2012-10-24
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wulagi Primary School students accompanied by Ms Jodie Houghton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: The daily Hansard is not available due to replication issues between our internal Lotus Notes server and the Department of Business Internet server. Members were e-mailed the daily Hansard last night. The issue will be rectified.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, the number of members to serve on the public accounts committee will be increased to six.
For honourable members’ attention, the reason we are moving this motion is we moved a motion yesterday inviting the member for Nelson to join us on the Public Accounts Committee, but standing orders only allow for five members. This motion is to accommodate the member for Nelson being on the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for moving the motion. We welcome the member for Nelson onto the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to working with him. I believe the member for Sanderson will be chair and we look forward to working with him and examining some of the things said in this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for allowing me to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. We no longer have the Council of Territory Cooperation; however, I recall the member for Port Darwin saying the Public Accounts Committee could do some of the work the council has done. I hope we can expand the role of the Public Accounts Committee to make it more open and transparent. One of the differences between the Council of Territory Cooperation and the Public Accounts Committee is, in general, the Council of Territory Cooperation meetings were open to the public. There is certainly room to improve the workings of the Public Accounts Committee and I thank the government for allowing me to be part of that process.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions and appreciate the comments from the members for Fannie Bay and Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries have leave for the period 12 noon today to the close of business 25 October 2012.
By way of explanation to the House, and I have described this to the leader of opposition business, the minister will be attending the Standing Committee on Primary Industries when it meets next Thursday in New Zealand. Of particular interest to the Territory will be discussions about drought reform, agricultural land development, and the National Foot and Mouth Decision Action Plan. I am sure members would understand, with a meeting of this nature and importance, leave of absence should be granted for the minister to go about the business of protecting the interests of the primary industries of the Northern Territory.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay)(by leave): Madam Speaker, we have asked for, and the Leader of Government Business has consented to, some items on tonight’s general business being switched. The member for Nelson’s motion, which involved this minister, can be put next Wednesday to allow the minister an opportunity to participate in the debate. We thank the Leader of Government Business for consenting to that request and allowing the minister to be present for the debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government and the opposition for agreeing to that. The motion regarding closure of certain areas to fishing is very important for many people and it would be a waste of time if we were to debate that without the minister being present. I appreciate the changes put forward.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have informed the opposition of this, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business ministerial statements being called on for business forthwith.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we have agreed to the request from the Leader of Government Business. However - and this is obviously the first week of sittings for a new term and everyone is still working things out - it would be preferable in future to receive notice the night before. This was a reasonable thing in the hurly-burly of the first week of sittings. We are happy to not look at it as an issue this time around. However, around statements and changes to routine of business we would normally get notice the night before. We ask for that to happen in future. It is no big deal in the first week of sittings for a new term, especially after the ceremonial day yesterday. However, that is a request for the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this has caught me by surprise. I could say it will not make much difference because the Administrator has spoken about these things, the Chief Minister spoke in his reply yesterday and, now, the statement covers more or less all those areas as well. I was not aware the statement was coming on now. I am the only Independent; however, it would be nice to know so I can arrange my papers for the purposes of being part of the debate. I hope statements can be sent through electronic means. Last night, thankfully, a government staff member dropped off a copy of the statement quite late, otherwise I would not have known about it.
I do not have a great problem because today I was going to respond to your Address-in-Reply. You cover many of those things in the statement and it will probably save me making three speeches, which would probably bore you to tears. I will try to cover it in one.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Economic Status of the Territory
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I put before the House the true state of the Territory’s financial position. Yes, the member for Nelson is correct to an extent. The explanation the Territory is owed about the nature of its financial position will now be outlined and be added to.
I noted too, with interest, the now Labor opposition exhibiting some sensitivity on this topic which reinforces the importance of the statement we are about to make and I am leading, which is the state of the Territory’s financial position.
It is very important to outline to Territorians the extent of the deficit and the debt left by the previous government. However, it is not simply the debt as it now stands, but also the previous government’s ongoing unfunded programs which are having a real impact on the deficit and will cause the debt to continue to grow.
It is necessary to explain to Territorians why my government now has to take steps to return the budget to a balanced position and repay the enormous debt burden which faces every single Territorian no matter where they live. We all have been left with an obligation, a debt, and a load to repay. It will not go away.
Fortunately, there has been change to a government which takes these matters seriously. I suspect Territorians, like me, thought the previous government was not declaring the full facts about the state of the budget. Unfortunately, early indications by the Renewable Management Board indicate we are now headed for a fiscal deficit of over $900m. This means we must make some very hard decisions and get the Territory back into the black.
What is required? Along with other economies, the Territory has struggled in the wake of the global financial crisis. The shallow assertion of the former Treasurer, as though that is the complete and sole explanation for the diabolical position we are placed in now, is wrong. It is an excuse and it is dishonest. As goods and services tax revenues flatlined - by far our major stream from the Commonwealth - the previous government poured money into capital works with the help of the Commonwealth’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan which funded social housing and roads, and schools for the Building the Education Revolution, as an explanation for where the money came from.
There is an argument for spending in a downturn to keep the local economy afloat, I can see that. Most of us can understand the logic there. It may have enabled many Territory firms to stay in business and keep staff in work, but that is not the whole story. We are now well beyond the global financial crisis and the Northern Territory no longer has the financial options available to keep pump-priming the economy. Indeed, the failure of the previous government to put any of the GST windfall aside for a day needed from 2001 through to 2008 meant the support provided during the global financial crisis came at a cost - a significant cost to the bottom line of the budget that saw ballooning deficits and an ever-growing debt.
The federal government this week signalled it will cut $22bn from its spending programs because of a fall in tax revenue. Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has recognised when income falls spending must be cut.
However, the previous Territory government continued spending and spending, but not just in one-off capital projects, it grew significant expenditure items in the budget on the recurrent side which locked it in. It painted itself into a fiscal corner. On the revenue side, GST did not grow as the previous government had hoped it would, our slowing property market lowered our own source stamp duty collections, and falling world commodity prices affected mineral royalty revenues. These are the facts.
The previous government continued to spend beyond its means despite falling revenue growth - the recipe for a problem we have inherited and one we will fix.
Let us look at some of the high-level figures at budget time in May and again at election time in August when the pre-election fiscal outlook was released. These are instructive. The non-financial public sector fiscal imbalance was $767m at budget time; however, in the pre-election financial outlook it has expanded to $867m - a $100m escalation in just three months. The ratio of nett debt to revenue is expected to be 98% by 2015-16, and that, frankly, is not sustainable. Unfortunately, the early indications from the Renewal Management Board are worse than this government expected.
Example after example is coming forward on commitments made by the previous government where activities were part-funded but not adequately reflected in the forward estimates on an ongoing basis, or where staff were engaged, such as the case in child protection, but there was no ongoing funding provided for those staff. National agreements are reached for joint funding of programs and services which the Territory must continue to fund when the agreement ceases or where the capital funds are accepted by the Commonwealth but no allocation is made to fund the ongoing operation following the construction of the facility, as in the case of the health system.
The fact is, without intervention the 2012-13 fiscal deficit is likely to be over $900m compared to the May budget figure of $767m. The impact of this, looking through the forward estimates, would see our debt rise to over $6bn in 2016. Prudent financial management says the operating balance should be in surplus in order to respond to the Territory’s infrastructure or externally impacted needs as they arise. Clearly, we cannot continue in this vein. Already, interest charges on our nett debt are costing us $750 000 every single day. If we were to continue the result would have to be fewer jobs, particularly jobs for our children in the future, and greatly reduced services.
Immediately on assuming office I commissioned the Renewal Management Board to get to the bottom of this situation. This board will provide an objective analysis of the real financial position and give advice on the way forward. The Renewal Management Board comprises former under treasurers, senior public servants, and other experienced Territorians who know the Territory and understand the workings of the Territory government. The board is working closely with agencies, chief executives and ministers. Examining agency operations in detail is essentially about identifying opportunities to do more with less, and this review is bringing forward good ideas for providing services in a better way, differently and more efficiently.
Other initiatives will focus on work practices which could be more efficient, and we will see the impact of this work in the mini-budget on 4 December 2012.
What are the actions to date? In respect of the public service, the mega-department approach was not working. With too many responsibilities gathered together into single agencies, connections to the outcomes needed were being lost. Chief executives were spread too thinly across their businesses and could not possibly keep an eye on what was happening everywhere. This is not necessarily a criticism of existing executives or departments. We are simply recognising that, in many cases, smaller work units are more efficient and more able to react to developments within their own areas of business. In many cases, large organisations have less ability to adjust quickly or readily to the needs of clients and stakeholders or to changing circumstances. The Territory is, after all, a small jurisdiction.
There is a need to refocus and enable chief executives to concentrate on their core business, to be closer to their business and more accountable for the outcomes of their agencies. Generally, smaller agencies are more flexible and responsive, and more nimble. Above all else, the smaller departments are designed to be closer to those they service. I note, however, the exception to this maxim, and that is establishing the former department as an Office of Children and Families in the new Department of Education and Children’s Services. This move is designed to bring practitioners charged with caring, protecting and developing our children closer together to operate far more collaboratively and effectively as part of the same organisation.
The new department will erase the barriers which have persisted in the past as practitioners were parts of different organisations. The network of schools and support infrastructure now available to child protection workers by virtue of being part of the education agency will improve outcomes for children immeasurably, and this is the main objective - to focus on children not bureaucratic structures.
Let us be very clear, for a number of years the approach to child protection has failed. We are directly linking education and related support services and are taking a new approach.
As for the public service and the proliferation of programs, the number of full-time equivalent staff in the Northern Territory Public Service has grown by just over 20% in the last five years. We now have over 20 000 public servants.
Growth in the number of executive contract officers is 50% over the same period of time. This simply cannot be sustained. It is largely due to the proliferation of programs, and more programs mean more people and, necessarily, more managers. This has made government bigger but not better. We are not going to load up the service with more and more programs. With chief executives and ministers, the Renewal Management Board is looking for duplication across same or similar programs in agencies and discovering where the gaps and opportunities exist, such as business-generating agencies left fallow for years now.
The Renewal Management Board is seeking more efficient use of our precious and finite financial resources to generate economic growth and social cohesion and pay attention to the forgotten areas of the Territory which are everywhere outside Darwin.
I acknowledge there is anxiety in the public sector. This is understandable given there has been a change of government. This is only the second time it has happened since self-government in the Northern Territory; it does happen more regularly in other places. I am genuinely sorry for the anxiety which may have been caused as a result of the decisions we are being forced to confront. However, after 11 years of Labor in government it has been very important to lay the foundations of how we will approach government, and what we will do from the start is be honest.
As part of the review process it has been essential to review high-level structures in departments. As I said before, there has been a 50% growth in executive contract numbers in the past five years. There are clearly too many chiefs, often at the expense of the Indians on the front line and the vital staff supporting the front line.
This is no reflection on senior public servants who are good and decent people. If this occurred in private enterprise, particularly during a period of contracting revenue, some very tough questions would be asked and need to be answered. We need to thin out the executive, flatten the structures, and demand greater accountability from our senior managers.
Their individual responsibilities are clear and they should be given the chance to truly manage or lead their colleagues through this exciting new period. This will provide greater connectivity and linkages from the work of each public servant to the strategic direction of the departments and the solutions being pursued in the interest of better service for Territorians.
The previous government presided over significant barriers and hurdles to business and the economy. The most glaring example of this is housing, and the constrained supply of housing for Territorians. The lack of housing supply has caused huge growth in house prices and rental costs which, in turn, have affected population growth and the ability of small- to medium-sized businesses to attract and hold on to staff. Business owners have been telling us how they struggle to find and keep qualified and quality employees. One of the greatest challenges to this is largely due to big mortgages and high rents.
We believe there is a relatively simple explanation to the current difficulties we face with housing costs. Many of the existing housing schemes did not plan for a solution. Their approach was to assist Territorians to buy established homes. Inevitably, this caused prices to soar and did almost nothing to increase supply.
My government’s approach will be to provide more stock. We will address the impediments to development. We will support the building of 2000 new rental dwellings during our first term, aimed at apprentices, nurses, teachers and other key workers and families in most need.
This will start to address the problem of the high cost of living in the Territory and, in particular, the high rental cost and increasing housing prices.
The great Australian dream of home ownership is currently out of reach of low- and middle-income workers, key workers, often resulting in them leaving the Northern Territory.
Obviously, businesses need staff to be successful because without them they cannot expand and contribute to the growth of the local economy. We need to stop this population drain. The planning framework should be facilitating development and growth for business, jobs, services for the community, but it is not.
We are establishing a planning commission to address the lack of an effective policy framework. Land release has been too slow with the previous government caught like rabbits in the headlights. This has caused inflated land prices for homeowners and supply has not kept up with demand by a long shot. This has, effectively, put home ownership out of the reach of many, especially young people starting out.
The new approach to land release and development will help address this imbalance between demand and supply of housing. We are also looking at infill and renewal in all urban centres, not only Darwin. One of the key Country Liberals policy platforms is to create a three-hub economy consisting of a mining and energy hub, tourism and international education hub, and a food and export hub into Asia.
This strategy highlights the lack of investment by the previous government in the wealth generating areas of the economy. We must develop long-term, well-paying jobs for our young people. The government’s three-hub economy will have as its focus a strategy to ensure jobs are created in the Northern Territory. There will be jobs in the growth industries of tomorrow.
As part of this task, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, with his department, will set about repairing relationships with Indonesia following the live cattle export ban imposed in 2011 which has significantly affected Territory pastoral industries, particularly in the north. This will not be an easy task; however, my government will work with our Indonesian neighbours to try to prevent such an incident occurring again.
There are major opportunities in growing our key horticultural industries, like mangoes and bananas, and building on the live cattle export trade. We should be starting to develop the enormous opportunities available from the Northern Territory side of the border with Western Australia to expand the Ord River Irrigation Scheme and develop new trading partnerships with our Southeast Asian neighbours. We are working on that now.
The Northern Territory government is committed to the development of a Territory-wide fishery resource developing Indigenous fishing enterprises, but we will ensure all decisions take into account the interests of commercial and recreational fishermen.
Much of the Territory is still under-explored and there are continually new minerals and gas deposits being discovered. Reducing red tape, balanced with sound environmental outcomes, will facilitate a number of new mines that are on track to be opened in the foreseeable future. When a new mine is opened, there are major flow-on effects for the whole of the Northern Territory economy. The government will also be constantly on the alert for opportunities for downstream processing of our resources, for it is here we will discover the greatest long-term employment opportunities for Territorians.
In tourism and education, the government is supporting Charles Darwin University’s plan to establish a campus in the Darwin central business district which will have direct benefits for the tourism industry, overseas students, and local businesses.
Moving Tourism NT to Central Australia signals how serious this government is about supporting and growing the tourism sector at its heart and our support for strengthening our regions. It also demonstrates, in a very practical sense, how serious my government is about supporting our fellow Territorians throughout Central Australia and all those areas outside and beyond the Berrimah Line. These other areas were too long ignored by the previous government. Central Australia seemed to be effectively cut adrift from government’s consideration. It was left to morph into a welfare centre rife with social problems. The previous government did not support business development in the town. Relocating Tourism NT and the Parks and Wildlife Commission to Alice Springs will help redress this. The government believes these decisions will once again focus commercial interest on these areas where the Territory has a strong comparative advantage; that is, product to offer but where investment is needed to make that product accessible.
Alice Springs needs to be supported as a significant regional hub and also needs to be a safe place to visit, live, and work. Like all other Australians, Indigenous people should be able to live on their own country and have access to necessary services without having to drift into town and be exposed to alcohol and possible harm and, perhaps, cause harm to others.
There was no genuine interest in the Alice or the Centre by the previous government. It seemed happy to leave Alice to Commonwealth investment in town camps through the Alice Springs transformation plan and so on. We will have a much more attentive and cohesive approach to regional and remote areas and issues.
In my Address-in-Reply, I have outlined this government’s vision for the way forward for the Territory. Over the term of this government, it will become a better place for Territorians, visitors and those who do business with it. It will become a better place because we will work with Territorians to make it a better place. We will first and foremost get the Territory finances back in order.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I respond to the statement delivered by the Chief Minister. The key theme is about a fiscal deficit of over $900m. Sadly for him, he provides no facts to back up this assertion. His Treasurer tried to explain it this week but stumbled through a train wreck of a media conference - which is the talk of the town - to end up telling the media everyone has to wait for the mini-budget in December for details. Be accountable - is that the case, Chief Minister? We all knew this was coming. It comes straight out of the incoming Liberal government play book: be a small target, make as many promises as you need to be elected, then discover the budget was in worse shape than you thought and blame the previous government for all the cuts you are inevitably going to make.
The Chief Minister started by handpicking three members of his Renewal Management Board, one of whom, through the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly, was found to have cooked the books in the last CLP budget of 2000-01. How can we believe a hand-picked political team, one of whom has form on cooking the books, against the independent Treasury of the Northern Territory, the hard-working professional public servants?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to urge the Leader of the Opposition to be careful in those allegations. They are unnecessary, and the person she is speaking of has no voice to protect himself in this House. What she is doing is, again, using this House as a coward’s castle ...
Ms Lawrie: You can protect him.
Mr ELFERINK: ... to attack people who have no capacity to defend themselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Please be careful with your comments, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely. The member for Port Darwin, the Chief Minister, and the Treasurer, are more than able to read the Public Accounts Committee report which showed the health budget was altered for presentation purposes only. It was the then Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke. In colloquial terms it is described as cooking the books. I understand you have an issue with that. We had a significant issue with that because we introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act to ensure it could never happen again.
As a result of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, to ensure presentation purposes only adjustment in budget papers could never happen again, we have the pre-election fiscal outlook compiled entirely by Treasury without consultation with the Treasurer prior to the general Territory election as required under the FITA. The Treasurer is required to advise Treasury of any funding commitments which could have a material fiscal or economic implication. These are contained in a letter from me to the Under Treasurer within the PEFO.
Two commitments were outlined: a $16m contribution to six key bush roads contained within the election commitments; and a $33m commitment for the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive, also contained within the election commitments submitted to Treasury. Those election commitments were signed off by the Under Treasurer as being within the forward estimates of the budget capacity. So, no impost - no increase of deficit as a result of those commitments.
