stabbed’ would be a word. I believe the member for Katherine has been loyal to the Opposition Leader, and the question I ask is: what has he got for it? Humiliation! Is this a reward for loyalty? That opens up the whole question now of preselection for the seat of Katherine. I am hearing there are a few people circling who might put up their hand for CLP preselection for the seat of Katherine …
Mr Elferink: Good. And I expect a few for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin - I have been around long enough; I can see he is continually positioning himself. He is absolutely ruthless in what he does. Maybe he is going to do the Jim Hacker: the default Chief Minister if they were to fall over the line after the election; the Mt Bundy agreement that we have heard a little about. I caution members opposite here to watch the member for Port Darwin. I have seen it all before, and do not forget …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask that Hansard record this under the Dewey Decimal System, using the word ‘fiction’ at the front of it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not forget the member for Port Darwin was part of the CLP prior to 2005 election where there was a lot of jockeying and positioning. He has learnt from the masters, so I say to member opposite, just watch the member for Port Darwin.
In relation to the member for Goyder, I believe she has been badly treated. She has been humiliated through this reshuffle - and I believe those were words used on the ABC tonight. Just looking from this side of the House at the way in which the CLP treat women in their ranks, it is not a pretty picture - not a pretty picture. Just ask Loraine Braham how she feels about it; Noel Padgham-Purich, the former member for Nelson; and, of course, Jodeen Carney - all three, good women, I believe, very badly treated by the CLP and the male hierarchy of the CLP. Now they can add the member for Goyder to that list.
Why was she demoted, if you like? Why were the important portfolios taken away from her? Why were the members for Fong Lim and also Braitling rewarded? Because the Leader of the Opposition had to reward them, but he did not have to show the same courtesy to the member for Goyder. He was forced into promoting the members for Fong Lim and Braitling, but he just did not have to show the same courtesy to his deputy. That is enough said about that.
I also feel for the member for Drysdale. He really got into his portfolio of Transport, even becoming a truck. Anyway, I am sure he will get on with the work he has ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: How do I see the future? I see things as being neck and neck, that is what our polling …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Our polling is telling us that this election is up to be won, and we are involved here in a marathon, not a sprint. The opposition thought it was going to secure government in 2009. That was bad decision-making by the Leader of the Opposition who, I am told, is incapable of making decisions; shies away from decisions. He did not make the right strategic decision. They have lost momentum; they have lost impetus. We are united as a team and we are focused on the job ahead.
I see today they tried to come out of their box and attack government, to try to take the focus away from themselves. However, I predict their problems will be ongoing. As Leo Abbott comes up for preselection it is all going to boil over again because let us not forget - and I have the transcript here, I do not really have the time to read it. Oh, well, I probably do, where the Leader of the Opposition said:
- Tony Abbott says he can’t be part of this he can’t condone it in any way. So you got an issue there. However, I have it. I have his word that if he be the Prime Minister,
we will be in a strong position to look after you. In any event, secondly, by having a tactical retreat at this point, … you can then come back for the 2012 election.
Here was a commitment made by the Opposition Leader to Leo Abbott that he would back him in 2012. But, now, he is in a cleft stick because he also postured publicly about it. It is going to be interesting to see him backing away: oh, it is the party, it is this and that. He is backing away from the strong position he had at that time at the federal election when he went for Damien Hale in quite a despicable manner. He has a problem; it is not going to go away; it is ongoing. There is a movie called the Voyage of the Doomed. You might have changed the chairs around, but the movie is the same. That movie is all about malevolence, suspicions, unexplained events, and almost supernatural powers of the division and destruction. That is the voyage you are on. You are on the voyage of the doomed, opposition. We will see. I do not think you can hold it together.
I say again I do feel sorry, particularly for the member for Goyder, and that the member for Katherine has been betrayed after he was given a promise by his leader. But, then again, Leo Abbott was given a promise by this man here. I do not think he can be trusted. They say a man is as good as his word, and I do not think he is very good at all.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to highlight some of the wonderful learning experiences being created at Taminmin College.
Taminmin College will be holding its annual Science Expo fair on Friday, 19 August 2011. The first fair was held last year. All middle school students, Years 7 to 9, will be participating and it will feature student investigations, exhibits, demonstrations, and presentations which will be on display throughout the day in the school gymnasium. The Science Expo highlights the relevance and importance of science in society. It allows students to experience a hands-on approach to science and gives students the opportunity to use and apply their scientific knowledge while integrating skills and knowledge from other subject areas.