This update occurred in August. It was released two weeks prior to the election to provide all political parties with the latest budget figures. The update comes with the Under Treasurer’s certification. It was signed and dated by the Under Treasurer on 15 August. Very clearly, on page 3 of the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook, the underlying cash outcome of the Territory budget - the true test of our fiscal position - is an estimated deficit in 2012-13 of $509m in the general government sector, not the $900m you claim is the deficit. It also shows an estimated improvement in the 2011-12 outcomes.
By the way, where is the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement Report, the TAFR, the audited accounts of the 2011-12 financial year which is always tabled in the October sittings of parliament? Why are you hiding the expected improvement in the Territory’s 2011-12 financial outcome? You have been banging on about the budget. Where is the TAFR, where is the expected improvement in 2011-12? That does not fit your narrative, does it? It does not fit the spin you are involved in.
The PEFO shows an estimated deficit of $254m in the out years of 2015-16 - hardly the crisis the CLP would wish us to believe we were in. You must be honest with Territorians. The deficit is there, but it is manageable and can be paid back with your inevitable slash and burn. Pathetic attempts to justify a political slash through the public service aimed at sacking anyone considered Labor is just that, pathetic and vindictive. Yes, we have heard Col Fuller has a hit list of 200 in the effort to hide your abysmal actions of paying your old boy mates ridiculous salaries, not just Julian Swinstead on his fat cat contract, but all the others who have come from interstate and out of retirement to join the old boys club.
Each year the forward estimates show a reduction in deficit, a result of strong financial management using staffing caps, efficiency dividends, and running counter-cyclical to the capital works spend to peg back deficit and head towards a return to surplus.
Labor delivered eight budget surpluses in a row and retired $582m in debt. We did this while at the same time growing critical services by boosting the budgets across education, health, police and child protection. Health went from $432m back in 2001 to $1.2bn in 2012, delivering 294 more doctors, 855 more nurses, 127 more hospital beds, opened the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and Barbara James House, delivered a super clinic in Palmerston, opened the first NT medical school with CDU and Flinders University, and led the nation in the e-Health initiative which is making a positive impact on remote Indigenous Territorians.
Education went from $335m in 2001 to $950m in 2012, delivering 495 more teachers into our schools and opening new secondary schools across remote Northern Territory - we know the CLP had a policy of no secondary schooling in the bush.
We opened new schools: Arlparra High School, Baniyala Garrangali School, Bonya School, Manyalluluk School and Emu Point. We have also built new schools in Darwin and Palmerston to meet the growth in population, including Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools, as well as investing in upgrades across all our existing schools. We built a new special school for Nemarluk students and committed a $30m upgrade and new construction programs for our special schools. I hope the new government does not walk away from this important investment.
Some of the highlights of huge school upgrade investments were Centralian Middle School, Ross Park Primary School and Barkly College. Our investment in school programs, with a strong focus on literacy and numeracy, was progressing in the right direction. NAPLAN results - we were starting to make progress in the direction we needed to see, and our rate of improvement in the majority of the testing domains was outstripping the national rate.
We delivered 400 more police and implemented the Banned Drinker Register, stopping 2500 drunks at point of sale at takeaway outlets across the Territory.
We boosted child protection with a budget from the paltry $8m in 2000-01 to $135m in 2011-12, creating a new department to shine a light on this issue, one you have already scrapped.
Where does the Chief Minister’s deficit figure come from? It appears on page 21 of the PEFO and refers to the non-financial public sector estimated outcomes. That is the combined outcomes of those semi-autonomous authorities such as the Power and Water Corporation and the Darwin Port Corporation. The PEFO identifies the underlying fiscal balance in 2012-13 as a deficit of $867m. You are apples and oranges in your comparisons. You are pretending it is a deficit when it is the underlying fiscal balance across the financial public sector. You are not using the test every jurisdiction in our nation uses, with the exception of Victoria - using the operating balance we would be in surplus. You are fudging and choosing what figures you want to use to trick Territorians. You are incredibly wrong in doing this because the media is not that stupid. They can read these budget papers, they can read the PEFO.
You are ignoring the role of the Power and Water Corporation Board. Have you met with them, Chief Minister? You are ignoring the need of Power and Water to invest significantly in infrastructure to literally rebuild the power generation and add capacity to meet growth in demand. You are ignoring the Merv Davies report after the catastrophic Casuarina Zone Substation failure which identified significant repairs and maintenance required across the zone substations and transmission and generation networks.
You are ignoring the required closure of the Larrakeyah sewage outfall and the increase in the height of the Darwin River Dam wall to ensure our future water supply. Does reality become an inconvenient fact?
Does the Chief Minister ignore the Reeves report into the financial sustainability of Power and Water which also recognised the significant capital and repairs and maintenance program investment required to rebuild and build a power, water and sewerage system to cater for the Territory’s needs? The then Utilities Commissioner, Andrew Reeves, who has gone on to become our national regulator, explained that the Territory was similar to all Australian jurisdictions requiring a 20-year investment into infrastructure because systems were so run down and demand was outstripping capacity.
While that goes to the Power and Water financial investment, let us go back to the incredible comment by the Chief Minister in his statement to the House today claiming:
Unbelievable! You might possibly be the only leader in the world who would believe that. Chief Minister, you clearly have no idea. The nation’s financial institutions, and therefore the flow of credit to the private sector, are still grappling with the global financial crisis.
Government revenues are still being significantly detrimentally impacted by the global financial crisis. The Territory is directly affected with massive reductions in GST revenue in the order of $700m and counting. The global financial crisis is still having an effect and the world and our nation are doing everything they can to ward off another wave of crisis - look at the European sovereign debt crisis.
How can you make the statement that the global financial crisis is over? It is extraordinary. You would be the only leader in the world, I believe, to say that.
The question of debt and sustainability is one you will continue to beat the drum on. You do not want anyone to know the facts.
The Territory’s debt is about 11% of GDP whereas the debt of Greece is at 165%. Our debt is manageable and a prudent government would have a deficit reduction strategy, which we clearly had, and would then move to retire debt through surplus, which we did with eight budget surpluses in a row.
Why did we go into deficit? The Treasurer embarrassed herself today by referring to a 2008 media release before the global financial crisis - just missed that reality out, Treasurer. Why did we go into deficit? The effect of the global financial crisis was that credit markets froze. The private sector investment almost dried up and to prevent an economic decline, public sector spending through infrastructure was required to prop up the economy.
The 2010-11 actuals show the decision to spend on infrastructure, to double the infrastructure budget, kept us in positive growth of 1.6%. Strip out the public spend that year and our economy would have flatlined.
We made a deliberate decision to put $4.6bn - all the deficit plus some - into infrastructure over three financial years prior to the private sector investment which will flow from the Ichthys project the Labor government landed to keep our construction sector alive, our businesses open and 13 000 jobs created.
The effect of this is we have the second fastest growing economy in the nation according to the commentary from the latest CommSec report handed down this week. Deloitte Access Economics describes us as the fastest growing economy in the nation for the next five years, even out-stripping Western Australia.
That is coming on the back of over a decade ago where we inherited a flatlined, 0% economy under the Country Liberal Party. In just a decade we turned it around to being the fastest growing economy in the nation while we built services, while we retired debt, and while we sustained economic growth through the darkest days of the global financial crisis.
We kept improving services, literally building the Territory. We have secured the nation’s second largest major project, a $34bn investment, when our southern counterparts were struggling and also in deficit. Labor made it clear that as the GST revenue began to recover we would put that against deficit and return to surplus as soon as it was possible.
This would be done by running counter-cyclical in the capital spend coming off the record highs required to ride us through the global financial crisis. With strong employment, strong economic growth, a return to population growth and strong retail growth, we are the envy of our neighbours. We kept our operational spends but no revenue.
I will repeat that because one of the three stooges on the review committee hand-picked by the Chief Minister stated publicly that our operating payments were above our revenue. He is wrong. The operating payments in the Territory budget are below revenue. That means we were keeping a tight rein on public sector spending without axing programs, without sacking public servants, and by recognising the Territory is a growing jurisdiction which requires improved, not diminished, services.
Along comes the CLP. It adds 10 new departments on top of the 23 existing departments. That is not prudent financial management; it is ridiculous and provides a duplication of the frontline services the CLP rail against. By all means, any government will look for efficiencies as it should, and as we did. We had tough efficiency dividends in place across government agencies yielding savings in the order of $150m a year. At the same time, we overhauled procurement and were cutting red tape to improve productivity and provide a greater opportunity for Territory businesses to benefit from the economic prosperity we had secured.
The Chief Minister spoke about the growth in executive numbers then appointed an extra 10 CEOs for his new agencies and the executives who will work under them. What a hypocrite!
The Chief Minister spoke about the need for more housing stock, yet he axed the My New Home scheme, an innovative housing finance scheme designed to stimulate new stock and lauded by the Urban Developers Institute of Australia, the Master Builders Australia, the developers of our land release sites, the Real Estate Institute ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if I could interrupt to welcome some visitors to our parliament.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Sanderson Middle School students, accompanied by Miss Kaylee Dickinson and Mrs Laura Stephenson. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: A great school servicing the needs of my electorate of Karama and Malak suburbs. I visit Sanderson quite often; it is a great school.
Not only was the My New Home scheme lauded by everyone across all the sectors of industry who understand the residential housing market - every property council, Real Estate Institute, Master Builders, Urban Developers Institute, the developers themselves - but there were also 1000 Territorians waiting to buy their own home and get off the rental roundabout when Terry Mills scrapped the scheme.
Chief Minister, where are these 2000 new rentals you talked about before the election? Rentals are not home ownership, they are rentals; people are still stuck on the rental roundabout. By all means, tell us exactly where unless, of course, you propose to claim federal Labor’s NRAS as your own as the new Minister for Housing unashamedly claimed Labor’s innovative village at the Parap housing project when just into his new ministry.
As for land release, exactly where are you releasing this new land? Are you claiming Muirhead, the CIC/CDU land at Palmerston, Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli and Mitchell for which Labor planned and invested in the headworks? Or, wait! Will you claim the new city of Weddell for which we had the planning in full swing?
In regard to urban renewal, you had not one clear election commitment, yet Labor had committed $10m to the redevelopment of urban public housing sites across some of the oldest public housing estates, which included Tomaris Court in the Darwin CBD, Kurringal Flats in Fannie Bay, Shiers Street in The Narrows, and the infill side of Stuart Park by relocating the Darwin Bus Service and NT Fleet. Will you be claiming those as yours?
What about the ludicrous relocation of Tourism, Parks and Wildlife to Alice Springs, and the destruction you are wreaking on our commercial fishing industry? You have proven, through your actions in the first 100 days, you are taking the Territory back to the 1990s and coasting off the success of Labor delivering a major project while keeping the Territory economy in growth during the darkest days of the global financial crisis.
Your old boys are not in here to prop you up, and their corporate knowledge and abilities are yesterday’s not tomorrow’s.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this is my first statement as Treasurer and I am very happy to be talking on such an important issue for all Northern Territorians.
That was a remarkable speech from the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, she was working very hard to conceal the significant fiscal imbalance we inherited from her and her team of fairly ordinary operators when it comes to looking after the financial affairs of the Northern Territory.
It saddens me to make this statement in such straitened financial circumstances when I would have preferred to be able to tell a very positive story about the legacy the former Treasurer and the former government left behind. Unfortunately, it has not been a good legacy, which is still coming to light through the marvellous work of the Renewal Management Board. It has been quite a scary and daunting legacy we have found upon taking office.
As the Chief Minister said, the financial position of the Northern Territory is not sustainable on its current trajectory. Urgent action is required to bring spending under control and more closely aligned with our revenues and what we can afford. ‘Afford’ is probably where the former government went terribly wrong. It took on projects and various expenditures which, very simply, it could not afford.
The debt has grown significantly over time and while some debt is good, this much debt is bad. The irony is all the economic indicators show the Territory is booming. CommSec, earlier this week, ranked the Territory as the second strongest economy in Australia, and all the while the public sector is straining under the weight of huge debt levels. It is a dichotomy. It is probably difficult for Territorians to understand the mixed messages they are getting. On one hand, through private sector investment mainly because of INPEX, you have a strong booming economy, but the other side of the picture is a government weighted under huge levels of debt. The government simply cannot continue like this.
In normal times, the state of the budget can be assessed by reference to what is known as the general government sector. This is what we hear the former government, the Leader of the Opposition, talking about when she plucks figures about the level of fiscal deficit. She chooses to use the general government sector as her reference. This sector is generally reliant on untied revenue such as taxes and goods and services tax revenue. It includes agencies such as health, education, police and so on.
The non-financial public sector is a broader sector as it includes both general government and the public non-financial corporations. Non-financial public corporations, which in the Territory include the Power and Water Corporation and the Darwin Port Corporation, are meant to fully rely on their own revenue sources to operate. In the Territory’s case, however, the Power and Water Corporation, the most significant entity in the non-financial public corporation sector, relies heavily on taxpayer support. For this reason, the government’s finances have to be assessed by reference to the non-financial public sector. That is, by examining the broader scope due to the financial situation of the component parts. The focus can return to the general government sector only when the Power and Water Corporation is truly a self-supporting business and not diverting resources that would otherwise fund general government operation.
It is complicated; it is difficult to understand on the surface. However, the former Treasurer should know very well this is the case when it comes to the Northern Territory and not hide behind the more convenient and advantageous figures found in the general government sector.
There are three key fiscal indicators for the non-financial public sector. The first indicator is the nett operating balance - the difference between operating revenue and operating expenses. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook – PEFO - projections prepared by Treasury, the government has inherited a nett operating deficit of $185m in 2012-13. Without any policy change that deficit is set to grow to $231m in 2015-16. An operating deficit indicates operating revenue is insufficient to fund current operations - very simple. In the five years before the global financial crisis the non-financial public sector ran an operating surplus averaging around $175m.
The second indicator is the overall fiscal balance, or the difference between total revenue operating and capital and total expenditure operating and capital. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook, the government has inherited an overall fiscal imbalance - a deficit of $867m in 2012-13. Without any policy change, a deficit of $475m will remain in 2015-16.
In the five years before the global financial crisis the non-financial public sector ran an overall fiscal deficit, on average, of $26m. An overall fiscal deficit increases nett debt.
That brings us to the third key fiscal indicator, the debt. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook, the government has inherited nett debt of $3471m in 2012-13. This is equal to 66% of the Territory’s annual revenue. Without policy change, this will climb to $5540m in 2015-16 or close to 100% of annual revenue. This is where the former government was taking us - where our nett debt is close to or 100% of annual revenue.
If you believe what you hear from the Leader of the Opposition there is no problem. That is not the case. We are in dire straits. Things are very serious and very bad.
There is no doubt that on many levels the Territory economy is doing well. The CommSec State of the States publication for October 2012 was released on Monday this week. In overall performance, CommSec ranked the Territory the second strongest of the jurisdictions, behind Western Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned this.
Similarly, Deloitte Access Economics released its Business Outlook for the September 2012 quarter on Monday. Deloitte revised its forecast for state final demand in the Territory for 2012-13 from 8.7% to 22.3%, primarily due to a significant upward revision in its forecast level of private construction investment in the year from $4.2bn to $6.2bn. This large revision, however, reflects Deloitte’s assessment of the construction profile of one big project, and that is INPEX. Thank goodness for private sector investment in the Northern Territory.
Despite this large upward revision, the impact on overall economic growth is expected to be minimal because much of the construction components, machinery and equipment acquired by INPEX will be imported from outside the Territory. In other words, on the face of it the economy is doing well; however, this view rests on one major project, INPEX, while other sectors of the economy and business are weaker than the high-level numbers suggest.
Factors include the lack of affordable housing for key workers, making attracting and retaining workers difficult for business and other sectors, slowing population growth and increasing nett interstate migration outflows from the Territory. This is what we have inherited from the former government.
The Territory’s economic growth prospects do not ensure the government’s finances are necessarily in order. The Territory government’s revenue is linked, in the main, to the national economy and growth in goods and services tax collections - in GST. As Australians increase their propensity to save and spend more of their money on GST-free items such as health services, food and basic necessities, growth in GST collections has slowed right down.
Debate suspended.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 3630 petitioners praying that O’Ferrals Rock be declared a conservation zone and have heritage listing. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I resume my speech in response to the ministerial statement on the Northern Territory budget presented earlier today by the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Opposition respond to this statement giving us some incorrect information. She finally conceded she had not been providing the full picture to the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the fiscal imbalance - the budget deficit. She conceded it is appropriate to refer to the non-financial public sector when quoting figures and she gave us the figure, which she quoted as coming from the pre-election fiscal outlook report, of $767m being the fiscal deficit or imbalance. That is incorrect. The figure from the pre-election fiscal outlook was $867m, so it is really difficult to understand where the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, is coming from when she contradicts herself. She is working very hard to get out of what must be an incredibly embarrassing position. Taking ownership of the damage that has been done by the former government must be painful and cause a normal person to lose sleep at night. It must be very difficult to walk down the streets of Darwin looking people in the face.
However, she has thick skin - we have all seen that over the last 24 hours - and is capable of bearing the weight of the legacy she has handed over to us as the new government.
I will outline to you the position of the Territory budget at this point in time. The Territory government’s revenue is linked, in the main, to the national economy and growth in goods and services tax collection, or GST. As Australians increase their propensity to save and spend more of their money on GST-free items such as health services, food and basic necessities, growth in GST collections has slowed right down. This has undermined the Territory’s revenue base; however, all the while spending has continued without adjusting to the shrinking revenue flows in the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Chief Minister for not being aware of the global financial crisis. It seems to me, particularly when I look at this graph provided by the Renewal Management Board, that the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, did not realise that in 2008 the global financial crisis commenced. We know that because revenue started to decline.
The former Treasurer must not have understood it had commenced, despite much media coverage, much speculation and financial commentary. She did not realise it had happened because she did not curtail her expenditure at all. Revenue declined and expenditure increased. Perhaps she did not understand, an allegation we heard across the Chamber many times from the former government, ‘The opposition just does not understand’. Well, all that time there was one person in the Chamber who did not understand - the former Treasurer. If she understood, she would have recognised the global financial crisis started in 2008 and would have curtailed her expenditure. She would have made a significant correction in line with the decreasing revenue from GST and we would not be in the major pickle we are now, compliments of the former Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition.
It is important the Territory’s budget moves to a surplus position so the government has the capacity to respond to areas of greatest need as they arise. Unless its finances are in order, the government cannot ensure the social infrastructure to facilitate and service major developments undertaken by the private sector is in place when needed.
In the climate of slowing GST growth, which the former Treasurer failed to recognise, the previous government kept up its high levels of ongoing recurrent spending without adjusting to meet the challenges of lower revenues. This began at the time of the global financial crisis when governments ramped up spending. The economic maxim of ‘spend your way out of a recession’ was the modus operandi of the former government. Territory government spending has not come down from that high. It has continued unabated while revenue growth has not kept pace. Big capital programs, mainly supported by Commonwealth funding agreements along with more and more services and programs, staff, and managers, has led to a situation of more government without the money to pay for it or the commensurate outcomes we might expect.
The story about declining GST growth is particularly pertinent for the Territory because the Territory relies heavily on the Commonwealth for revenue, as the former Treasurer well knows. GST revenue constitutes around 60% of the Territory’s income, with a further 20% comprised of tied Commonwealth grants. Only 20% of the Territory’s revenue is derived from its own sources. It is quite staggering, really. Those revenues include payroll tax, stamp duties, mineral royalty fees and charges.
To put this in perspective, other jurisdictions depend far less on the Commonwealth, receiving an average of around 25% of other states’ budgets from GST revenue. Own source revenue, particularly taxes, are relatively stable at the moment. However, the high Australian dollar and the uncertainty around commodity prices could affect future mining royalties. The effects are less significant as a 1% drop in our own source revenue equates to around $5m, whereas a 1% drop in GST revenue equates to almost $28m.
Also, supporting an unprofitable Power and Water Corporation has put a significant strain on the budget and the Territory’s debt position. In its credit analysis of the Northern Territory of Australia released in January of this year, Moody’s commented the deterioration in the Territory’s debt burden in 2009-10 reflected the financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation. When the Leader of the Opposition likes to gloat about figures which do not pertain to Power and Water in relation to the budget deficit, it is a clear indicator of what she is trying to hide. Moody’s identified Power and Water as having to be in the mix when talking about the financial performance of the Northern Territory. This had resulted in the need for operational support from the Territory budget and Moody’s urged that the planned improvements to the Power and Water Corporation’s financial performance be implemented.
The previous government had the opportunity to do this with advice from the Reeves report in 2009. However the previous government did not act on Reeves’ recommendations in full, as it implemented far lower tariff increases for users than he urged. We now find Power and Water’s financial situation in a far worse state than in 2009. It is a very simple equation - revenue and expenditure.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Araluen, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I turn to the Territory’s debt. Asset replacement is being funded increasingly by borrowings rather than as should be the case, by operating services. Government debt should only be used to finance the expansion and extension of public infrastructure. However, the situation we have today is a level of nett debt set to double between 2011-12 and 2015-16. In the space of five years, nett debt is set to double in both the general government sector and the broader non-financial public sector. Territory taxpayers are already paying $750 000 per day, every day, in interest on that debt.
Let us turn it around and look at it from another angle. Territorians are forgoing $750 000 per day in services and infrastructure in order to pay interest on this debt. Think of all the footpaths, hospitals, parks, cycling paths and street lights we are going without because we have to service this debt the former government placed us in. That is $750 000 a day - equivalent to quite a luxurious home in the Northern Territory.
Granted, government would normally have some level of debt. Nonetheless, an interest bill of $750 000 a day is equivalent to seven extra teachers for a year, three police officers, a significant piece of equipment for a health clinic, sealing a stretch of dirt road, or developing public housing for the ageing. The economic cost is considerable. However, it gets worse. The interest bill is set to rise to $1.2m a day by 2015-16, or $425m in that year. The outlook is bleak if we keep going along the trajectories set by the former government.
Imagine how we could use that money in other ways to build economic infrastructure, grow our families to be healthy and educated, house key workers, and invest in wealth-creating industries which benefit the whole community rather than it leaving the Territory in the form of interest payments. The size of the debt is a big worry as it becomes the responsibility of future generations to pay off.
It also has the potential to affect the Territory’s credit rating depending on how Moody’s perceive our resolve and ability to manage our finances prudently. Three recent examples of downgrades are: Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. It will be very important to clearly articulate this government’s fiscal strategy in the mini-budget and bring the Territory’s financial position to safer and firmer ground.
Power and Water Corporation: the legacy we have adopted from the previous government is a corporation in deep financial mire. In fact, the severity of the situation is so entrenched the corporation alone is responsible for around 40% of the Territory’s fiscal problem. How the corporation has ended up in this position is something our government needs to fully understand, and we intend to get to the heart of the issue.
There is no doubt the Territory needs highly competent experts in our public service, implementing programs of the government of the day and providing much-needed services to Territorians. Necessarily, the government needs to be competitive with other jurisdictions and the private and community sectors for the services of these talented people and to invest in growing our own. However, the numbers have blown out, particularly in the executive levels, and there is not enough justification for this. In the past five years, the number of executive contract officers has grown by 50% from 342 to 515 compared with the sector as a whole, which grew by 24% over the same period from 16 170 to 20 000.
With so many executives it can be easy for no one person to take responsibility for action or non-action; easy to deflect to another manager or another area or agency. How would you know who is meant to be responsible with so many managers and executives? We need thinner senior management layers with each individual executive having greater accountability for their actions. We will achieve this with smaller agencies as chief executives will be more in touch with what is happening on the ground, closer to their management teams, better able to monitor performance and demand accountability.
The exception is the Department of Education and Children’s Services, which I have deliberately brought together so children can benefit from a greater network of professional staff and facilities all concerned with the growth, development and safety of children.
In conclusion, there is much work to be done. It will not be done in a day or a single financial year. In Territory terms, this is the Titanic of all budget deficits and will take a firm and careful fiscal strategy over the next three years to turn around. However, it will be turned around. We will bring government spending to live within our means. We will enable and facilitate economic growth beyond INPEX and big projects. We will invest in the Territory for the benefit of future generations of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join this debate starting with a story for our new Treasurer of the Northern Territory. I was thrilled, honoured, surprised, and elated when I was elected to this parliament in 2008. I thought it was too good to be true, and it was. It was not long after the whole world fell over with the global financial crisis. I took that on board thinking it would definitely need a clever fiscal management plan.
I was invited to a meeting the Treasurer had set up as chair of the public accounts with high-level banking officials from throughout the nation. I listened at the meeting. The officials basically told the Treasurer, who conducted a number of very high-level agenda items, that a fiscal stimulus plan was where the rest of the western world was going, the global super powers were going, the federal government was going, and the Territory should follow, and we did.
The new Treasurer is saying the fiscal stimulation kept us in the game. If we had taken our foot of the accelerator we would have lost jobs. The member for Sanderson is in Hansard day in, day out telling us about the people who leave the Northern Territory, and when a person leaves the Northern Territory, they leave the Northern Territory. They do not just move to another job, they do not sit on the sideline, they leave the Territory and take their family with them. Day after day, I remember it well. It sounded as if everyone in Sanderson had left. There must have been a few who stuck around to vote for you.
That was the story. If you lose people from the Territory, lose jobs in the Territory, it is way more serious than in New South Wales, Queensland or other big jurisdictions. So, the fiscal stimulus plan was put in place.
We will not talk about the legacy of public infrastructure in our schools that the opposition opposed. The CLP, in opposition, opposed it every step of the way. Minister Burns reminded them of all the glossy photos of themselves at the opening of BER projects in schools in their electorates. It was an example of fiscal stimulus which kept jobs, kept the economy moving, kept the Territory going and left an incredible legacy of public infrastructure we celebrate and use today.
However, one element of that plan was to carefully guide the fiscal strategy to where the private sector starts to kick in, take over, and increase the Territory’s own source revenue. It was a very calculated plan, a very careful plan.
One of the things the CLP promised when in opposition was the end of spin. We are hearing no more about grog or crime, we are hearing about budget figures, frightening the community, and telling everyone the credit card debt is going up. We are trying to balance that debate. There are some very clear warnings for the fiscal strategy the CLP is entering into.
In relation to the strategy of keeping the Territory kicking over, keeping it alive, keeping jobs, keeping people here, and that wonderful legacy of public infrastructure in roads, schools, power generation and transmission, our hospitals and community safety, there was a defined strategy to let that public sector wind back its investment and the private sector wind in. I will quote an example of that for the new Treasurer of the Northern Territory:
However, we are on a new path because we have a new manager, the member for Araluen. The new manager is going to take us down a new fiscal strategy road. The opposition is saying, ‘be careful, beware’.
I will go to some portfolio interests I have. The first one relates to lands and planning. I will make some comments on things the Chief Minister said. In his Address-in-Reply he said his government will be accountable to Territorians and it is all about service delivery. The Chief Minister said the new planning commission would develop guidelines to work with developers to unlock land, to reduce red tape, reduce time delays, reduce those running costs and to speed up the development approval process. That is the interesting one.
I also took great delight in listening to the maiden speeches. It was not that long ago I gave my own. I still consider myself a new person to this job, but I had to crash through this early in the piece. I had four years and I had to learn quickly on my feet.
Of all the maiden speeches, which I will comment on over time because I took great delight in learning about the new members, I will talk about the member for Drysdale’s maiden speech. She made a statement about her desire and passion to champion the environment and the obligation of government to champion those very important principles of environment and preserving the Territory’s environment.
Let me talk about developers, the environment, the challenges you have as a local member, and those the minister and the Country Liberal Party now have because you guys are running the show.
The developer community is hell-bent on developing the Territory, as it should, but we need some checks and balances. I encourage the member for Drysdale to take a great interest in the development of this new planning commission, to look at the clarity and accountability, and ask in your Cabinet room how the Environmental Protection Agency and the new planning commission suddenly get a little murky and possibly tied up together. Watch those old heads in the Country Liberal Party because these guys have been doing it for a long time and you need to ask the questions.
The member for Drysdale made this good and honest statement. I challenge her to keep tabs on those old boys. Watch what is happening in development of the new planning commission with an agenda to make it faster, cut red tape, and get those approvals through.
I will give you an example. I worked with the Landcare group in Palmerston called Friends of Mitchell Creek. I walked the creek with that group and met with them a number of times. I corresponded with them. I had to try to achieve a balance between the conservation zone and the development of what represents the two new suburbs in Palmerston - Johnston Stage 1 and Stage 2 - and now Zuccoli, followed by Mitchell, near the mouth of Mitchell Creek, which is pristine country. I made it nearly to the mouth but did not progress. I was not dressed for bush walking at the time.
Mr Wood: Sandflies carried you away.
Mr McCARTHY: No, I was prepared to stoush with the sandflies. That area is pristine country. In estuarine country it is the runoff; it is what we do upstream that affects the estuaries. Then we talk about the beautiful Darwin Harbour. The Friends of Mitchell Creek taught me that we need to achieve this balance. So, under the Territory Labor government we rezoned conservation areas to support Mitchell Creek.
The developers, on the other hand, have an agenda of making money. Let us be brutal - let us talk about being profit driven. The member for Port Darwin raised his head, he understands that language. It means you must have a yield. If you are going to cut up and sell off land you have to make money; it is called the yield. At the same time you have to preserve the Territory, as the member for Drysdale mentioned. You have to preserve the environment, public open space, and those elements for future generations. I support the statement in her maiden speech and am asking for her support to ask questions in Caucus, of her Cabinet ministers, and the old boys who have come roaring back across the border from wherever they have been for a decade, to come back to how we do business in the Territory. It is that type of example. It is not just Palmerston; it is about Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs - it is about the Territory.
This planning commission is an unknown for us at the moment. Whether you guys believe it or not, we had a very effective planning process and still have. It is operating now and the developers are even more stepped-up with opportunities. They have money now. The money is starting to flow and they have great ideas. They want to cut up land. I will be working closely with the member for Nelson, as I did as the Minister for Lands and Planning, because he knows the agenda is coming for the rural area. We had to work with those developers to get the mix right, to try to balance it out and say, ‘Hey, this ain’t the 1980s anymore, mate. This ain’t the 1990s. You do not cut up land into small blocks, no bitumen roads, no social amenity, no community amenity, no open space for the public and walk away. You are responsible to deliver community amenity for the future of Territorians’. We will be back there again I can assure you, because the planning commission is where the developers will be and your government will be faced with the challenges of the balance - what is right and what is fair.
The question is: what is the future for the Greater Darwin region? I will expand it right across the Territory because in our growth towns policy we had area plans and town plans and were doing this right across the Northern Territory. I was honoured because we were talking about growth towns and remote areas and were even communicating the need for ceremonial areas. I understood it. I have been on ceremonial grounds. That was being communicated to the bureaucracy and it needed to be heard by government and needed to be balanced. That is just a micro-example.
Member for Drysdale, that was a great statement and you are the one to do it. I was very interested to hear of your legal background. Take an interest in those developments around Palmerston and Darwin Harbour and challenge the old guard. Do not let them get too far ahead of the game because if we use the colloquialism from the CLP - they taught me this when I sat over there - they have form. It is a classic. They used it all the time. ‘They have form.’ I arrived in the Territory in 1980 and lived under the CLP for over two decades. I will tell you now, they have form.
By the way, they are all back. They are charging back across the borders. God love them all because we will take them on as we did when we were starved for 10 years with Maggie Hickey as the member for Barkly. We will take them on now as we took them on then.
The Chief Minister said in his Address-in-Reply that it is about motivating a regional focus in the Northern Territory. That was in relation to the move of tourism to Alice Springs, a motivation to focus …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I raise the issue of relevance. I notice he is responding to the Address-in-Reply. We are on the statement. Nothing he has said so far has had anything to do with the finances of the Northern Territory. His speech fits the Address-in-Reply response and perhaps he is reading from the wrong set of notes.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I will deal with the member for Port Darwin’s reading comprehension later. I am using quotes from the Chief Minister, as I am using quotes from maiden speeches, as I will use quotes from you, member for Port Darwin. You are next!
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: It is different being on this side, isn’t it Dave? This side has a different dynamic that I have to get used to.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to refer to my colleagues by their electorate rather than their first name.
Madam SPEAKER: Please, member for Barkly, refer to members by their electorates.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I take the honourable member’s advice and withdraw that, member for Fong Lim.
I would like to talk about transport in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement. I will quote him again because it was an interesting comment and something I relish - motivating a regional focus on the Northern Territory. Well, guess what guys - all the honourable members from the bush - the Labor government put $3.1m into an Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. It had a two-year trial and is now running. It involves, for the first time in the Northern Territory, public transport services for the bush.
You should keep a close eye on that because the operators who have been working with government - now working with your government - are going to open the books. In an environment of fiscal restraint and cut, cut, cut - be careful what is cut. The champions of the bush will need to take that to Caucus and their Cabinet colleagues to ensure they get their fair share. The first time the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy happened in the bush was under a Labor government.
We can talk about those operators; however, I want to talk about something dear to my heart because I live in Tennant Creek and represent the people of the Barkly. Because of the fiscal stimulus strategy and the work happening in the regions, I place on the public record my thanks and appreciation to Hardy Aviation for its Fly Tiwi service. This service started operating on a Monday and a Friday from Darwin to Tennant Creek. It leaves Darwin at 7 am, you land at Tennant Creek at 9 am, you can get on the plane at 3 pm and be in Darwin at 5 pm, or you can catch it on the Friday. It then became popular, started making money, and they added a Wednesday to the service.
Under the Labor government’s fiscal strategy, where the work in the regions stepped up - Tennant Creek was having a serious infrastructure boom under the Territory Labor government - public servants and private sector workers needed to get to Tennant, needed to operate in that corporate business sector and they started using this aircraft, as did the government with smart thinking around patient travel and associated public services which needed to be conducted between Tennant Creek and Darwin. Fly Tiwi is a fantastic service which operates three days a week. The people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly support it. It also opened many other opportunities in regional economic development.
If you say, ‘We need fiscal restraint. We have to go in hard, we have to make the tough decisions’, as the Chief Minister has been saying, and one of those issues is to freeze the travel budget - being an ex-public servant I have lived through a couple of CLP travel budget freezes. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it definitely freezes. It freezes the economy and I ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension be given to the member to complete his address, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, honourable members. I am really concerned about a freeze in the public sector travel budget because we will see public servants and those services delivered into Tennant Creek and the Barkly not being able to catch Fly Tiwi. The Fly Tiwi service will drop off. It will be cancelled, which will reduce the private sector opportunities in that corporate world in Tennant Creek on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Therefore, you have an economic downturn.
The Treasurer needs to take that on board because it is all about cuts and fiscal restraint. Members on the other side should be asking questions of the Treasurer: how is this going to relate to the regional areas; what are the bigger impacts; what is the domino affect down the line? One will be the loss of Fly Tiwi and Hardy Aviation, which have been sensational in putting that service on.
What does that mean for Tennant Creek? I will give you an example with regard to the budget statement on the Territory’s financial affairs of a caf owner coming to me in Tennant Creek, when I was hosting the Leader of the Opposition, saying, ‘I want to raise one important point: all these changes in the public sector, the cancellation of contracts, the sackings, the freezing of travel budgets, has created much fear in the public sector. In a little town like Tennant Creek, public servants have stopped coming into my caf to buy lunch.’
That is the impact you have with an economic rationalist liberalist approach to budgets. Be careful of what is happening and ask the questions. I am being rational. I am putting this out for members of the CLP Caucus to ask the questions. Like me - poor bugger me, the member for Braitling, I ruined his Sunday morning. I saw him on the news and saw his glowing face in the paper. He has given me the perfect subject for an adjournment because it was not really about a democratic Territory election; it was about getting the member for Barkly. ‘I did not get you, but we will get you one day’. Bring it on, sunshine. You did not get me because the people spoke, not me or you. I will talk about how you tried to get me. That is coming down the line.
Let us go back to the caf owner who is not selling as many sandwiches. Where did that situation come from? A lovely family, living in Tennant Creek, putting their heart and soul into a business - where did it come from? It came from a domino effect going right up the line to a Treasurer who says, ‘Let us freeze the travel budget. We will hold them all down’.