The Science Expo also encourages unity, support, and involvement from the wider community which gives students the opportunity to gain recognition from the community for their work. This, in turn, allows students to identify the role of science areas for future career opportunities. I congratulate Ros Hardcastle and all her science teachers for supporting and promoting science in schools. I also thank the exploration companies that have been kind enough to support the fair by sponsorship including: Tom Baddeley from Santos; Andrew James from Phosphate Australia; Geoff Eupene from Crossland Uranium; Paul Burton from TNG Limited; and Norm Gardener from Western Desert Resources.
The science fair follows on from the hugely successful June musical production, The Rise and Fall of the Bargainmart King which showcased the theatrical and musical talents of the students. These talents have also been on display at various community events throughout the year, including the Freds Pass Show and the Anzac Day ceremony at Adelaide River. The inaugural Middle School art exhibition, Insideout@taminmin, was held prior to the Friday evening’s musical performance. This was an exciting collaboration proudly showcasing the work of the current middle school students who designed, danced, and papier-mch-d their way through Semester 1. The exhibition included a range of styles and mediums such as still life, lino prints, water colour, sculpture and altered books. Such was the high quality of work that some students received offers for purchase, which is good news.
Three Taminmin students, Joelene Puntoriero, David Ung and Leon Milne were offered places at the Professor Harry Messel International Science School, which was held in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney from 3 to 16 July this year. The International Science School only offers places to 150 of the best science students from around the world. Year 12 student, Joelene, was awarded the coveted Mulpha Leadership Award. Mulpha Australia donated $1m to the free science education program and inaugurated the award in 2004, stating it should be presented to the ISS scholar who has shown not only a good understanding of science, but who has also shown diplomacy across all cultures and an ability to bring people together; that is, a good global citizen.
Student groups have just returned from excursions to Singapore, France, and a world challenge to Vietnam and Cambodia which were undertaken during the semester break. The world challenge involved undertaking community work including building fences, digging trenches, and helping the local school by undertaking a renovation. I am informed this was a life-changing experience for everyone involved.
Students Jack Shellcot and Bill Nyugen were selected to attend the 2011 Northern Territory Space School. Sixteen participants are chosen from around the Northern Territory each year. Sam Tolomei was selected to attend Youth ANZAAS 2011 in the mid-year break in Queensland. Around 50 students are selected from Australia and New Zealand each year to live in university residences and go to cutting-edge science activities and lectures.
The Year 10 Leading Learner Science class were the champions at the Darwin Science and Engineering Challenge in 2011.
Matthew Devereaux and Joelene Puntoriero were the Freds Pass Show Rural Achievers in the senior and junior categories. Year 9 agricultural students also enjoyed significant successes with their three champion goats.
Tayla England, a VET hospitality student, was the Northern Territory finalist for ‘Cook Your Career’, a national cooking competition.
Callum LeLay, a Year 10 student, was selected to attend the Brain Bee Institute Queensland and Northern Territory final in July. The Australian Brain Bee Challenge is Australia’s only neuroscience competition for high school students, and motivates young people to learn about the brain. It has been created to inspire students to pursue careers in neuroscience research.
Senior school science teacher, Jen Trewren, took out the prestigious national award as BHP Billiton Science Teacher of the Year.
Radio 104.9 Breakfast Show was broadcast from the college in May and students were commended for their articulate comments as they discussed the musical, science fair, school camps, Freds Pass Show preparation, and Callum LeLay’s Brain Bee achievements. There was also a performance by the school choir.
The ABC’s Country Hour promoted the ‘Produce to Plate’ initiative where students grow food for production.
Youth Week involved a health promoting celebration organised by the wellbeing team to promote a healthy, active lifestyle incorporating lifestyles strategies to promote and maintain mental health and wellbeing.
Taminmin College continues to deliver VET in schools to Numbulwar, Yirrkala, Jabiru, Groote Eylandt and Wadeye. There are courses also offered and being delivered to adult learners in Wadeye and Palumpa.
In June, Taminmin hosted two Indonesian teachers who visited as part of the Bridge program encouraging sharing of culture with schools in Australia and Indonesia. Utilising Wikispaces, communication will continue between Taminmin and 19 junior high school students and staff in Jakarta. Students and staff from Kamitonda in Japan will be visiting Taminmin from 22 to 31 August this year.
The above achievements are all more impressive when considering Taminmin College is nearly 30 years old and lacks many of the state-of-the-art facilities and resources common in most schools today, yet it has an enrolment of over 1200 students. From my observations, the school is not getting the same attention or funds as the city high schools. This situation has to be changed. It is through the hard work and dedication of the teaching staff, parents, and all those associated with the college that it achieves what it does.