I have not gone anywhere near the school teachers in the bush who are asking, ‘Where is that IT advisor?’ The story around IT is a very good one. I am a dinosaur. I come from the days of HF radios and still celebrate them. I know the phonetic alphabet to operate an HF radio; however, the IT gurus say, ‘The IT consultant did not come out’. If you let information communication technology run down, and on average in any classroom in the Northern Territory there is, conservatively, $150 000 of information communication technology in the bush - not our big schools - or if you let the professional knowledge of the operators run down, you devalue the equipment and processors and it becomes worthless. If you try to replace it or pick it up you create unforeseen problems down the line. The question needs to be asked of economic rationalist thinking. It is not as simple as it seems, ladies and gentlemen ...
Mr Giles: What about IT services for the School of the Air under your government?
Mr McCARTHY: Time for an interjection and I had a glass of water. Thank you very much, member for Braitling. Let us move on because the risk is real.
The Chief Minister, in his statement, failed to deliver the promises. The promises were not funded before the election. The promises were not put into that very strict independent analysis the Labor government set up. The promises were like the member for Braitling - a fire sale barnstorming exercise trying to cut the legs from under the member for Barkly, reduce his credibility and run him out of town. It really comes back to the honesty factor of delivery.
I was at Lajamanu the other day with the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, and a number of other people. I said, ‘Give me a story about a promise that was made’. A gentleman said, ‘Well, it was a pretty basic promise. It was about a two-lane bitumen road from Lajamanu to the Buntine Highway’. I said, ‘Fair enough. Guess what, I was in the business of building roads’. I said to this gentleman, ‘With what there is - a form of gravel road - what you have, and how to turn that into a bitumen two-lane for 112 km, you are looking at about $1m a kilometre’. So, that is $112m promised by the Chief Minister, who at that time was Leader of the Opposition - just one promise in Lajamanu.
We looked at the road and I said to this gentleman, ‘I was in the business of building roads and really enjoyed the job. We look at flood immunity and strategic sections on the road, raise, do culvert work, try to take out the spots causing the big problems over a longer period’ - you do not have $112m to spend on a two-lane bitumen road at Lajamanu now. The 10-year story I told in the Barkly of infrastructure development for the bush was - the story the member for Braitling tried to discredit - we would get there, but at the moment you have to look at strategic bites of the road project. This guy understood that.
Then I challenged him with one better. I said, ‘Imagine I was the CLP and walked in here with a cheque for $112m tomorrow. Would you spend that on the road from Lajamanu to the Buntine Highway?’ He said, ‘Absolutely not! Of course I would not.’ I said, ‘You are dead right. What would you spend it on?’ Then we talked about the realities of that expenditure.
This gets back to the statement presented to this House - the delivery end. The government is talking about cuts, savings, the future, and how we are all doomed.
The ex-Treasurer outlined very clearly the real story because it is in the budget books. When the member for Araluen loads in the non-public expenditure, like the Power and Water Corporation, and starts to ramp those numbers up to scare mum and dad in the suburbs - as the member for Barkly I will be watching the $22m allocated to upgrade Tennant Creek power transmission and delivery. Why? To keep the lights on in Tennant Creek! If the power goes out we cannot keep the ice creams cold and cannot sell sandwiches to public servants who have stopped going to our local cafes because they are worried about their jobs. We cannot develop business. We cannot fire power down the line to the community of Ali Curung.
I am very privileged in this job. I sat with government and learnt quickly. I was part of Cabinet when the Reeves analysis of Power and Water was conducted. He told the truth. He said all governments in Australia are faced with this. He also said, ‘Fess up. Who is going to take the blame?’ The Labor government took one third of the blame because the other two-thirds was the Country Liberal Party. That is when we share the blame. What did the Labor Party do in 10 years? It started to load major investment into power generation and transmission.
I will be watching the $22m for Tennant Creek. I will be telling the people of the Barkly, Ali Curung and Mungkarta, which I will talk about tonight - the outstation sitting on that line south of Tennant Creek. The member for Braitling will be very interested to hear the other side of the story about Mungkarta and why he did not get the member for Barkly.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): In a celebration of the member for Barkly’s ego we will put that one to rest.
The member for Barkly said this was an economic rationalist argument. Of course, but the counterpoint to an economic rationalist argument is we should, by argument, be economically irrational in our approach to government. That is what the member opposite is arguing for. This is why Labor parties around the world, including democrats and those people with a pinkish tinge, continually leave conservative governments in a position of having to fix up the mess.
We have seen that around this country. They love to rack stuff up on the credit card; however, it is like a partnership, a marriage - one partner likes to spend on the credit card and the other tries to be frugal. Small wonder there is friction in that environment. Sitting down at lunch I saw the front cover of The Australian: ‘Swan struggles to save slim surplus’.
This is interesting because the comment I made about Labor governments not being particularly good savers is general and, like any general comment, there are exceptions.
I draw members’ attention to page five of The Australian of Tuesday, 23 October. There is a little picture at the top, and I point out the Hawke government started off way back in 1989-90 with a small surplus, then slipped into deficit, then into more deficit. As things progressed, the Keating government had more and more deficit, and we are talking about billions and billions of dollars.
Then, along comes the rapacious fiscal conservative, John Howard, and Costello. He starts off with a deficit but it reduces. If you go through this chart it is surplus, surplus, surplus, small deficit, surplus, surplus, surplus, surplus, break even, and massive surplus.
In that period, the $90bn credit card bill left by Keating was paid off by the conservatives. Along comes the Rudd government and it is deficit, deficit - look at those red lines. I am surprised they did not have to print on the other side of the page to get those red lines down, but it is deficit, deficit, deficit and deficit. Then, all of a sudden, there is a change to the Gillard government, which runs a massive deficit in the first year, but somewhere an alarm bell is ringing amongst the Laborites in Canberra. It is the same alarm bell which rang for the Gallop government - also a Labor government - in Western Australia. The alarm bell is you cannot continue to live on the credit card indefinitely. It cannot be done. It has to be repaid at some point.
I hear the doom and gloom from the members opposite; however, at some time the credit card has to be repaid. People like Gallop - a good Laborite - knew this and, in the early part of the GST, when the GST produced more income than ever imagined by any of the forecasters, Gallop did the sensible thing and reduced debt to zero in Western Australia. None of the other Labor states did it. Gallop did, and good luck to him.
In that period the Labor government in the Northern Territory reduced debt slightly despite the fact income was spiralling. If you look at the graphs which track this, expenditure chased income, which means every time the government thought it was going to get a pay rise it spent it. It paid a very small amount off the credit card but nothing substantial.
In my household, if I have a credit card debt and get an increase in income I pay off the bankcard because that is prudent fiscal management. In fact, I do not carry a credit card debt. The only debt I have is on my house. No, that is not true, my wife has a car repayment she is paying off quickly. You pay off debt when income goes up, that is the idea.
This government chose not to do that. Every time it received an increase beyond what it expected to get - it projected it would receive X amount and received Y amount, do you think it thought, ‘We will squirrel the difference away to reduce debt?’ Not a chance! ‘Wow, we have some more money. It’s Friday night, let’s go to the pub and whack it on the credit card.’ That was the approach the previous government took to fiscal management in the Northern Territory. In 2008, the government realised it had not substantially curtailed debt in the Northern Territory; it was still tracking at over $1bn. What was the response? ‘Oh sugar! We better keep spending in the way we have been over the past few years.’
We heard it from the Treasurer today and you read it in the budget books, ‘When we return to normality’. This is the essence of the debate we are now having in this House, ‘when we return to normality’. I have argued many times in this House that what was abnormal was the period after the introduction of the GST; it was abnormally good. Yet, the presumption we have heard from the former Treasurer and other members opposite today is that it was normal and you still read it in the budget books, ‘When we get back to pre-GFC income, we will be able to pay off the debt’.
This is the new normal and that is the problem. Your fiscal thinking is wrong. You argue we are going to expect increases year in, year out irrespective of what happens - that is the benchmark and we can borrow until that happens. When there is no suggestion that is going to occur, you are being fiscally irresponsible!
The member for Barkly said he is keeping an eye on the $22m for power generation and network facilities in Tennant Creek. It is interesting that $22m - I am doing a quick calculation in my head - would probably be paid off in about 35 days worth of interest repayments in the current environment. If we had zero debt, if we did what Gallop did in Western Australia during the halcyon days of the GST, that extra $750 000 per day would pay for the $22m worth of infrastructure in about 35 to 40 days.
We are in some way heinous villains for arguing we should be trying to claw that back and live within our means. Could you imagine being able to collect $22m in 40-odd days and do something useful with it other than pay somebody? We are committed to spending about $200m a year - probably a fraction less - on interest repayments as well as a similar amount on - it is more than that from memory, it is some time since I have read the books - on superannuation repayments we are duty bound to pay.
In the order of $400m or $500m is spent every year in the Northern Territory before we pay one public servant, before we pay one brick or before we put one power line in place. Yet, we are being described as being hard, flint-edged economic rationalists. The economic performance of the former government has put us into a position where we have to show restraint and lose $750 000 a day. They say they are better economic managers. I do not get that.
I will go a little further with this. The economic management they claim has served the Territory so well means we are paying interest of $750 000 a day. I remember estimates after the government brought down the budget where I asked John Montague from Treasury, ‘Do you calculate the interest payment on the current repayment?’ The answer was, ‘Yes, that is how we know and project how much we have to repay’. I asked: ‘Is there a band? Do you calculate in case interest rates move?’ ‘Yes, we do that’. I asked what the band was, it was 2%. The calculation was: if interest rates go up by 2% a calculation is done; if interest rates go down by 2% a calculation is done. They are able to calculate what happens to our interest repayments if they go up or down by 2%. It sounds like a small number.
However, when I asked Mr Montague what the top end of that band was, and what happened if interest rates increase by 2%, the former Treasurer stopped the conversation and said, ‘You are not to answer that question, Mr Montague. Mr Elferink, you are going to use that figure for scaremongering.’
My question is, if the figure was so bland and so inoffensive, how could I have used it for scaremongering? The truth is the figure was going to be very high. That was revealed later when I asked a similar line of questions of the Power and Water Corporation, which described what a 2% shift on its loans would do. They were stunning figures.
For the former government to bleat that the current government is trying to restrain its expenditure is what you would typically expect. It spent with an attitude of all care and no responsibility. Now, when someone tries to be responsible in its presence the frothing at the mouth and the hysteria is astonishing. There was very little fiscal restraint. The underlying assumption of the former government was, at all times, it would return to the pre-global financial crisis income stream. There is no suggestion anywhere on the horizon that will occur.
The economies of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland are doing reasonably well and I am grateful for that. It has much to do with demand in other places such as China and Europe - demand flying through Europe for Chinese manufactured goods built on the resources dug from the ground in Australia. We are direct beneficiaries of that. However, overall, the global financial crisis threw up another problem for us, the Australian dollar was seen as a reasonably safe haven for investors so it shifted away from 90 US, 93 US or 94 US. In the early part of the Howard era it was as low 46 US. It is now at 103 US.
That is a problem for the Northern Territory because – and this is why you have to separate economy and fiscal position - the fiscal position talks about our budgetary position, that is, how much money we have in the bank, and the economy talks about what is happening with money throughout the whole community.
The problem is a strong Australian dollar attacks our income in one important respect. In relation to our own source revenue, a strong Australian dollar means projections on income from royalties will be excessive as the Australian dollar climbs because commodities are sold in the international marketplace in USD. As a consequence, you will see the higher the Australian dollar the smaller our income from mining royalties will become.
One issue we face as a government is that whilst we are hoping to export more while the Australian dollar remains strong, one of our main sources of own source revenue will contract. However, even if you collect all our own source revenue together you will collect around $420m to $430m - I do not remember the exact figure - which is pretty much everything we have committed to superannuation and loan repayments. Every cent we collect in tax and own source revenue will go to non-productive sources for the Northern Territory.
I would like to change a component of that. There is not much we can do about our superannuation obligation; however, something can be done about the loan repayments. It would be nice to get rid of that expenditure. If you look at what we will be paying off in loan repayments, it will exceed $400m a year in the forward projections for the non-financial public sector. That means in a few years’ time we will be paying over $1m a day in interest payments. As someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, I struggle to tolerate that. Our debt to revenue ratio is the worst in the country and this was accepted and admitted by the Under Treasurer at the last Estimates Committee. We are carrying a substantially greater debt per head of population than any other jurisdiction. We are in a difficult fiscal position and it is time we showed some responsibility.
As we proceed down the path of statehood one of the things we have to demonstrate to everyone, particularly those in federal parliament who will cast a critical eye upon our application should we reach the point of asking them to exercise their powers in section 121 of the Australian Constitution, is that we are capable of being a state. If we want to be taken seriously as a jurisdiction we must be able to answer that question in fiscal terms. Yes, we are capable of being a state, we are treated as a state fiscally, we expect that to continue and can demonstrate responsibility. That is something the former government did not do, particularly in the time it had the fiscal capacity to deal with the debt.
If we tell federal parliament we want to become a state whilst we are also, through the back door, saying we rely on the implied fiscal support of the Commonwealth as one of their self-governing territories, we are not running a reasonable and rational argument. For that reason, we need to be fiscally responsible. The former government will scream about the cuts and ask how many jobs are being slashed. It will use all the campaigns it can to engender and perpetuate the fear it was trying to generate during the election.
We are committed to returning the budget to surplus by the end of this parliamentary term. It will be a massive challenge. The non-financial public sector - I saw this in the PEFO. I did not read the document before I came into this House and it has been some time since I saw it - in the non-financial public sector we are heading towards a deficit in the next financial year of $1bn. That is one year in the red - a single year. If that does not send alarm bells through anyone in this House nothing will. As much as we would like to do all the feel good stuff and pave everybody’s roads in gold, the fiscal reality of the world will not allow that to occur.
Madam Speaker, I am supportive of the Chief Minister’s statement. I accept the numbers and assertions because I have watched the budgetary position deteriorate over time. The fiscal future of the Northern Territory is in a parlous position. However, this government will do what is necessary to bring us back from the brink and return us to a sound, sensible footing so we can proceed into the future and to statehood without relying on any implied immunities from the Commonwealth.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Port Darwin; he delivers a very good, well-constructed speech and uses facts and figures. The only problem is when you scratch the surface the facts and figures come undone.
He waved The Australian today pointing out the difference between Labor and Liberal governments. Yes, the Hawke and Keating governments had deficits. Yes, the Liberal government had a surplus. However, he did not say how this surplus was achieved. I will remind him of some facts. There was a surplus but, at the same time, the Liberal government and Tony Abbott, the then minister for Health, took $2bn from the Health budget of all states.
During the Hawke and Keating time the Commonwealth, and states and territories, were sharing the cost of health 50/50. During the Abbott era, it went down to 40/60 - 40% the Commonwealth and 60% the states and territories. That put enormous strain on territory and state budgets and the Territory suffered because of it.
The liberal government achieved surpluses by cutting services because it was more important to have a balanced budget than provide services to the population.
One of the other things you will never hear the other side talking about is the debt the Territory had in August 2001 when there was a change of government from the Country Liberal Party to the Labor government. The debt of the Territory at that time was $1.4bn, and our revenue-raising capacity was much more limited and our population much less.
Another thing you will not hear from the other side is the Labor government, from 2001 onwards, had surplus budgets year after year after year. The then Treasurer, Syd Stirling, was one of the first in the Territory to start paying back some of the debt of the Territory. You will not hear that because it is not a good argument; it is a better argument to say the Territory government today has a large deficit than to state the truth. I have been in parliament 12 years and have a long memory, similar to an elephant.
Yes, we have a deficit; yes, we have a debt. However, the money from the GST was invested not wasted. Paying money to employ nurses is not waste, it is an investment. Paying money to employ doctors is an investment, not waste. Having teachers in remote community schools at Tiwi, Yuendumu, Borroloola and other smaller communities is an investment in the Territory’s future not a waste of money.
Let me remind parliament there were many coronial inquiries involving child protection and the health system stating there were not enough nurses or doctors. The previous government employed more than 200 extra doctors and 900 extra nurses from 2001. Our ratio of nurses per patient is now one of the best in the country. I have not seen a report on a coronial inquiry on the front page of the NT News for the past few years because the previous government addressed the needs of the system.
Let me remind this House a Country Liberal Party minister for Health said Indigenous people could die in their communities if they did not want to go to the cities for treatment for renal problems. The Labor government invested $40m in clinics, in renal dialysis in remote communities, and at places outside Darwin and Katherine. I have a long memory and am not afraid to speak the truth in this House.
Let me remind you that the Labor government brought an oncology centre to the Territory the then member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, could not deliver despite the fact it was his own party in government.
Let me remind you that the Labor government delivered the first ever medical school in the Northern Territory and, in three years time, we will have a significant number of Indigenous doctors in the Territory.
Let me remind you that the Labor government brought the super clinic to Palmerston. The Minister for Health admitted a few days ago in the media that we have some of the sickest people in Australia. We have the smallest number of doctors per hundred population than anywhere else in Australia.
He admitted RDH is stressed because of the number of people presenting there who could have been treated by a general practitioner. That is a surprise because this is what I was saying when we were in government and the opposition was attacking me. Now he has become minister he sees the real situation with the health sector in the Territory and says the same things.
The Country Liberal Party has been in government for two months now. The Country Liberal Party made many promises and I wish them luck. They will not be able to fulfil some of them or provide for the people who voted for them.
The CLP has been in government for two months and has already started changing its tune. It promised not to cut public service numbers. Today the member for Barkly asked the minister about a possible loss of positions in the Departments of Infrastructure and Transport. The minister did not answer, either because he did not know or did not want to say they would cut the budget and the positions.
We heard the Treasurer admit on television she does not know things; she has to do some homework and does not know much about Darwin because she lives in Alice Springs. God help the Territory economy if this is the calibre of the ministers we have! We have a minister who cannot even read the budget. She tried to put everything together - the government deficit and the non-government sector deficit - to present the picture she would like to, a deficit of $900m, when everybody who can read the budget knows the real deficit is $445m.
Let me remind the government in 2001, when we took government, the then Under Treasurer admitted he fudged the books to make the Territory economy look better. As a result, we found a $121m deficit. He fudged the books and admitted that publicly to the committee.
Yes, there is a debt. Yes, in his admission to the committee - I dare you to look at the Hansard and you will find the then Under Treasurer said that when questioned by the committee. The member for Nelson will remember that because he was part of the committee at the time. If you do not believe me, ask the member for Nelson if that was the answer from the then Under Treasurer.
We have a child protection minister who goes against her policy. When it was presented to the House a couple of years ago, her policy clearly specified a stand-alone department of Child Protection. I seek leave to table the CLP policy.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The front page in the black box under the heading ‘Taking responsibility’:
Care of children responsibility to return to the Minister
Six monthly public reporting on departmental and Ministerial performance against benchmarks and statutory obligations ...
Separate department and separate minister for children matters.
That was the then CLP policy. Today we have seen a backflip and the child protection department shoved into the Education department. I do not know the reason for that but I hope the minister will give us an explanation.
The new government talked much about the three-hub economy. Now, two months in, the three-hub economy has only two hubs because one has been destroyed. I am talking about the closing of significant sea areas to commercial barramundi fisheries in order to provide for amateur fishermen because that was an election commitment.
This government has taken the tourism department away from tourists. I wonder, when the majority of tourists are in the Top End - without denying Alice Springs and Central Australia have a significant number of tourists - why take the department from the Top End to Central Australia? Will it be more efficient, or is it because the minister did not want to relocate to Darwin or spend more time in Darwin?
This government took the airline policy group away from the international airport at Darwin. That raised a number of questions.
I was surprised to hear the Treasurer talk about a significant increase in executives. I strongly recommend you talk to your Minister for Health because a number of experienced doctors and surgeons employed by the Health Department are termed ‘executives’. When you are going to cut the executives, does it mean people in Darwin are not going to have the specialists or surgeons they have today because these are executives in the Department of Health?
The Treasurer was the shadow minister for Child Protection and we had many arguments in this House. I will come back to the deficit and the money the former CLP government wasted because when we came to power in 2001, the Department of Child Protection had a budget of $7m and just over 100 people working for it. Last year we had a budget of $145m and, following the board of inquiry recommendations, we put an extra $130m over five years to address the needs of the department. I am still shocked by the findings of the review - State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory of 2001. This report was about neglect by the then CLP government of Indigenous children living outside the urban areas. It withdrew its services because it could not meet the demand. I was absolutely shocked.
Yes, child protection has problems. I recall many debates with many members. The member for Namatjira raised issues about child protection many times and asked me about the policy of putting kids in Aboriginal families only. I said many times the child’s safety came first over anything else. This is where the money went. I call on anyone to tell me this money was wasted. I am prepared to stand up and be counted. This money was invested in the future of Territorians to protect children, Indigenous children, or any child in the Territory. It was not a waste of money. I hear their plans and, hopefully, some of the plans will come to fruition.
Much of what the Labor government did was not done because it felt like it or felt like spending money. The money provided to us by the Commonwealth was invested in health, child protection, and many other worthwhile purposes to benefit Territorians.
I go back to the Department of Resources. A minute ago I mentioned the closure of areas to commercial barramundi fishing. I feel strongly about it because as minister for Fisheries I always took action, against the wishes of the commercial industry in some cases, when I believed closure was necessary but only on scientific grounds, not at the whim of the minister or as a political favour. I did not hesitate to close Fog Bay when we had the incident with the shoal of sharks. That decision drew criticism from the now minister for resources - should it have been done because it harmed the commercial fishing industry?
I notice the closure of the northern waters of the Tiwi Islands and the argument by AFANT. It is going to be a very interesting argument because the Tiwi Islands have every right to close their waters. They have every right to rent their waters and exclude anyone from their areas. It was interesting that the fiery member for Katherine, who previously asked parliament to pass legislation to overturn the Blue Mud Bay decision, was very quiet this time. He no longer has the fire in his belly and advised AFANT to see what would happen. I am really concerned about it.
I also notice the government did not do the same thing with the closure of Finke Bay and Chambers Bay. He talked about consulting with the industry. Well, he did not, because the industry advised that no one has spoken to them. He did not consult with the commercial retail and wholesale sector in Darwin, and the Chief Minister was challenged in public about that during a debate in the Mall - an ABC program. They still cannot show any benefits to the commercial sector or even the amateur sector. The member for Nelson has a motion for GBD and I will be happy to contribute to that.
The minister for resources challenged me about new mines opening in the Territory. Let me remind the minister for resources that when we came to government in 2001, the then minister for mines, who was the member for Wanguri, found on his desk 700 pending exploration licences. The previous minister refused to grant the exploration licences because he had a fundamental opposition to the right of Indigenous people to object or agree to the granting of licences in their areas. These licences were fundamental to the development of mines. A mine takes seven to 10 years to develop from the time of exploration to getting it off the ground.
I would like to remind the member opposite that Bootu Creek opened under a Labor government. At the same time, there was a huge expansion at McArthur River, a huge expansion of Groote Eylandt - nearly $0.25bn worth - and, of course, Sherwin Iron and Western Desert Resources mines are about to open. There is also a significant increase in exploration for oil and gas in other areas in the Territory.
I listened to the minister for resources make the bold statement that he attended the Mining the Territory Conference and the place was buzzing; the industry was so good because there was a change of government; three weeks into a change of government and the industry was buzzing. It was really interesting, especially when I received a copy of the Australian Mining article from 18 October 2012 with the heading ‘Northern Territory to streamline mining projects’. The first paragraph in Australian Mining, an authoritative magazine for the mining industry, stated:
The fourth paragraph says:
From there on the Australian Mining article quotes the previous minister for Mines, Kon Vatskalis, with a series of statements over four or five paragraphs about what the Labor government did for mining, how it declared the Territory open for business, how it put $25.8m into bringing forward discovery, and how it developed the China and Japan Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy - a very good strategy. I believe the minister is going to China and taking a booklet to promote the Territory in China. Well done! I am prepared to support him because this is not about CLP or Labor policy; this is for the benefit of all Territorians.
There was a glitch. The books had been printed to take to China and someone flicked through the pages and discovered my photograph and message. They had to pulp them and start producing new ones with a photograph of the new minister.
I am quite happy to work with the minister for resources to promote the Territory in China, Korea, Japan, India, anywhere, because this is not about politics, it is about jobs for Territorians, in particular, Indigenous Territorians. I have said repeatedly that mining develops in areas where nothing much else will happen - in very remote areas - and there is an opportunity to give people jobs in Bigrlyi, Yuendumu or Borroloola. We have many examples of Indigenous people being employed in these mines.
We heard how bad the Labor government was. I must not forget the Ord area to be developed. It is a fantastic opportunity for the Territory, Western Australia and the federal government. When we came to government we found not much had happened with the Ord. The then government decided to speak to the people and, unfortunately, spoke to the wrong traditional owners. Things then became quiet. I became quiet because neither the Western Australian nor federal governments were interested until a new government in Western Australia put money from royalties into the Ord - $400m - and the Commonwealth came to the party. They had an agreement with the traditional owners and compensation for things which had happened before. The Territory government wanted to be part of that and we had an agreement ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Barkly.
We know the Ord is significant, but at the same time the Ord is not the only area in the Territory to be developed. In the past 10 years we proceeded to develop and support the agricultural and horticultural industries and, as a result, today the Territory is the biggest producer and supplier of mangoes in Australia. There are other things to follow - grapes from Ti Tree, onions and potatoes from Katherine. Many other areas can be developed without having to negotiate with traditional owners because it will take time, effort and money to negotiate the Ord agreement, and we cannot do it without the federal government.
Once again, this side of the House is prepared to work with the government to develop the Ord because this is not about politics; it is about development of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I object when the government criticises the opposition for wasting money provided to it by the resources sector or the Commonwealth when we were in government. We had a right to the money we received - taxpayers’ money, our money - but we also had an obligation to look after people in the Territory, Indigenous people, who are the sickest population in the country. The money we received was invested not wasted because money spent on health, education and child protection is money well spent.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we are having a debate today about numbers. Often, when you debate numbers, you lose sight of people. Behind all these numbers are people. There are very professional public servants behind the numbers we are debating in the Chamber today. We are losing people from a professional public service which helped secure INPEX, and a professional public service which will help us secure the ongoing benefits and opportunities from INPEX. Professional public servants help us negotiate participation plans for local businesses, and a professional public service helps us secure training opportunities for local Territorians - jobs with projects such as INPEX.
I am worried that as we lose professional public servants we will lose the ability to grasp the economic opportunities which are coming. You cannot take for granted that the Territory is going to boom. We are in a very good position at the moment economically, but we cannot take for granted reaping the benefits of economic opportunities which will flow from projects like INPEX. If you cut into the public service and lose professional public servants, those are some of the things you put at risk. We on this side are worried looking forward. You have to look to the future and we can see economic opportunities on the horizon but you cannot take them for granted. You do not do it alone, you do not do it as a minister solo, you have professional public servants to help put together what you need to get the economic opportunities and make them work for the Territory.
Jobs for Territorians and business opportunities are waiting to be got, but you have to get them. It takes a very professional public service to get them. At the moment, parts of the public service are paralysed. We have people in the public service who are extremely worried.
There is an acknowledgment in the Chief Minister’s speech, but no true appreciation of what is happening in the public service at the moment. The Chief Minister said, ‘I acknowledge there is anxiety in the public sector’, which is possibly the mildest way you could put it.
I am unsure if the CLP is hearing the same reports as we are from the public sector. If not, that concerns me. It needs to build relationships with the public sector. I have heard stories of people crying in their office, crying in corridors, stressed in the workplace and unsure of what is happening in the workplace. The funereal atmosphere in different departments, different offices - I heard stories that after Richard Galton was dismissed there was complete shock in the department. No one saw that coming; I did not see that coming. We have lost professional public servants who did a great job for the Territory and would have done a great job going forward. They are no longer there. We do not have their skills and experience. Much corporate knowledge has been lost and time built in the job lost when you lose someone like Richard Galton.
For days afterwards there was a funereal atmosphere in the department. People were in shock that someone could be dismissed. We have teams in the public service - people in units where there may have been four, eight or 12 people working as part of a team who have slowly seen people go. Now there are one, two or three - a few people doing the work of many. That worries us. There is more and more stress on fewer people to deliver the outcomes we want to achieve as a Territory, as an opposition, or as a government. We want to grasp the opportunities and we are seeing a few people do the work of many. That is not good enough.
As stressed as those people are, it probably does not compare to what has happened in Tourism. I hope all of us have had feedback from people in the Tourism area about the stress they have gone through, discovering through the media their department is to be relocated to Alice Springs. I love Alice. I have no problems with Alice, but this has not been handled in a professional way. There was no consultation, no work with industry and people in the department found out through the media. That is not good enough. There is much stress in that area of the public sector at the moment.
I am hearing about this not only from public servants, but from people involved in the tourist sector and the private sector - what they are hearing and the debacle of a meeting the minister had with public servants to talk about the decision after he had told the media and after they had found out through other sources. These things concern us on this side of the House. These are the people behind the numbers. These are the people who have been doing a service to the public and Territorians and we just talk about numbers. It is easy to anesthetise yourself to the pain happening to people.
There is unnecessary pain happening in the public service at the moment. We are losing very professional public servants who were delivering for the Territory. There is a culture of fear at the moment. People are seeing colleagues called into the CEO’s office and do not see them come back again. We are losing very professional public servants.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for rescuing Jennifer Prince. It would have been a tragedy to lose her. He rescued her - one good outcome. However, we are losing professional public servants. The Territory Growth Planning Unit has gone. The paper today said two people - there are at least four in that area - gone. Student Services has been split in half and has lost people into schools. The Coordinator-General has gone and the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee has gone.
I know of people who are leaving the public sector of their own volition. They see what is happening around them and have sourced private sector jobs. Those are people with 10, 12, 14 years experience in the public sector delivering for Territorians, delivering positive public services. They have said, ‘We do not like what the Country Liberal Party is doing and we are out of here’.
We cannot afford to lose these people. We cannot afford to lose professional public servants and harm a professional public service which exists to grasp the opportunities which come to the Territory, and that is what is happening at the moment. It is not good enough and this debate about numbers really cloaks the effect on people in the public service and the pain they are feeling. We cannot afford to lose professional public servants and that is what is happening. It is unfortunate it is almost dismissed in this ministerial statement with one line, ‘I acknowledge that there is anxiety in the public sector’. That does not go anywhere near grasping the pain of what is happening. The consequences of this will be felt like ripples for years to come. The consequence of losing professional public servants and their corporate knowledge will be felt for years to come.
We will talk about numbers today and probably talk numbers next sittings. We will talk about services that have been lost, but the effect of losing this experience in the public sector will be felt for years and years to come. It is not good enough. Today’s debate about numbers has hidden the real debate about people and consequences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak but I support every word the member for Fannie Bay said. In my job I deal with quite a number of public servants. Many would be conservative voters, but most are scared or unsure of what their future is. The member for Fannie Bay summed it up perfectly.
We now have the economic rationalist in charge. I have seen this in other governments, and always feel it becomes an excuse for hiding the fact we are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with people who have families and mortgages, who may have lived in the Northern Territory for many years and, all of a sudden, their jobs are gone or at risk, or they think they are at risk. There is a profound loss of morale simply because people do not know what is going on.
I heard the Chief Minister answer a question from the member for Casuarina today about Ms Jennifer Prince. I intended to ask the same question. People like the Under Treasurer deserve better. They deserve more than that they lost their job because the government wanted change. Their loyalty to the public service of the Northern Territory - not the Labor Party, the government of the day - was rewarded by being sacked. It happened with other CEOs as well. It is unfortunate we have the number crunchers, the economic rationalists. We can argue there needs to be change; I have no doubt new governments want change. However, we must remember we are dealing with people who have lives, families and expectations. It comes across as a non-compassionate government saying, ‘Oh dear, how sad, we need change’.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke on a forgotten area. Several members in this debate spoke of the five hubs - the changes this government wants to bring to turn the deficit around, to make a difference in a range of areas. However, perhaps what has been forgotten is the effect on humanity those changes may bring.
Yes, the number crunchers might be happy in the end, the budget might be closer to surplus, but what is the human cost? I do not know. I speak to public servants in my electorate and none have told me they are full of excitement about the future. They are concerned about what is happening, about their jobs and their families. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for raising an area which has, unfortunately, not been debated in this House so far - putting a human element to what until now has been a budgetary discussion. It is fine for those who believe in budgets as the be-all and end-all, but not necessarily fine for the people affected by the changes.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 (Serial 1) passing through all stages on Thursday, 1 November 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a concern about the requirement to have a suspension of standing orders based on a need for urgency. It concerns me, and does not necessarily relate to this bill only.
The member for Greatorex mentioned a bill coming through on urgency. I have also been notified by the member for Araluen it would be beneficial if her bill could be done on urgency. I am not necessarily against a slight shortening of the time between the introduction of the bill and its debate in the next sittings of parliament if it needs to be brought forward a little. However, I have not been given any evidence that we need to debate this in this present sittings of parliament.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned practical commonsense approaches. We have a process which is important in a unicameral parliament. We do not have another layer of government as in most other jurisdictions - an upper house to scrutinise legislation. We only have this House to do that.
One of the reasons we allow legislation to sit on the floor until the next sittings of parliament is to allow for scrutiny. Some pieces of legislation are small; however, the principle is important. Once we move away from that we break down some of the checks and balances we require in a unicameral system.
Some of this legislation was introduced by the previous government, and fair enough; however, if the government wants to bring it on urgency, it allows it to be debated earlier in the next session of parliament and allows it to sit on the table until that sitting occurs.
I can see the common sense in trying to move some of the legislation away from the last Thursday of the next sittings, as the member for Araluen suggested, but the principle of allowing legislation that is not - I have not been given any reason why it is urgent. We had a debate on urgency in relation to water discharge licences for Darwin Harbour and the member for Port Darwin scolded the then minister for the Environment for not explaining clearly why that legislation should go through on urgency.
I understand this legislation, along with the legislation the member for Araluen is putting forward, needs to be in place by 1 January; however, we have another sittings of parliament before then. I am yet to be convinced this legislation, if held off until the next sittings of parliament, will cause the world to disappear. I prefer in matters of urgency, if we are to have them, that urgency is shown to be required, required not just a convenience.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support the urgency if it means we can debate this early in the next sittings so we are not working on the standard distance between when it is presented and when it has to be debated. However, I do not support it being debated in the present sittings of parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson is right to call on me to explain this. I explained it to the opposition; however, the member for Nelson was not in the loop.
This bill remains unchanged from the one sitting on the Notice Paper for months under the former administration. It is to enable the national uniform evidence legislation to be passed into law, which was a law we passed in this House in October 2011. The former government was tardy in bringing forward the enabling legislation, which is what I am bringing in here.
Since becoming Attorney-General I have been anxious to restart a number of things which dropped off the radar under the former government. It seemed the Attorney’s-General had not been paying attention to these things, even things on the Notice Paper. I have indicated to the profession as a whole in the Northern Territory that I intend to have national uniform legislation operating by 1 January.
The reason I bring this on urgency and want to have it passed is it has been in the pipeline for three or four months. That is this bill alone, the enabling legislation. There is nothing different from the legislation brought in by the former Attorney-General. It hardly qualifies as having not sat on the Notice Paper in any practical sense. For that reason, and knowing the legislative agenda of the next parliamentary sittings, I advised the shadow minister early on that I intended to go down this path. She indicated there was no issue with that. I made certain a briefing was extended to her so she could raise whatever issues she wanted to.
If the member for Nelson feels he has been left out of the loop, my apologies. Next time I will remember his independence. I am not used to your independence, member for Nelson.
For that reason, I want to bring this legislation forward and have it out of the way so we do not clog up the second set of sittings, where there will also be a mini-budget. There are no surprises, there are no traps; there is nothing of that nature in this mix. The reason I am seeking urgency on this matter is to get this up and running for the profession in the Northern Territory. Thus, the good administration of justice can be supported by good evidence legislation.
Motion agreed to.
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 1)
Bill presented and read a first time
Mr ELFERINK: (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Most honourable members will be familiar with this bill, which is consequential to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011, which I will call the uniform act.