I encourage the Education minister - in fact, all of Cabinet - to visit the school and see firsthand how much the school achieves with so little. The success of the college is, in no small way, attributable to the dedication, professionalism and commitment of all staff under the excellent leadership of principal Miriam McDonald.
My constituents advise me that Miriam is creating a strong school identity by cultivating an environment where parents and families feel welcome and are encouraged to participate in their children’s education. This year, there has been an increase in the number of participants at events such as parent/teacher evenings, Harmony Day activities, athletics carnival, art displays and, no doubt, the forthcoming Science Expo. This was also evident in the support from the small community when Taminmin College organised the car parking at the Freds Pass Show this year. I am told that Miriam displays a genuine affection for all the students and it is inspiring to see her interaction with them as she undertakes her daily bus duty and engagement throughout classrooms and the grounds, given the massive role she has in running a college with such diverse responsibilities.
Miriam has a strong focus on encouraging motivational speakers such as the woodchopper David Foster, anti-bullying campaigner, Brett Murray, and Jessica Watson, to challenge the students to be proud of who they are and that they can be whatever they want and dream to be.
It is obvious to those involved in the school community that Miriam’s motivation in all she does is to ensure the very best outcomes for her students and staff. I wish Miriam the very best. I know under her guidance greater things will be achieved, and the proof will be in the positive outcomes for students, staff, families, and the greater rural community.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was sitting upstairs before listening to the member for Johnston give his assessment …
Mr Giles: Diatribe!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: His diatribe. … his assessment of the reshuffle of portfolio arrangements in the opposition. I sat there with a grin on my face because he felt obliged to get up and say something. What I picked was he did not really have it in him to get passionate about it. He did it without any great gusto, that is for sure. I am a bit surprised he did not approach it with a little more gusto - not what I expect to see from the member for Johnston. In any case, he did get it wrong in so many ways, of course.
There have been some major changes here and, quite frankly, I will be honest, I do not consider myself to be a loser in the reshuffle at all. In fact, what I have picked are Corrections and Essential Services which are two enormous portfolios and ones I am sure will keep me very busy. So, quite to the contrary of what the member for Johnston said, I do not feel hung out to dry in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I am, in many ways, pleased the member for Port Darwin has the portfolio of Treasury back again. He is eminently qualified to represent the opposition in matters relating to Treasury. I am not bothered - and that goes on the record.
The member for Johnston also mentioned - I do not know; what did he say? - the people hovering around for preselection in Katherine. Well, that is the normal process. Anyone can put their hand up for preselection in any seat. I do not know why he has a particular vested interest in it, seeing he is not even going to be running at the next election. It would be really good to know who is and who is not, on that side of the House, intending to run for that election.
With 12 months out now, it is absolutely incumbent on the Chief Minister to unequivocally, completely and fully disclose to the people of the Northern Territory what they can expect from the people who are currently sitting as Labor MLAs in the Northern Territory. They need and deserve to know that because they are starting to form some judgments about the way things are occurring in the Northern Territory government. The opposition is no different from that; they are also forming judgments about us.
Contrary to what the member for Johnston asserted, the opposition is a strong, united team. We are all working in the same direction - and that direction is to defeat Labor at the 2012 election.
I do not know where your polling is coming from, member for Johnston, but I suspect you have probably cherry picked some of the words you used in describing the polling you have done. It is certainly an election to win. You have an enormous amount of work to do to win back the confidence of the people of the Northern Territory. They have, indeed, lost confidence in you. You have had your time. You are a lazy, worn-out government. You are bereft of any new ideas whatsoever.
In talking about being bereft of new ideas, one could not go through that debate without mentioning these ridiculous alcohol restrictions that have now come into play in Darwin. Here is the idea, and I remember it because I actually took the time and the effort a number of years ago to provide some feedback to the consultant who was looking at the plan that was going to be introduced into Katherine around alcohol restrictions.
At the time, the suggestion from the consultant was that there would be a reduction in hours, there would be IDs and all that sort of thing. As a police officer then, I said to the consultant it was not going to work. Surely, the proof is in the pudding. Those restrictions have not worked in Katherine and they most certainly have not worked in Tennant Creek. They have not worked in Alice Springs yet – before I go on, they have not worked in those places, and you can see that by the evidence. There are still drunks on the streets in all of those places. The rubbish is absolutely phenomenal. Thank goodness for blokes like Glen Hewitt, who is contracted to pick up the rubbish in Katherine, who does that work tirelessly to present the town in a reasonable fashion. That has all been caused by the drunks that this lazy, slack Labor government has imposed on us.