The reforms contained in the uniform act bring the Northern Territory into line with the uniform evidence law adopted by the Commonwealth, the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Norfolk Island. Those reforms were supported by the government when in opposition.
The content of this bill is identical to the lapsed bill of a similar name introduced by the then government into this Assembly in March 2012. While the government of the day announced the bill would be debated to enable passage prior to a proposed commencement date of 1 September 2012, it was unable to include the third reading of this bill in its legislative program prior to the dissolution of the Assembly.
The incoming government has determined its position on the lapsed bill and, as my remarks indicate, we are happy to adopt this measure and ensure its enactment to enable the uniform act to commence.
The government proposes the uniform legislation will commence on 1 January 2013 and, to ensure this is so, proposes the bill be passed on urgency at these sittings. The bill contains no policy amendment beyond those contained in the uniform act. The bill has been public policy and publicly available since March 2012. Additionally, as a matter of courtesy, I have written to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson to inform them of the government’s intention in this regard.
I turn now to the main provisions of the bill. The transitional provisions are contained in Part 2 of the bill and add a new Chapter 6 to the uniform act. Subject to the most minor drafting differences, these provisions are uniform across the jurisdictions which have adopted the uniform evidence law. The transitional provisions will provide that the uniform evidence act applies to any proceedings commenced after the commencement day. In the case of a proceeding which began before the commencement day, the uniform act applies to that part of the proceeding which takes place after the commencement day, other than any hearing that began before the commencement date. For these hearings, the old Evidence Act continues to apply to the hearing until it is completed.
Part 3 of the bill makes the necessary repeals and consequential amendments to the current Evidence Act. The explanatory statement explains in considerable detail which sections of the current act have been repealed and which sections of the uniform act replace them.
Part 4 of the bill moves section 39 of the current Evidence Act to the Administration and Probate Act where it better belongs. That section goes beyond the general law of evidence and provides that once a court has granted probate or letters of administration, the fact of grant is evidence of the due execution of the will itself.
Part 5 deals with technical amendments to various Northern Territory acts. The then minister for Justice, in introducing the lapsed bill, drew attention to one particular matter. In this regard, I also propose to mention this area - the law concerning sexual offences - as it is important that this matter, which is not directly touched on by the bill, should be noted on the public record.
All states and territories have laws which deal with evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence. These laws regulate the examination of witnesses and the admission of their evidence of their sexual history. In the Northern Territory the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act
(a) prohibits the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied the evidence has substantial relevance to the fact in issue;
(b) prevents the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant is the ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue; and
(c) excludes the use of a complainant’s sexual history as an indicator of the complainant’s truthfulness.
I, too, wish to emphasise the uniform evidence law does not affect the operation of sexual offences law. This is the effect of section 8 of the uniform act which simply states:
The uniform act does not make admissible evidence that is inadmissible because of Northern Territory sexual offences law. Previously, even if evidence was permitted under the sexual offences law, it may still have been inadmissible under the common law. Now, such evidence may be inadmissible under the common law or under the uniform act, or its admission may be regulated by the uniform act. It is still possible to find common law rules excluding evidence because the uniform act is not a code.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 23 October 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward this debate. It is important to understand the government program for the next four years, and I welcome many of the issues raised in his Address-in-Reply. He has also raised those in the Northern Territory budget position statement as well.
I agree with quite a number of areas, there are some where I disagree, and some I will meet halfway. I would like to go through some of those issues because they are really important. Some are Territory-wide and some are local, especially when talking about the rural area of Darwin.
I will give you examples of where I agree with the government. The Chief Minister spoke about the importance of primary industry. I have been saying for many years the department of Primary Industry has always been the poor cousin of government. When you look at how much emphasis the previous government placed on private industry in recent times, you will understand why I believe the previous government did not do as well as it should have.
I remember debating the issue of GM cotton. I raise this issue now because it relates to whether the government wishes to expand into Ord Stage 3. The previous government conducted experiments for seven years with GM cotton and found it to be environmentally okay. It proved it would not pollute the water in Katherine River. It used just as much water as peanuts and mangoes, and there was hardly any requirement to spray, which has been one of the big issues with cotton.
The government has said it is looking forward to developing Ord River Stage 3, if one followed this debate in the last sittings of parliament one would understand one of our big agricultural companies has been interested in growing cotton in the Ord River area. However, a Chinese company wants to grow sugar in the same area. You have two competing interests. One of those interests will more than likely be given Stage 2, and it is possibly going to be the Chinese company developing a sugar industry. There is no Stage 3 because we have not developed it in the Northern Territory.
I would like to know where the Northern Territory government is at in the process of developing Ord Stage 3. What level of negotiation has occurred with traditional owners? That has been one of the issues for a long time.
If anyone has followed the debate over the Keep River National Park - Keep River is not part of the previous government’s management plan. The traditional owners did not want to be part of that debate. Where are we with that matter? Where are we with ensuring the correct soil types have been mapped? Where are we with general plans of what channels would be required to deliver the water? Where would we get the money from? Once we sort out those problems, would the new government support the growing of GM cotton?
I have visited Narrabri, travelled to parts of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, also southern New South Wales looking at cotton. It is a crop where people say, ‘Oh, terrible. It uses lots of water, kills all the fish, and does all types of things’. That is the thinking of 15 to 20 years ago. Anyone who wants to be educated in where cotton is today should look at the changes in the way cotton is managed in Australia. The cotton industry knew it was on the outer and has turned things around remarkably from an environmental and commercial point of view.
The government needs to answer the question: would it accept the growing of GM cotton? This was not approved by the old government. Where would it stand if ACO, the company wanting to grow cotton, said it wanted to turn Stage 3 into a cotton development?
It is good the minister has been to Kununurra and visited the Ord River. I did the same thing myself several years ago. However, we need to look at other areas of the Northern Territory. There are areas in the Sturt Plateau, in the Ali Curung area, in Ti Tree, in Central Australia, and other areas. I understand a plan was proposed for a banana plantation at Ngukurr. I do not know what has happened to that, but we have to look at those things.
One of the reasons we want to look at spreading development is for employment. We have a long way to go. Some of the new members mentioned the scourge of welfare. I drove back from the Masters on the weekend and went past the Ali Curung turnoff. I stopped, turned around and took a photo. There is a sign for the Ali Curung melon farm saying, ‘Workers Wanted’. It is next door to Ali Curung. Why do we have a sign on the highway asking people to work at Ali Curung? Why are the locals not working at Ali Curung?
We have to develop a bigger economy in the Northern Territory. We also have to ensure people in the Northern Territory are part of that economic growth. The welfare people spoke about yesterday is holding back benefits to Territorians when it comes to economic growth and employment.
I applaud the government for its emphasis on primary industry, although one exception is fishing. Chief Minister, none of the documents I saw on primary industry mentioned fishing. The member for Katherine mentioned seafood briefly yesterday, but it is not in document we are reading from today.
It worries me that we think commercial fishing is bad. We have the idea that people who make their living out of fishing should be looked at with scorn. Much of it is because the Amateur Fishermens’ Association believes only it has the right to fish in the Northern Territory. It is sad because fishing is one of the basic human occupations covering all groups of people.
When I was reading through this I thought, ‘Well, Jesus did not do a bad job. He picked Peter, who had a commercial fishing fleet in the Sea of Galilee’. I am glad the amateur fishing people were not there because they would have been told to nick off, probably to the Dead Sea, where they would not have caught anything. I digress.
We should be supporting amateur and commercial fishing. The previous government was trying to put forward a shared resource network. We talk about the resource, and how people who want to fish can share that resource. We will have more of that debate, hopefully, next week when the minister returns.
Another important issue is for rural people. The minister talks about a planning commission. I have concerns about a planning commission because it is another layer of bureaucracy. I have never supported the planning commission. When that was announced I thought, ‘another layer of democracy’. We already have a Development Consent Authority and a department of Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Unfortunately, people like the member for Greatorex who have not been in the Territory for long, would probably not recognise this document. This is the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan Structure 1990. Were you in the Territory then, member for Greatorex? Probably not, probably out the back of Queensland. You probably do not know the history. This was done by the department, by Mr Bailey, who was the strategic planner for the Northern Territory. He is still around. In fact, he had much to do with the next document - the member for Greatorex might know - a plan the CLP put together which I praised. He also had a great deal to do with this one.
My argument is, why do you not employ a top-grade strategic planner to do the work you are trying to do through a planning commission? The proof is in the pudding; this was done by the department. Why would you want to make another layer of bureaucracy? Employ the right people! That is what this department is for. Why create another department on another department? You have proved you can do it; this is a good document. I was on Litchfield Council for many years. We used this as a basis for good planning ...
Mr Conlan: This is what irrelevance does to a man, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: It is the basis for this document, the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. If you know anything about the history of this document, it comes ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Perhaps shock jocks do not know anything more than shocking.
This document comes with individual booklets on a range of areas within Litchfield Shire - Murrumujuk, Gunn Point Peninsula - areas important today for industrial development …
Mr Conlan: The only shocking thing is your sexual harassment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, stop interrupting.
Mr WOOD: I wish I was John Laws, I could turn him off.
The minister said they will be developing firm guidelines for all zoning categories. Sure, the member for Greatorex has read this book; he has it sitting on his table. He probably does not even know what it is. It is the Northern Territory Planning Scheme which has building envelopes, heights, car parking - we already have that. Why set up a planning commission to develop firm guidelines for all zoning categories? Here are categories - light industry - pages of it. It tells you what you can and cannot do. It has been developed over years, not just by this government; it was developed by you people because this planning document has evolved.
The previous government brought out some plans which were not as good as the CLP’s plans. They did not cover enough of the details needed in a strategic plan. It also brought out a rural village plan, which the member for Goyder and I thought was overdevelopment of the rural area. It would concern both of us if the government of the day decided to cut up large areas of the rural area into small blocks and that was, or became, the policy of the planning commission.
It concerns me because the chairman of the planning commission, Mr Gary Nairn, was a resident of the Northern Territory for a long time. He was involved with Earl James & Associates for some time. If anyone has seen applications at Development Consent Authority meetings for developments in the Northern Territory, they will know Earl James & Associates have been promoting lot sizes in Litchfield smaller than the minimum lot size of 1 ha. That is why the member for Goyder and I compiled this document. We wanted our rural area to stay rural and development to be controlled within the rural centres.
I have concerns, as I believe the member for Goyder would, that Earl James & Associates, who work for developers, would have much influence in convincing the planning commission that 4000 people signed a petition for development of the rural area to be changed to allow hundreds or thousands of small blocks to be approved. That would be the death of the rural lifestyle as we know it. I query whether we need a planning commission.
Mr Conlan: No, we do.
Mr WOOD: That is another opinion and you are entitled to it. I am giving you an opinion, and if you cannot listen to my opinion that is your problem. The planning commission is an overlay we do not need. If you employed the right people in the department, as you have done previously, you would get an answer because you want planners. You do not want people who might be seen to have interests elsewhere. The planners plan and the developers develop. The developers are not necessarily planners. Developers want to make a buck. There is nothing wrong with that; however, many times the buck is at the risk of poor planning where there is a push for development in inappropriate areas. Government gives in saying, ‘Oh well, we need affordable housing. Let us open up that parcel of land’. In 10 years time you realise it was a silly idea. We did not build new roads and half goes under water. You need a neutral person or department whose sole job is a strategic plan for the Northern Territory.
We are not asking for something that has not been done before. Already, we have two documents for the Darwin regional area. Most growth towns have town plans completed or on the way to being completed. There is much work. You do not have to start from a new base; develop what is already there.
The minister mentioned road corridors and strategic corridors. Any of these maps - Labor or CLP - will show in the Darwin region those corridors already exist. They are not going to change. If there is only one way to Gunn Point it will not change. These things have already been done. I would hate to see the wheel being reinvented just to make it look like we are doing something.
The other issue of interest, which is a great thing the government is trying to do, is affordable housing. I worry about what you mean by affordable housing because it really is affordable land. You can build a little house on a block of land but, if the block of land is so expensive, you will not have money to build the house. The question is, where is the affordable land to develop? There is very little detail except that there will be 2000 affordable houses for workers, nurses, etcetera. The detail is unknown. Where will those blocks of land be developed? There is no mention of Weddell, and there has been a great deal of planning.
Again, you are talking about a planning commission. A whole week was spent at the Darwin Convention Centre with a group of planners from interstate, and locally, plus developers and other people, who did a great deal of design work on Weddell. What stage is the development of Weddell at? Are we going to say, ‘That was Labor Party stuff. We will bring in the planning commission and do something new’? I would hate to see all that hard work and planning go down the drain because you have a new body looking at it.
I would love to see the detail of cheaper land. We have land in the rural area, most of which is private and can be developed. No developer - even though some might say it - releases affordable land. They land bank; they sell a small amount of land every year and maintain high prices. Governments of both persuasions are too scared to release land in case the price drops. On one hand, you are saying rents are high, land is too expensive; however, you will not allow, as a private enterprise government, competition. The reason prices are so high is because we do not have real competition in land. There is not enough land so prices are high and the market rate stays at that level making it difficult for young people to afford it.
There is land in the rural area. I would be happy to show the Chief Minister where it is. Some of the infrastructure to the prison, such as water and power - we know from Power and Water there is sufficient water and power to develop rural subdivisions. There are issues about suitability of the soil in relation to septics; however, that can be sorted. That land could be turned off much cheaper than suburban land because it does not have the requirements of suburban development such as kerbing and storm water drainage. There was an opportunity, which I tried to push with the previous government, but got nowhere.
I am putting the case to you ...
Mr Conlan: You should become a minister - all care and no responsibility.
Mr WOOD: If you do not believe this debate is serious, fine. Have a giggle ...
Mr Conlan: It is hard to take seriously, Gerry. Anyone who supports a $12m ...
Mr WOOD: You have been in government two months and you are as cocky as a bird in a tree ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: Such is life. I would be happy to work with the Chief Minister, at least from the rural perspective, to look at developing land in that area to help give young people an opportunity to own some rural land.
Madam Speaker, you and I have supported development of district centres. A classic example is the one at Coolalinga which is being sold for housing - medium density, multiple dwelling and single dwellings. We will have Kmart, Coles and, believe it or not, Maccas. We are supporting development but with controls, and that is where good planning comes. That is why you need a good strategic planner. That is the way the government should go ...
Mr Conlan: That is why we have a planning commission.
Mr WOOD: The planning commission is a layer of bureaucracy we do not need ...
Mr Conlan: In your opinion.
Mr WOOD: Member for Greatorex, the reason I am standing is to give my opinion. Even blind Freddy could see that.
Mr Conlan interjecting
Mr WOOD: Well, that is okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, stop interrupting!
Mr WOOD: The other area which has been spoken about is the Banned Drinker Register and mandatory rehabilitation. I support mandatory rehabilitation. The difference I have with the government is not supporting people going to prison. That is, basically, locking up people for being drunk. The people most affected by this will be Aboriginal people because the issue for many people has been - from the Darwin perspective and probably Palmerston - they are sick of people sitting on roadways, pathways, or in parks drinking and causing noise, defecating, etcetera, and becoming a nuisance. That has been a problem.
There are two issues with mandatory rehabilitation. One is the right of people who live in the suburbs to live in peace.
The other is where people have been given the opportunity many times to turn their lives around and away from the scourge of alcohol. We need to say, ‘Enough is enough. We have to take you off the street. We are going to try to do something.’
We already have something similar. We have the secure care centres in Holtze and Central Australia where you place people under very careful guidelines. You have a magistrate, certain people in the secure care centre who are skilled in cognitive issues, where people with brain problems who may be a risk to themselves, or others, are placed. They are modern, well-equipped, and have been built specifically for the purpose. Those people are cared for. Their rights are protected because they can appeal and their situation can be looked at on a regular basis. We do it to try to help them get over the issues of alcohol. It may not work. You may fix one person in 100; however, you give them an opportunity to dry out and get a better chance for an education. You would need medical assistance there. You need compassion, but you also need some force applied in the sense of, ‘It is time to get off the street because you are driving people mad. At the same time, we want to help you turn your life around’. It is only done in certain cases under strict control.
My problem with what the government is putting forward is - the member for Port Darwin will tell me if I am wrong - you will be told to go to the tribunal or undertake rehabilitation, and if you do not go a number of times that will be an offence and you can be arrested and gaoled. That, to me, ...
Mr Elferink: No, that is an oversimplification.
Mr WOOD: The point is you end up in prison.
Mr Conlan: No, you do not.
Mr WOOD: How do you end up in the prison farm at Katherine?
Mr Conlan: You go to a rehabilitation centre.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you have to go through the criminal process to get there. I am saying do not go down that path. Use a path similar to helping people with cognitive disabilities.
Mr Elferink: Are you suggesting that apprehending people and placing them in custody is judicial oversight?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: If you read the guidelines for putting people in the secure care centres they will understand where I am coming from. It is not simple. It is not easy and there are many requirements before you can do it. That is the way it should be done. I am giving you another opinion.
I said during the debate on the Banned Drinker Register that I did not believe it would work because secondary supply would be a problem; however, the government should be allowed to give it a go. This government pulled the pin on this too early. It claimed it did not work, but only thought that when it received the crime statistics about umpteen weeks after it made the announcement.
I have met many people who cannot believe the government did it so quickly. They had become used to it and thought the commonsense approach to removing the Banned Drinker Register would have been to leave it for two years, have an independent assessment, and see if it had made an effect.
Mr Conlan: More reports.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, stop interjecting!
Mr WOOD: The member for Greatorex talks about puff pieces, these are puff interjections.
We are talking about something serious. What annoys me in this House at the moment is one is trying to give an alternative opinion, constructive criticism, trying not to knock the government for six on everything it does, and we cannot work together as a group on issues which should not be political. Grog is a scourge on both black and white people. I have just come back from the Masters. I know how many white people drink; however, you do not see them rolling around on the streets. We have a pretty large consumption of alcohol. Have we taken some of the hard decisions as well? Have we looked at the effect of advertising alcohol in the Northern Territory? Have we wondered why the alcohol companies are so connected with sport? VB sits on the shirts of our cricketers. Many sporting groups in Australia said they would not advertise alcohol. Which one said they would not? Rugby League, Rugby Union and cricket. The ones that get the most money and publicity will not because they need sponsorship.
What does so well at the football at Marrara or Traeger Park? I am not sure whether they only sell light at Traeger Park. They still supply grog because they see it is a great place to sell alcohol. I do not have a problem with selling alcohol per se; however, there is a perception that alcohol is part of sport - without it, we cannot exist. It is sad because the classic case is the Katherine football association which banned alcohol from football matches some years ago. The crowds went ‘kathump’ and their money went ‘kathump’. Families still went but they did not make money. We rely on alcohol in all our clubs. The member for Sanderson will know about cricket; any cricket club will rely on the bar.
Alcohol is a great influence through our society. Governments are scared to change that. They took up the battle with tobacco; however, when did you last see a person booked for smoking while driving? It is not a real problem but drinking when you are driving is ...
Mr Conlan: God! Really drawing a parallel.
Mr WOOD: Well, it is right because one has a bigger effect on the community and governments have not bothered to take that up.
Madam Speaker, I am sure we will debate that issue more. There are other things about law and order. There are some good things about youth camps. I do not agree with boot camps so much. We should have youth camps, perhaps working on cattle stations like Wildman River once was. That is a good idea. There is talk of a police youth club in Alice Springs. That is a great idea. I was pushing the other government to do something, especially in Darwin because, except for the Berrimah club, there is only one club at Casuarina.
There are already four clubs in Alice Springs: Tangentyere, Anzac Hill, The Gap...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member for Nelson be given a 10 minute extension.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Conlan: The Sermon on the Mount continues.
Mr WOOD: It concerns me a minister does not realise he is a minister; he thinks he is still on the backbench of the opposition.
There are already four clubs in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister said, ‘We will have a police youth club in Alice’. I do not have anything against that. It is good the Chief Minister is thinking that way but there needs to be some rationalisation. I read in a recent report from the Coordinator-General that in some communities there are about 38 different government agencies. She is saying there are so many agencies trying to provide help to these communities it is a waste of money. If you already have four recreation centres in Alice Springs and want a fifth one, should there be some rationalisation? That is all I am asking. You want to ensure you get the best value for your money if you put money into those areas, and that is good. I welcome that from the government.
Mining is the biggest industry in the Northern Territory, no doubt about it. I was concerned when I saw the EPA’s report on the iron ore mine near the Limmen National Park. That report was not up to the standard of previous EPA reports. The EPA has to look at these in detail and not give approval subject to certain things; it has to check whether things have been done before it gives approval. That last EPA report on that mine was not quite up to the standard of previous ones.
The Chief Minister says in his document the mining industry is the cornerstone of the Northern Territory’s growth and future prospects. I looked up the Angela Pamela website and the company is still interested in exploring that area. Would the government, and the member for Greatorex, support Angela Pamela going ahead, or at least conduct exploration in that area ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: It was in the paper recently and the Chief Minister said it is the cornerstone of the Northern Territory’s growth and future prospects.
One other thing I have not heard in all the debates - Madam Speaker, you would be interested in this - is the word ‘statehood’, except in your name when reading your CV. I …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I did not see it in here. I am talking about the Chief Minister’s …
Mr Elferink: Sorry. You said in debate.
Mr WOOD: I am talking about this debate. I did not see it mentioned in the statement. I do not get too excited about statehood because we have so many important issues which need to be fixed that statehood is still a luxury item. The member for Goyder may not agree with me; however, until we get some of the areas most needed to be fixed - literacy, numeracy, jobs, some control over alcohol and other drugs, an expanding economy - we need to focus on those rather than statehood.
When we have some of those under control and some achievements where we can say we are moving in the right direction, then I will be happy to support the statehood move. At the present time it has not come up.
In previous sittings the idea of a statehood convention was changed because some of us believed it was too close to the local government and Territory elections. However, I was surprised it was not mentioned by the Chief Minister in his Address-in-Reply.
Again, the Chief Minister spoke about many good things. I have not spoken about tourism; however, I am interested in where tourism is going in the Northern Territory, especially as there is a move to take it to Alice Springs. I do not have a problem with that concept. I would like to see costings for the move to Alice Springs, especially when we are told we need fiscal discipline. I understand Central Australia was the headquarters of the Tourist Commission some years ago. However, considering the government has concerns about costs, I am interested to see the cost of shifting staff and the availability of housing. You will have some staff there and some in Darwin. It is good if we can develop tourism, especially into remote areas, although we do not have good roads there. Once you put good roads to those communities they are not remote any longer; they have lost their appeal. It is like: Do I want to drive on a corrugated dusty road to some remote community because I need the experience, or do I go on a nice bitumen road and get there in half the time thinking it was not too hard after all? It is like the four-wheel-drive experience versus getting there quickly.
There are many good things in the statement although I do not agree with them all. Some need improvement or change; however, I welcome the Chief Minister putting this paper forward. We need to understand the policies of this government going forward. As a member on the crossbench, I will be looking to see whether the government achieves what it is trying to, and whether it sticks to what it is trying to do. That is part of the role of a crossbencher. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr CHANDLER (Business): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a sincere honour to again represent the good people of my electorate of Brennan in the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to a number of people, including my opponent, Mr Russell Jeffery, for the way he campaigned. I have a very high regard for him.
To the Country Liberals, thank you for the faith you have in me. To the Calder Branch who provide ongoing support, and to the many people who gave up their time freely, your support means so much to me. You are my true friends. You know who you are. To my family, to my beautiful wife and children, thank you for your love, understanding and unwavering support. I love you all so much. It would be remiss of me not to thank my new ministerial office team who have all done a remarkable job providing a sound foundation to our office. Your support and hard work does not go unnoticed. Thank you very much.
Tonight I would like to focus on the portfolios I have been given by the good Chief Minister. It would be very easy to spend this time attacking the opposition for the fiscal mess we were left in and now have to make some pretty tough choices - choices not one of us wants to make, but choices necessary because you cannot continue to live above your means.
I have heard it said quite a few times - I heard the member for Nelson say it recently - there is a human impact when staff decide to move on or decisions are made where positions are no longer required because there is a change of government. You are right. However, what is not being acknowledged at the moment is the reason behind these decisions. That, frankly, is the fiscal position.
My portfolio responsibilities include Housing, Business, Trade, Economic Development and Employment and Training. I will start with Housing because it is on everyone’s lips. It has caused so many frustrations for so many people in the Northern Territory.
On Thursday, the Chief Minister will speak of the true value of housing. He will describe the critical importance of housing for our social and economic wellbeing. The Chief Minister will illustrate how housing provides the foundation on which individuals and families build stable, healthy, productive relationships with their communities and links to employment. Of course, that includes education, health and other services. Housing, therefore, has strong links to employment, education, health and so many other things.
Housing is one of the principal goals of the aspirational Australian family which seeks to buy its own home and raise a family on its own property. This is part of the Australian dream, and there is no reason this dream cannot be realised in the Northern Territory, whether you live in a rural, remote or urban area.
However, housing ownership is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a strong and expensive housing market is one measure of a booming economy and consequential strong employment. The downside is, as housing prices rise the community finds it increasingly difficult to afford home ownership. This is the dilemma we face in the Northern Territory. It is true proper planning several years ago might have, should have, or would have erased the pain of the current high prices we face today.
This government has inherited a legacy where home ownership rates are falling as housing prices are beyond the reach of many low- and middle-income families. Local businesses are struggling to attract and retain staff because it costs too much to rent and live in the Northern Territory. I am sure you could all tell stories where people, especially young families, have left the Territory, not because they wanted to, but because they could not afford to keep a roof over their heads.
Just last week I was made aware of a young family at Palmerston being told their rent was going up by $200 a week to $800. These people are not high wage earners, and they are now seriously considering leaving the Northern Territory. That is tragic. Does anyone here believe $800 a week is reasonable to pay for a standard three-bedroom home? Of course, the answer is no. That is why this government is committed to taking action to address the high cost of living. We cannot afford to keep losing our young Territorians and we need to stem the population drain.
However, it would be misleading to say this problem can be fixed overnight. It will take time and a focused plan by a good government that plans. Those detailed plans will help Territorians stay and not be squeezed out by high housing and living costs. We must create conditions which support local economic growth and remove barriers which prevent local businesses from employing staff. We also need to get the Territory building, and new reasonably-priced homes on the market.
Today I will outline the commonsense measures we are putting in place to promote new home building and support locally led economic growth.
We will take steps to reduce the cost of housing through a balanced and timely release of land - something the last government failed miserably at. That means releasing land faster and reducing the burden of compliance costs for industry. We will streamline planning processes and provide transparent approvals. We will put in place a planning commission to develop firm guidelines for all zoning categories that will include, but not be limited to, maximum building heights, maximum size footprints, minimum boundary setbacks and, of course, car parking.
We will free up more brownfield land for development and regeneration and will accelerate the release of surplus public sector land. We will work with developers to unlock land to progress development. We will support up to an additional 2000 affordable homes through the Real Housing for Growth scheme. The Real Housing for Growth scheme will make public subsidy go further while enabling developers to target support where it is most needed. Our government’s Real Housing for Growth scheme will see the construction of 2000 affordable homes across the Northern Territory over the next four years. It will enable developers and investors to build, own and manage new housing by the government’s guarantee to head lease properties for up to 15 years. It will include potential for government land contribution. It will be targeted at essential workers to keep them in the Territory by providing a 30% discount on the median area market rent.
Essential workers include the caring nurses at our hospitals, the apprentice mechanics repairing our cars, the young teachers educating our children, the person making our morning coffee, and those serving us a cold beverage at the end of the day. It is young families, and others, who are currently being squeezed out of the rental market, but who all contribute to a growing local economy.
We are not stopping there. We are currently reviewing the previous government’s home assistance packages. These schemes were aimed at increasing access and affordability of home ownership to low- and middle-income families. It provided a choice of tenure and aimed to encourage a more settled population. They were all very commendable aims. However, the schemes have had an adverse impact on affordability, particularly at the lower end of the market. This is because the schemes increased the pool of prospective buyers and their purchasing power. Consequently, this drove house prices up. Furthermore, as the prices went up, the scheme parameters had to be expanded in order to achieve scheme take up. This meant the government had to invest more and homebuyers had higher mortgages to pay off.
If there is any one indicator of a failed scheme it is when an affordability scheme needs to have the parameters shifted upwards. That is the most poignant, perhaps stark, reality we are faced with when a government has to increase the parameters of an affordability scheme it created. Basically, the scheme had failed miserably.
The interesting aspect of the scheme is it did not result in the construction of new properties and growing the housing supply. This is a very important point. In fact, 93% of buyers used the shared equity schemes to buy existing rather than new properties. This meant there was a churn of existing properties with ever-increasing prices with little spent on new properties.
I would like to table this graph, and I will hold it up, which clearly indicates the red line showing purchase of new dwellings, the blue line construction of dwellings, and the green line purchase of established dwellings. Basically, the scheme was not contributing to building new homes - adding stock. It was only contributing to forcing prices up.
That demonstrates how the previous government’s programs did not increase the supply of housing. The previous schemes have not improved new housing supply and have forced lower end housing up. This reduces affordability.
I would also like to table two graphs, the first, quarterly medium price for units and, of course, houses. Both quite clearly indicate where we have gone seriously wrong in the Northern Territory when it comes to rents and mortgages. This data has been provided by REINT. The quarterly median house prices data provides a visible demonstration of how prices have escalated in recent times and young families are being forced to leave the Northern Territory.
We will turn this around and increase the affordable housing supply. In the coming weeks we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy which will support a thriving, active, stable housing market. The programs we will put in place will increase housing supply. Most people understand the social role of housing, whether owned or rented, private or public. However, increasing the housing supply, especially of affordable homes, also has an important economic purpose. Building affordable homes, when you look at the bare statistics, is a great economic multiplier and buying power can help sustain local businesses. It will also provide jobs. Many young people have benefitted from apprenticeships with construction companies. I would like to see this increase with a greater number of affordable housing projects under way.
Public housing assists Territorians on low incomes to reach their potential, make a contribution, and share the benefits of our community. Tomorrow, the Chief Minister will speak on the need to provide public housing to the most vulnerable in our society and the challenges this brings to any government. Public housing tenants are subject to a number of criteria when determining eligibility including: homelessness; medical issues; disability; women and children escaping domestic violence; Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people facing complex issues and private rental market discrimination or exclusion; and children at risk, including their parents and carers.
The most direct measure of current demand for public housing by eligible households on the waiting list comes from a recent review of the urban public housing waiting list which found general waiting list applications had declined and priority housing applications have increased significantly. This has contributed to a 12% overall increase in waiting lists from 2009-10 to 2011-12. It is estimated the demand for public housing will continue to grow with the strongest growth in single person households, couples, and families without children. Recent data shows 69% of applicants seek two or less bedrooms, with 27% seeking three bedrooms and 4% seeking four bedrooms.
The growth in demand for smaller properties reflects the growth in the number of older people requiring public housing and an increase in the number of single parents and families, and single person households. These social policy aspects of public housing present challenges for strategic asset management within the public housing portfolio. The contemporary and responsive asset base is necessary to ensure the best social inclusion outcomes are achieved for public housing tenants.
It is unfortunate we have not inherited a contemporary public housing portfolio which meets the needs of a changing demographic in the Northern Territory. That said, our public housing stock is still a valuable asset. It provides homes at below market rent for more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in more than 5000 dwellings, and more than 40 000 living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings.
The urban public housing stock is ageing, with the average age at 28 years. Fifty percent of the stock is between 20 and 29 years of age, 21% of the stock is 30 to 39 years of age, and 12% is more than 40 years old. The old and inappropriate properties no longer suit the contemporary public housing requirements and are costly to maintain, creating an even greater drain on the Territory budget. The program of modifying dwellings to suit the needs of tenants as they grow older is also a costly one.
I have requested all new dwellings be constructed in such a way as to maximise liveability and adaptability for existing and future tenants. Common features include: wider doorways and corridors, hobbler showers, and no steps into dwellings. In addition to meeting the needs of tenants who require specific accommodation, it improves the flexibility of the housing portfolio to respond to changing demographics, often saving tens of thousands in the long run.
In the past weeks, I have worked with the Chief Executive Officer of the department who has provided me with a draft asset management strategy. The development of a public housing asset management strategy cannot be considered in isolation. It must be seen in a context of development of a broader strategy for the expansion of social housing which improves the range of housing choices available to Territory residents.
This strategy, once completed, will:
strategically manage the public housing portfolio for the Northern Territory government
reduce concentrations of disadvantage through public housing redevelopment
align the portfolio with changing social structures and tenant needs
respond to environmental standards, particularly in the areas of energy and water efficiency
protect the Territory’s investment in its public housing assets through preventative and regular maintenance
upgrade programs.
We will put in place a comprehensive set of measures to help the housing sector adapt and grow. Of course, there are significant challenges and the state of the government budget will require some innovative solutions that do not increase the size and extent of the deficit. As a government, we are determined to work to address both the short-term symptoms and the long-term causes. We are prepared to put in place the required reforms. That is why we are providing our Real Housing for Growth scheme guaranteeing to help lever in new investments, removing the planning and financial barriers holding back the housing market, and developing a clear direction to help increase the supply of all forms of housing, owned or rented, public or private.
Moving to remote housing, I acknowledge significant outcomes have been achieved to date in the delivery of a national partnership agreement on remote Indigenous housing. However, I share the concerns of my parliamentary colleagues regarding the impact of the high administrative cost of that program. While over 700 new homes and over 2490 refurbishments and rebuilds have been completed, I wonder how many more could have been delivered with better planning and delivery methodologies.
It is pleasing to note at the end of September over 3000 families were living in improved housing. The challenge is to keep the momentum going and reduce the administrative overheads to maximise the number of new builds and refurbishments in the bush.
Work is now under way to improve the delivery and management of remote housing in the Northern Territory. This government is about to commence using delivery models different to the alliance for the construction of remote housing under the program. Through the Department of Infrastructure, panels of contractors have been established across five regions of the Territory to deliver at least 60 new houses and 240 refurbishments beyond the alliance’s program to achieve targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds by June 2013.
Discussions have also commenced to ensure improved opportunities exist for local Indigenous business enterprises and the employment of Indigenous workers. We look to develop the capacity for local people in remote communities to deliver more work of the housing nature, both in construction and repairs and maintenance.
Negotiations with the Australian government have led to a commitment under the Stronger Futures national partnership agreement to a further $230m in Australian government funding to bring all remote houses in the Northern Territory to a safe and habitable standard. Discussions will continue with the Australian government to ensure the proposed next stage of works delivers a better standard of amenity and durability for remote houses than what was achieved under the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, commonly referred to as SIHIP. This will include, for many communities, painting of houses, durable floor coverings which match, and other key durability and amenity elements.
I am pleased to inform my parliamentary colleagues that work under this government will also include replacing remote housing in poor condition across the Territory, including small communities which did not see houses under SIHIP.
I have instructed the Department of Housing to resolve any outstanding issues with rent collections from remote tenants, and to consider how to simplify the existing remote rent framework. I am focused on improving all aspects of remote housing delivery, including providing local community-based solutions aimed at increasing involvement of community residents and reducing the inefficiencies in heavy bureaucracy, particularly in the administration and expensive travel costs associated with servicing our important remote communities.
Shifting to business, the economic prosperity of the Northern Territory is one of its greatest assets, built not only on its natural resources but also on the belief an individual can prosper through personal determination and perseverance.
Our government supports private enterprise which is integral to continued economic growth, and acknowledges and applauds the vision of companies and businesses which have worked to build the Northern Territory into one of Australia’s successful economies.
This government recognises that those with the greatest understanding of the many challenges faced by industry and commerce are business people, not politicians, and certainly not bureaucrats. Red tape and unnecessary restrictions on business have held the Territory back. We are actively looking to see how we can reduce that burden. Often, the best thing governments can do for business is get out of the way and allow businesses to grow and develop. I have been meeting with business people and industry representatives seeking information on what they need to be successful and grow the local economy. We want to engage with business and facilitate expansion, not impose ourselves on businesses where it is not justified.
As we enter this new phase in the Northern Territory, we will be developing a three-hub economy. The focus will be on developing our mining and energy sector, reinvigorating and expanding our tourism and international education services sector, and establishing greater exports of food and products into Asia.