It is a policy that does not work. The assaults are increasing; and break-ins in commercial premises are increasing. I hear reports all across Darwin now of people at bottle shops being offered money to buy alcohol for them because they cannot get it themselves. I hear of people’s houses now being broken into and their back yard fridges being broken into for alcohol. They are the implications of this Labor government’s slack, lazy policies.
What did they do? They have a policy that does not work in Alice Springs, does not work in Katherine, so what did they do? Roll the policy into Darwin. The people of the Northern Territory have lost faith in this government because they have no new ideas. They do not know how to deal with these problems. They try to be all things to all people. They try the softly, softly - whatever it is called - jurisprudence approach of being careful with what they do, and it is doing no one any good. The policies do not work, the crime rate is rising; you can see that across the whole of the Northern Territory. That is why this Labor government does not deserve another term. If the people of the Northern Territory vote for Labor in 2012 and put them back into power for another four years, do you know what we are going to end up with? Four more years of the same stuff! Four more years of government with no ideas. Four more years of a lazy, tired government ...
Mr Giles: And we do not want it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: And we do not want it, and neither do the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that was not actually going to be entirely the subject of my adjournment debate tonight, but listening to the member for Johnston, it made me get to my feet to talk a little about it. This government is inept. In fact, every time it brings in some other policy, it plumbs the depths of ineptitude. I cannot believe it. To watch it is excruciatingly painful. There would not be a day goes by when someone in my electorate of Katherine says to me: ‘When are you going to get rid of these buggers? When are you going to get rid of them?’ Sadly, I have to say: ‘You have another 12 months to wait’.
Mr Giles: Unless Gerry Wood pulls a rabbit out of his hat.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, but that is not likely to happen. It is not likely that Gerry Wood would pull a rabbit out of his hat.
Tomorrow night in adjournment I am going to speak about what I intended to speak about tonight. In the meantime, the members opposite should consider their future as MLAs in the Northern Territory. Many of their seats are in jeopardy, without a shadow of a doubt. They are in jeopardy because the people of the Northern Territory are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Labor politicians here and across the country.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is quite fascinating that the release of today’s report from the federal Cabinet by FOI is now being known as the Johnson report. After the diatribe from the Leader of Government Business in the seat of Johnston, I find it highly amazing that on page 14 it spoke about lack of capacity to do the job. Clearly, Bungles is a representative of that lack of capacity to do the job. The seat of Johnston has the minister who controls SIHIP and Education, the two biggest failures represented in that report where they said they do not have the capacity to do it. He stands here and has a go at us because we stood here with fire in the belly and held them to account.
I can say the position this side of parliament sits on is we have that fire in our belly and we will hold them to account because they do not do the job. As the member for Fong Lim said earlier, it is all about money to them, but not about outcomes.
When you have Indigenous students last financial year achieving a school attendance outcome of over 80% at 15% of those kids, which includes urban and remote, that is failure. That is failure!
I question the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson - nice bloke, he wants us all to work together. That is all good. We all have good intentions. We try to do bipartisan things from time to time. However, surely there is a point in time where he has to look at that agreement with the Chief Minister and look at the term ‘maladministration’ and start to reflect what maladministration really is. When you only have 15% of kids turning up to school 80% of the time, surely that is maladministration. When you have had report after report, investigation after investigation into SIHIP - Auditor-General’s reports as well, now a $250 000 review from consultants in Sydney by the federal government, you have to ask: ‘What is maladministration?’.
I am happy to give him a dictionary, because I know what it is, and this is what it represents. However, more than just a definitive term of maladministration, and standing here casting political points, you have to look into the eyes of those kids who are not getting a future. You have to go back to the 2007 COAG report that talked of halving the gap in Indigenous Year 12 outcomes by 2020. When Year 5 kids are not going to school, it is not going to happen.
The government likes to portray the argument about the 27 years of CLP government. Well, they promised so much. Have a look at the age bracket of the kids who are going through now. The kids who are 10 years of age are performing better than the ones who are five and six years of age. The threes and fours are not even going to these mobile preschools they are wasting money on. Sure, it is a good idea but, if no one turns up, what is the point? You can see when you map the age groups to the kids, the kids who have been born in this lifespan of this Territory Labor government are performing worse than the kids who were born at the end of the CLP era. So, all your rubbish out the door!
Bungles over there, the member for Johnston, the minister for failure with SIHIP and Education, as reflected by the federal Cabinet’s Johnson report, can stand here and talk about us, but I can tell you, we are solid behind the Leader of the Opposition. We will fight to 25 August next year to win government and take it off - as the member for Fong Lim says - this moribund, defunct, mendicant Labor government.
All they do is put their hand out. $120m extra on average a year from GST received - where does it go? $100m at least on public servants every year, as we saw in that presentation, member for Araluen. That is where it goes; you are not getting money on the ground. Northern Australia development - you are a waste of space.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the point of me standing up tonight was to talk about something I find completely fabulous, the Desert Sports Foundation in Alice Springs as developed, managed and run by Murray Stewart, an Alderman on the Alice Springs Council.
Murray is a highly impressive person. He is passionate, he cares about our town, and he speaks on issues he is passionate about. He is not afraid to pull a punch, he is not afraid to talk about a controversial issue because he cares about the town. He saw a need and an opportunity several years ago to develop what is now known as the Desert Sports Foundation. He has driven it for quite some time. It really came into existence last year.
On Saturday night, my colleague, the member for Araluen, and I were in attendance at a function at the Gillen Club hosted by Alan Rowe, General Manager of the Gillen Club. At that function, there were a number of inductees to the Hall of Fame. I congratulate and thank those committee members, which includes Murray Stewart the Chair; Dave Douglas, the Deputy Chair; Susie Thompson, the Administrator; Liz Dashwood, the Administrator/Treasurer; and Andrea Sullivan, the Assistant Administrator. I also particularly thank Steve Menzies, sports reporter from the Centralian Advocate for the hard work he does in promoting the Desert Sports Foundation.
The minister for Sport, the member for Stuart, at the dinner called it the Desert Leadership Foundation. He was not quite sure where he was; he tried to be highly political and gave one of the worst speeches I have ever heard. It was not motivating at all. Everyone sat there cringing and making jokes about how bad he was.
That aside, I also thank the other committee members: Vanessa Stokes, who does the expo administration; Steve Brown; Alan Rowe; Kevin Rockemer who I work with for the RSL; Ian McAdam; Terry Houghton, who had a fantastic Alice Springs Cup Carnival; Brad Clarke; and Tara Everett. All those committee members deserve a huge amount of congratulations.
I congratulate and pay respect to people who were inducted into the Hall of Fame for the Desert Sports Foundation – for the member for Stuart, the Sports minister, who did not seem to know where he was on Saturday night.
John Bell was inducted for running. He made the Alice Springs May Day race his own. Quite a number of times he has made it his race - maybe even 26.
Geoff Curtis won the inaugural Finke Desert Race on a motorcycle and was three times winner of that event. The Finke Desert Race is a fantastic event in Alice Springs and great for tourism.
I am looking forward to more Chinese tourists coming to the race next year. There was a delegation this year and, hopefully, next year we can draw more.
Matthew Gadsby for athletics - a track and field superstar with a family who has a long heritage in sport.
Billy Hill for darts; quite a sharp shooter in darts.
Max Houghton for tennis; a person who gave three decades of service as an official in tennis at the local, national and international levels.
Lyle Kempster for baseball, could be considered what some might call the Donald Bradman of baseball. The baseball diamond in Central Australia is named after him and would
not be there without his efforts.
Hamish McDonald, a Paralympian, was a guest speaker on Saturday night. He is five times Paralympian in track and field, an Alice Springs fellow who is now living in Canberra.
Reg Preece for basketball; an active and tireless volunteer also with Pioneer Football Club and then basketball from 65, receiving life membership of the Alice Springs Basketball Association.
Christine Trefry for pistol shooting; a great performer at the highest level of pistol shooting.
David Yeaman as a netball official. He is an incredibly high performer playing squash, however, his main claim to fame is as a netball official at the local and national level.
I congratulate all those people.
It is important, especially for a local, regional town, to celebrate our successes and recognise those people, past and present, who have come to provide the formation of a culture within a community that is part of the fabric of our local society. We are a very high participating sporting community, whether as a participant or as a keen observer.
More importantly, I pass on my gratitude to the committee members, particularly Murray Stewart. Murray likes to ring you up and pester you, on an everyday basis, to drive you and help pursue your goals and his goals. This would not happen without him having the tenacity to achieve that. I know the committee members would agree he is a very tenacious man, and he strives for this. I just want to let Murray know, when he reads this Parliamentary Record, my heartfelt thanks and congratulations go out to all the effort he puts in, not just to sport and the Desert Sports Foundation - for the purposes of the Sports minister, Sports Foundation - but also for the Alice Springs community.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, I cannot proceed without at least making some response to the member for Johnston’s contribution to this parliament. He is a man who has studied; a learned gentleman who, I believe, has particular analytical skills he has applied in his profession and brought into this parliament. He has employed them for the practices of the dark art of wedge politics.
I make the observation that I was in this parliament - had not been here for very long - in 2001. I was sitting on the backbench over there as an observer of the proceedings, a member of the Country Liberals which was in power. I recall, at that time, the then Country Liberals were obsessed by the opposition and were constantly writing the script of the opposition and analysing, dissecting, laughing, discerning, and prophesying what was to come. That was the last era of the Country Liberals in government.
I suggest employing your sometimes impressive analytical skills on something that would be a benefit to the people and the families of the Northern Territory, rather than worrying about the opposition. You may be rewarded for that.
I take this time in this adjournment debate to pay my respects - and I am sure many members would join with me in this – to a lady I have held up as a hero ever since I was a kid - Nancy Wake.
Nancy Wake passed away on Sunday at the age of 98. She was born on 30 August 1912 and passed away in London on 7 August.
She was born in Wellington in New Zealand but, when she was two years of age, the family moved to Sydney. Not long after her father left and went back to New Zealand, and she was raised by her mother in Sydney. At 16 years of age, she left home and went off to work as a nurse. She was fortunate enough to receive a 200 inheritance from a relative, and she used that to go to London to explore the world, where she chose to train as a journalist.
She was given a posting in Paris, working for the Hearst newspapers in the 1930s as a foreign correspondent. During that time, she witnessed the rise of Nazism. She married a French industrialist in 1939, then war broke out and she stayed there. She then worked for the resistance as a courier. Her work was so effective it resulted in the saving of the lives of many Allied airmen who had crash landed, or had been shot down, in Europe. So effective was she as a courier that she was the most wanted person by the Gestapo. She had a price of two million francs on her head at that time. She evaded capture on many occasions. Her husband was captured in 1943. He was tortured, with the purpose of revealing the location of Nancy. He refused to do so. It was not until the end of the war that she learnt that her husband had been killed resisting the terrible attempts for him to reveal where Nancy was.
She escaped from Europe and managed to get to England during the war in 1943, where she trained then with the resistance and was parachuted back into France. She was involved in hand-to-hand combat - not just involved, but it is reported that she had to do what soldiers do. Seven thousand of them were parachuted into France and they took on the SS.
She was highly decorated. She is the most decorated Allied service woman of the whole war. She was awarded the George Medal, the Medal for Freedom, the Medal of Resistance, three times the French Medal for the Resistance fighters, and the Legion of Honour. She has been decorated by the United States. In later years, she received the Companion of the Order of Australia, and the New Zealand RSL’s greatest honour.
I was surprised to find a part of her history I did not know. I knew her war history. As a young person, I was fascinated, impressed and inspired by this person. I found out later she stood as a Liberal Party candidate in 1949. In fact, she stood twice against Dr Evatt, and on both occasions she did very well - they made gains - but was narrowly defeated on both occasions. She also ran in 1966 for the Liberal Party in the seat of Kingsford Smith, but was unsuccessful.
Her husband passed away in 1997. They were living in Australia and, shortly afterwards, she moved back to the United Kingdom. She developed a chest infection and passed away on Sunday. She has requested, and I think significantly, that her ashes be scattered in central France. So, God bless her.
Having a person such as that as an inspiration to many, leads me to say that in our education system, for our young people, we need to take the stories of heroes and present them to our young people - of those fellow citizens who have done extraordinary things, whether they be explorers, inventors, or people who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. We need to have these stories told to young people. It seems to happen less and less. There are the stories of people whose lives can inspire, and I hope there is the opportunity for teachers to tell the story of people such as Nancy Wake, and look around for heroes so we can have those role models for young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I join with fellow members of this Chamber and acknowledge the heroic contribution that Nancy Wake has made to the cause many were called in our nation to fight, that was well above and beyond the call of duty. I hope many are as inspired by her story, and I am pleased that many have now taken up her story. There have been movies, books which have been repeated many times - and one of those I read when I was about 12 years old. For any teachers who might be listening to this, I ask you to reach out for books on people who have stories that inspire, and read them to our young people because they do need hope and need to be inspired. Nancy Wake was No 1 amongst those in my books.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, what an interesting day in parliament. I have been totally intrigued by the goings on in the Chamber today. The Minister for Local Government talked about the working party for the Santa Teresa pool, and the need for Aboriginal people to be consulted. She, basically, admitted that over the last 10 years that is what was lacking.
There have been some wonderful admissions today, but what takes the cake is when the Minister for Child Protection presented parliament with the report from the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. He very proudly presented this document to parliament today. It is a 30-page report, itemising the progress of the committee and what it has been doing, amongst other things. This is truly a fascinating report which the member for Port Darwin alluded to earlier. Probably one of the most astounding things about this report is on page 25 where the committee has, effectively, compared Aboriginal people to cavemen. It is absolutely startling that the minister could table such a report with such a horrific and demeaning comparison made between our Indigenous Aboriginal people of Australia and the Iron Age people referred to in this document.
The whole thrust of the report was also very intriguing apart from this horrendous comparison. This committee was put together with some controversy. It came about as a recommendation from the Growing them strong, together report: Recommendation 136. It was an urgent recommendation stating that the Children’s Commissioner should be appointed as the external monitor of the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, which came about from the board of inquiry into child protection in 2010. When that report was first tabled, the government committed to implementing each and every one of those 147 recommendations.
However, a crack emerged when the government decided it was not going to give the powers to monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations to the Children’s Commissioner. They decided to set up this Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. This committee is made up of eight very distinguished, highly professional people in the area of child protection. We have no question about the credibility of the people on the committee.
This report contains no information at all about exactly how this committee intends to monitor, review, and report on how the government is travelling with the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. There is absolutely no information publicly made available, either in this report or any other report, as to how this group of people - supposedly independent – is going to assess and analyse and measure how the government is going about its business of reforming child protection. There are no measures in place. There is no mention of systems, of analysis, data collection - there is nothing of the like.
What we have in this 30-page, rather shameful document – and I might add, no author is included in this report, so we can only surmise it is a rather enthusiastic government advisor. I cannot imagine that anyone on the committee would be privy to the types of information included in this report. However, I stand to be informed as to exactly who the author is. If the minister is listening, perhaps he could provide us that information further down the track.
What we have is a host of different information which could only be provided by the government. Most of it is contained in the various reviews and inquiry reports we have all read. It is a re-hash of what we have seen before. It has been regurgitated to be placed in this report. The external monitoring and reporting committee has its own emblem which has been branded and put on the document. This document does not do anything to make me think this is an independent body at arm’s length from the government. It tells a story of how they met for the second time - they have met twice in the last 10 months.
This is not a vigorous committee in how it is going about its business; it is not active. It is inactive and is being stage-managed very carefully. It has met twice in the last 10 months since the board of inquiry released its recommendations. The first time, I presume, in Darwin for a day, and the second time in Alice Springs for two days. The committee was shipped down to Alice Springs and was briefed by various people, including the CEO of the department. The Minister for Central Australia was part of the briefing they received on the Youth Hub, an initiative of the Northern Territory government. They were then briefed on the Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council, on the Mobile Outreach Service, and given an expos of all government children’s services in Alice Springs, or a good range of them.
As we know, briefings are just that. Government briefings are a rather sanitised and manipulated version of what is happening on the ground. You would not hear the sad and bad stories from any briefing; it is all very good, very positive, very encouraging, very compassionate and understanding. That is the theme of this 30-page report of the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. It is all very positive, sanitised, and it is completely and utterly deceptive. What we have is a committee that is costing the taxpayers of Australia much money, presumably. We have eight people being carted around the country, wined and dined, and exposed to all these wonderful government stories about how successful they are in reforming child protection and implementing the recommendations of the half a dozen reports that have been flung at them over the last 10 years.
We do not see any independent or truly impartial monitoring which we require. This government needs to have an independent watchdog look over its work when it comes to child protection. This government has failed again and again when it comes to child protection. What does it do? Just as it gagged the Ombudsman, it dismissed Recommendation 136 recommending the Children’s Commissioner should be the external monitor because they said he had a conflict of interest - he was too close to the work. In fact, the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, knew too much about what was going on, had gone on, and should go on. They did not want to be subjected to the impartial and strong criticisms and views Dr Bath would have had of their practice. The government did not want to be subjected to any form of objective measurement or analysis of how it is travelling. Instead, it set up this toothless tiger, this flimsy thing called an external monitoring and reporting committee - and it is an absolute disgrace. It is quite offensive that this is what the government parades around the Northern Territory as, supposedly, the external monitor of its efforts in child protection.
I would like to take the government to task and say that this is not good enough …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired member for Araluen, resume your seat.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight in adjournment I will address three things, if I can. First, I take the time to discuss a very enjoyable morning. Mr Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and Mr Terry Mills, the member for Blain, and I were invited by Ms Ann Brown to a gathering of a seniors group in Palmerston. Ann is a fantastic lady who regularly frequents my office. She has many ideas, and one of those ideas, from some time back, was to set up a croquet club. Some suggestions were put out and a little help was put forward to get some croquet sets. From there, she has built up quite a group of people who have wandered all over Australia playing croquet. They have many fascinating stories of their games played in different parts of the country, and how popular it is.
Ann was determined to get a croquet group going, and she has joined forces with Maggie Schoenfisch of the Alexandra Day Club and all the volunteers at the Gray Community Hall on a Wednesday, and came up with the idea of a Pollies and Senior Challenge. The three local MLAs of Palmerston - the great Palmerston district it is - took on a group of seniors. It was a fun morning had by all. No matter how old some people may have been, their feistiness was better than some of the members on this side. Their skills were great, but my desire to play competitively certainly came through, and Mr Peter Chandler, the member for Brennan and I won against our senior’s team in a play-off hoop - right down to the literal wire. It was a fun game. We learnt many things. We learnt how to jump balls across other balls. Sometimes, our seniors really regretted teaching us some of their techniques and, at other times, we managed to drive them out of the way with brute force to protect the hoop. It was a really great morning.
The Alexandra Day Club supplied a morning tea for us all, and we sat out under the beautiful trees at the Gray Community Hall in Palmerston.
One of the things that was quite telling - and I spoke to some of the people at the time - was we had different people moving in and out and through the croquet games. You could say they were long-grassers or homeless people, but they took the time to stop, watch what we were doing, engaged enough in our game to watch us play our shot, before moving on and through. I found it was almost a touching moment on a couple of occasions where people came through, because we were out in the park playing a game of croquet and they, for a short time, engaged with us and enjoyed watching the game we were playing. It was one of those strange things in life. It was something I noticed, and we talked about. We all agreed it was really good to see people getting out, using our parks, and everyone around us seeing the benefit of having a great time.
Thanks again to Ann Brown. I look forward to the next challenge; I am sure you will have one for us. We will step up to the plate to see what we can do. I am sure we will not always be winners of the game, but winners in the fact we are actually out there using our facilities.
I will quickly touch on what some of the ministers and members from the other side have, in their ramblings today, talked about: what a great job they have done. I remind the Territory people that this Labor government we have had for 10 years has borne no greater cost upon this Territory other than its failure to plan a single thing. It keeps banging on about – and we heard it many times today – the developments that are happening in Palmerston. The reality is they are so far behind it has cost Territory families a lot – not in the monetary sense, but in the personal pain that is felt when you are at the markets, when you are going through the shopping centres, when you are listening to them at different functions and forums. They are feeling the stress because this government failed to plan.
I look back - only probably now two months ago - when the government released the great Zuccoli development. It was two years behind time; 220 lots of land behind time. At this point in time, on the Northern Territory government’s own timetable, it should have delivered 220 lots of land in Zuccoli. That is a shameful indictment on a government that has truly failed to plan, and it has hurt the families of the Territory people to the point where they are leaving the Territory.
We, from the Country Liberals, will be delivering real plans for a real future. The greater Darwin plan that was released last year has certainly shown there is a greater vision than can come from this Labor government - a plan that will take us well into the future, that gives the people of the Territory at least something to look forward to. Members such as the member for Daly have been really void of any knowledge. He is a vacant space.
I also make some quick mention of the great work of several of the Palmerston sporting clubs, and I would like to highlight it again. If it was not for the sporting clubs and the committees in Palmerston, the Palmerston sporting groups would not be getting the great deal they are now getting - mind you, under this Labor government. It was the diehard good business senses of the AFL clubs, the Rugby clubs, the soccer clubs, the tennis clubs, the netball clubs, that allowed a good deal to be struck with the government to ensure we get good facilities in Palmerston. Those clubs should be commended and should be the people who are rewarded for their hard work.
If we look at what the Labor government in 2008 promised in the election campaign, it was that they would deliver a group of sporting fields at the home of the Magpies and would, in fact, take one football oval away from the Magpies, give that to the soccer club, and tell the soccer club they would have to share with the Rugby club - and then will throw in some tennis.
That was Labor’s plan, to actually plan for fewer facilities than the Palmerston sports clubs already had. For that alone, this government should be condemned. However, the sporting clubs fought hard - fought against a vicious minister in the member for Karama - and came out with fantastic outcomes for the Palmerston people. It is not the government to be commended, but the Palmerston sporting clubs. They are the true heroes of the day out there. I look forward to them enjoying the rewards they have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been an interesting day. I look forward to tomorrow, because this team will not back down, and will ensure this Labor government is a gone government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016