As the Minister for Trade, my personal priorities will be to ensure we achieve our export objectives and provide some real impetus which will assist in producing real benefits to all businesses depending on export income. This government will provide a sharper, clearer focus on supporting trade and export development and their activities with the restructuring of the Department of Business to include these functions. Businesses can now look forward to a more integrated and seamless connection between business and export development. Be assured this government will do all it can to grow existing markets and open new markets to ensure the long-term future of this important avenue for industry to the Northern Territory.
As a government, it is our goal to build on the proud economic foundations of past governments. Let us not forget those achievements included, under previous CLP governments: overseeing the development of the Central Australian gas fields and the pipeline to Darwin; supporting the first oil and gas discoveries in the Timor Sea; facilitating the decision by ConocoPhillips and its partners to develop the Bayu-Undan gas field and its pipeline to Darwin; supporting the operation and development of the world-class mineral deposits in Gove, Groote Eylandt, the Gulf and Tanami regions for over 20 years; and establishing backbone infrastructure such as power stations, roads and regional airstrips, and a couple of pretty impressive specific infrastructure projects in the Darwin port, and the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. In doing so, we seek to diversify our economic base for the benefit of all Territorians, creating jobs and wealth across the Territory.
The government has heard the concerns of local businesses - that many of the contracts associated with projects in the Territory are going to overseas and interstate companies. Territory businesses are capable of more and we want them to have access to more complex, higher-skilled work which will deliver long-term job opportunities for current and future generations.
From my conversations with business and industry the key challenges in growing our three-hub economy will be addressing issues such as affordable housing, availability of a skilled workforce, restoring the social fabric of our communities and making the Northern Territory an even more attractive location for investment.
It is no surprise housing affordability and the cost of living is at the top of their list. The Territory’s best days are ahead. Our government has the plan, vision, and the political will to work with local business and make it happen. Overcoming the problems before us will not be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to deliver my Address-in-Reply speech. It is a wonderful experience to be in the ninth week of holding government in the Northern Territory. We had a wonderful time during the election and are now settling into our new jobs with our many new colleagues. We have 15, not including the Speaker. Five members are new and we have six women on board. It is a really exciting time for us all. The amount of information we have had to absorb has been quite daunting and, given it is our first parliamentary sittings of the Twelfth Assembly, the pressure has been on us to perform and ensure our level of understanding of our portfolio areas is adequate enough to get us through.
With that in mind, it will be a fascinating four years. It has probably been more challenging for me given I have not been a member of parliament for a particularly long time. Only two years ago I was elected as the member for Araluen in a by-election after the sudden resignation of the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney.
I would once again like to thank the people of Araluen for putting their trust in me and re-electing me as their representative in parliament. One of my greatest joys as a local member is talking to local people and hearing their stories, understanding their concerns, understanding their families, their needs, and what they see and hear. One of the joyful parts of the election campaign was placing myself around the community at different times of the day just chatting to people. After some time people were stopping, finding me at my different locations, really opening up and giving me great insight into how their part of the community, their part of Alice Springs, works and functions.
I remember one morning during the election campaign, minus five degrees, sitting beside the road where not many people stopped because they could hardly move - they were wrapped up in scarves and beanies sitting in heated cars whizzing past me. I received much feedback after that morning along the lines of, ‘What on earth were you thinking of, Robyn, sitting there beside the road?’ I have great memories of the election campaign. It was a fun time for me, hard work, and I have many people to thank. I will do so later in my speech.
I look forward to making a difference to the lives of Central Australian people, indeed, all Territorians. These are exciting times and I embrace this wonderful opportunity to inject life and energy back into Alice Springs particularly. Alice Springs will always remain my centre, politically and philosophically. I am in this position because of the people of Araluen. They put me here, and I can assure the people of Araluen despite the honour my colleagues have bestowed upon me as Deputy Leader of the government and Treasurer and the demands that will make on my time, I will continue to represent their needs and expectations. Alice Springs is number one. It is my home; it is where my heart is and where my family is as we speak. Alice Springs is the centre of the universe, for all of you who were not aware. It is the centre of Australia, the centre of the Northern Territory, a place where many wonderful things happen, and where many wonderful things have started.
I was interested to hear the member for Greatorex yesterday talking about how tourism in Australia started in Central Australia. That says it all. It is not just our imagination; it is a fact that Alice Springs is the birthplace of so many things and great people. We are the heart and soul of the outback; we are the central point to every beach and natural wonder in Australia. We are incredibly lucky to have such a beautiful place to live with great diversity and richness in culture and lifestyle. Of course, the most amazing thing about Alice is the people. We are tough, resilient and very giving and caring.
Alice has provided my family and I with a life and future we could have only dreamed of. We are blessed, fortunate and extremely thankful. My vision is for more people to embrace the opportunities of Alice Springs, of Central Australia, and the whole of the Northern Territory. More people should be sharing the fruits and opportunities of this vast, largely unspoilt, magnificent Territory. I want more people to discover how much better their life could be by living, working and committing to being a part of the Northern Territory. It is a secret. Most people from interstate do not understand how lucky we are and how wonderful their lives could be if they spent time in the Territory. Even if they gave up a small part of their life to live here and experience it, it would be enriching. It is a secret and it should not be; it needs to get out there that the Territory is the place to be. It is great to be a Territorian and I will continue to represent the people of Central Australia with honesty and sincerity.
I am proud to be a member of a Country Liberals government and serve as Deputy Leader with my colleague, Chief Minister Terry Mills. The new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is an outstanding human being, an outstanding leader, and Territorians need to understand how lucky they are to have a man of such decency, substance and integrity at the helm.
Terry Mills is well-educated, a Christian man, a husband to Ros, father to Mathew and Kristen, and grandfather to Alexander. Terry has given the last 13 years of his life to serving the people of the Northern Territory and Terry Mills, our Chief Minister, is a great bloke, well-mannered, respectful and caring, well-considered and measured. As my colleague, the member for Brennan said, he is a good singer and a fairly good guitar player too. Territorians are very fortunate to have Terry Mills as their Chief Minister. As the new Cabinet, we are fortunate to have Terry Mills as the leader of the government and the Northern Territory.
I have been allocated an exciting and challenging range of portfolios: Treasurer, Minister for Education, Minister for Children and Families, Minister for Central Australia, Minister for Corporate and Information Services and Minister for Women’s Policy. As time goes on, and in our ninth week of government, the enormity of my responsibilities becomes less daunting. I am rising to the challenge and love every moment of it. I truly love my work. I love the Territory and will work as hard as I can to make a difference. On top of my portfolios, I have been honoured by my colleagues and appointed as Deputy Chief Minister. I take this role very seriously. Being Deputy Chief Minister is about representing the interests of all Territorians and supporting the Chief Minister in all areas of responsibility. This is a huge challenge which I embrace and will execute with conviction and tenacity.
The Mills government has made strong commitments to the people of the Northern Territory. There is only one way those commitments can be delivered: if the Territory’s financial position is strong and growing. Our five-point plan will build a safer, connected and more cohesive community by properly planning for the future. My desire is to see the Northern Territory compete successfully with other Australian states and territories in many fields. I dream of a time when our education standards and achievements are equal, if not better, than other states.
The health of Territorians, in particular Aboriginal Territorians, must improve dramatically. One significant contributing factor to a community’s health is education. I am determined to see attendance rates at schools improve. If need be, this may mean incentives for parents to ensure their children go to school every day. Where have we gone wrong in society when attendance rates in some of our schools have never been so low? Where has the message that education is the key to a good life and future gone? I heard my colleagues yesterday, including my Aboriginal colleagues, talk about this. Why do people think it is okay not to send their kids to school? It does not make sense.
This is an exciting time for Territorians. I see the potential for great economic growth ahead and the benefits that will flow to the community as a result. However, we must ensure our finances are sound and we invest wisely for the future. I aim to have the most transparent and well-managed economy in Australia. That is possible, despite what we have seen in recent years. I have discovered many unfunded promises from the previous government worth millions of dollars which threaten the Northern Territory’s fiscal position.
While it may take some time, the Mills government will ensure all promises are properly costed and funded and we are accountable and honest with the community. Ultimately, we must ensure our communities are safe, our children are provided with the best possible education, and we do everything we can to lower the unacceptably high cost of housing.
Turning to the crucial role of Treasurer, the size and extent of the fiscal imbalance in the Territory’s budget and the enormity of the debt is a very poor indictment on the financial management capability of the previous government’s leadership team. By budget imbalance, I mean expenditure exceeding revenue; spending well beyond our means, spending more than we earn and going further and further into debt.
The former government allowed the Northern Territory to drift into greater debt year after year. The impact of this large debt on the Northern Territory is that we must pay back huge amounts of interest. Every day Territorians are paying back around $750 000 in interest. That is money we should be spending on roads, parks, hospitals and schools. Let us make no mistake: the task ahead is huge. To unravel the mess and restore order and accountability across the government’s books is a huge task.
Together with my colleagues, my job is to put the government’s finances back onto a sustainable footing. We need to instil the discipline of spending within our means, not racking up more and more debt. We must manage the Territory’s finances carefully and responsibly over the coming years to ensure future generations of Territorians are not burdened with an unsustainable level of debt.
On my watch, the budget will move to balance by 2015-16. We will be a financially responsible government and be accountable and transparent in planning, managing and reporting our finances. We have nothing to hide. I will begin with a mini-budget on 4 December this year. The mini-budget will articulate our fiscal strategy and outline our approach to financial and economic management over this term of government. The mini-budget will start the journey along the long road to getting the Territory’s budget back on track and will lay the groundwork on which we can build the 2013-14 budget next year.
I am enjoying the Treasury and finance portfolio, its diversity and breadth, and the opportunity it provides me to really make a difference to the Territory, particularly in regional areas.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say earlier today the Treasurer needs help. She does indeed. We are going to work as a team. There is a huge job ahead of us, thanks to the former government, and we need all the help we can get to put us back on track. There is no doubt about it.
The international ratings agency Moody’s is due to review the Territory’s fiscal position before Christmas. That organisation recently downgraded Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, and will be examining the Northern Territory closely. Moody’s will see this government is determined to reduce the unsustainable debt which is accumulating, and this government has a plan for exercising restraint and behaving in a financially responsible manner for the benefit of future generations of Territorians.
As Minister for Education, the future generations excite me. This is where the real future of the Northern Territory begins. One of the wonderful parts of yesterday’s celebrations was seeing all our children together. We had grandchildren, and most of us had our children ranging from babies to teenagers to adults. We have many children to lay claim to on this side of the House, and they are the important people when we consider the future of the Northern Territory. It was lovely to see them all mixing together, checking each other out, and seeing who is who in the zoo when it comes to the next generation of possible politicians. Who knows?
Education will, ultimately, help our health authorities and my colleague, the Health Minister, to reduce the incidence of disease, especially in the remote and Aboriginal communities. I dream of a Territory education system which will have more of our children competing with Australia’s best for jobs and opportunities. If we can give our children the life experiences of this great and harsh land, and mix that with an excellent education, then they will be able to take their place with the best in the world.
Yesterday, in parliament we celebrated the swearing-in of all members with our children and grandchildren present. It was a wonderful occasion.
I want to see our Aboriginal school attendance rates climbing upwards and Aboriginal children eagerly lining up for school every day. When I assumed office, I found we had about 2130 active classroom teachers employed by the Department of Education. Around 600, or 28%, were on temporary contracts. This was a concern to me as it was grossly unfair to impose such uncertainty on these teachers and their families. It restricted their ability to commit to the Northern Territory and really become part of the Territory’s future. These temporary contracts resulted from cumbersome administrative arrangements.
As Minister for Education, I moved decisively to fix this unacceptable situation. We are now providing secure employment for all teachers across the Northern Territory. Under new arrangements, the Education department is offering permanent contracts to all teachers recruited to remote schools and to vacancies in urban, middle, and senior secondary schools. These arrangements will apply from 2013 onwards. Obviously, if a teacher wishes to stay on a temporary contract, they can. Ultimately, I am proud to say the Mills government will be able to reduce by up to half the number of teachers on temporary contracts.
It is all very well to have plenty of teachers, but it is equally important to have transparent teacher appraisal processes to ensure our children receive the best possible education outcomes. I am delighted the Education department has immediately begun work to develop effective and transparent teacher appraisal processes. This process is underpinned by the National Professional Standards for Teachers. The National Partnership Agreement on Rewards for Great Teachers includes funding for the development and implementation of a nationally endorsed Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework from 2013.
One thing I have discovered in the last eight weeks is that Education wins the award when it comes to the number of acronyms, followed closely by Treasury. This framework outlines four key elements for effective performance and development, including documented and regularly reviewed goals, access to quality professional learning, evidence from a range of sources used to reflect on and evaluate performance, and provision of regular formal and informal feedback, including annual review.
A consultation process has been undertaken with a significant number of teachers and school leaders to determine what is in place and working well, areas for future development, and resources and support required for further development. Teachers and school leaders were also asked to comment on the potential to use these elements as the basis for the revised Department of Education and Children’s Services Teacher Performance Development Framework. To date, the feedback gained indicates overwhelming support for this approach. A reference group has been established to inform the review of the current teacher performance management system, and the Australian Education Union has been invited to participate.
The department of Education performance appraisal process requires teachers to demonstrate proficiency against national professional standards for teachers in order to progress from classroom teacher level 5 to classroom teacher level 6. We want our children to compete on the world stage so we must encourage good teachers to stay in the Territory. To retain the best teachers in the Territory we must provide ongoing training.
I am confident we will give our children the best possible chance in life through investment in education. There is no doubt English is the language of business across the world and the accepted first language of Australia. However, if we want Aboriginal children to become proficient in English we should also understand in many instances English will, of necessity and common sense, be an additional language. Therefore, we have updated the framework for learning English as an additional language policy. This policy update will assist students in remote and urban schools who speak an Aboriginal language, newly arrived students from overseas, and other students learning English as an additional language in mainstream classrooms across the Northern Territory.
This new framework helps schools plan and deliver English as an additional language in line with student need, family and community expectations, and available resources. It is important all Territorians have a choice when it comes to this initiative. The key to the change within this policy is that we recognise English as an additional language program may be inclusive of a student’s home or local language and culture, as agreed with parents and communities.
The new unit will work with schools, communities, regions and other business areas within the Department of Education and Children’s Services to implement quality English as an additional language teaching and learning program.
I have two wonderful children and know being a parent can be rewarding and enjoyable, but it is certainly not easy. It can be frustrating and exhausting at times. As Minister for Children and Families, I have the challenging job of ensuring Territory families receive the support they need in raising the next generation of Territorians.
Most of us will need help at some point in time and, for the vast majority, assistance through mainstream services like childcare centres, schools, community health centres and local GPs is what is required. Some families will need specialist advice or intensive support targeted to the issues they are facing. A smaller number of families will experience even more significant difficulties.
I am troubled to say notifications of child abuse and neglect continue to increase in the Northern Territory. This is, undeniably, one of the most pressing and grave social problems we have to tackle. For families facing these issues, high quality support and services can help resolve the crisis and, in many cases, enable children to stay safely in the family home.
Of course, even with the best support it is not always possible to ensure children are safe at home. When children need to live out of home or in care it is our job to ensure there are a range of care options to meet their needs. Sadly, the number of children needing to live out of home in the Northern Territory continues to grow.
In October 2010, almost two years to the day, the Growing them strong, together report of the Board of Inquiry into Child Protection in the Northern Territory made 147 recommendations. These recommendations focused on program development, policy enhancements, and system improvements. A number of successful reforms have been progressed over the past two years, and now it is time to take the next step in the reform process. This is about making real change for children and families, about families getting the right help at the right time, and about focusing on improving our child protection practice.
I have created a new Office of Children and Families within the Department of Education and Children’s Services. This decision has been made for one reason: to strengthen services to children and families.
This change will result in new integrated services, consolidated infrastructure and strengthened leadership in areas fundamental to the future of the Territory. The integration of Education and Children and Families will mean better, seamless services, particularly for children and families in remote locations which are very hard to service because of their geographical peculiarities.
It is anticipated the integration with early childhood services will improve prevention and early intervention strategies which will reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention. There will be one strategic plan across the Office of Children and Families and the Department of Education and Children’s Services. The plan will provide a clear new direction, new priorities and new ways of working in multidisciplinary teams to ensure better outcomes for children and families. We are very excited about this change.
Two outcomes I am focusing on, in particular, are improving school attendance and improving educational outcomes for children in care. In addition, I have made a commitment to frontline child protection services. In order to improve practice, it is essential we have sufficient frontline staff to deliver timely high quality services. It is also essential that child protection staff carry appropriate caseloads and have access to training and supervision. The government is not the only provider of frontline services; non-government organisations play a vital role in keeping children safe by ensuring families get the right help at the right time.
Another priority will be to increase the range of placement options to meet the needs of children and young people in out of home care. These options need to provide better outcomes, be better planned, and be more cost-effective than those delivered under the previous government.
I am also honoured to be Minister for Central Australia, including the electorate of Araluen. Central Australia is almost achingly beautiful with its deserts and natural beauty. It takes your breath away; are we not lucky? It is also the land forgotten by the previous government, there is no doubt about that. It suffered under the neglectful reign of the previous government. The economy has languished through the lack of attention to land release and failure to attract and retain business interests to the town.
On top of this, our social problems were inadequately addressed for many years. This government will not stop until the local economy in Alice Springs, in Central Australia, is back on track and law and order is under control. We are already listening to the views of key leaders in the Central Australian community, particularly in the business and social services sectors. Central Australia will not be forgotten by the Mills government.
We are committed to helping Centralians improve the quality of their lives through their children’s education and employment prospects. Our nighttime youth policy includes basing an assistant commissioner of police in the Alice. This will be implemented in the very near future. I believe having a very senior police officer on the ground in the community will help build insights and relationships which could not be gained from far away in Darwin. There will be more police on the streets of the town and night patrols will be of the highest priority. I have high aspirations to improve services and facilities in Central Australia. Many of these were outlined in the election campaign. These commitments will be addressed as part of the mini-budget process which I will consider incorporating into the budget and forward estimates over the term of this government.
We are committed to fostering economic development and growth through the Territory, including Central Australia, including Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and all those other small communities in and around Central Australia. The tourist commission will be based in Alice Springs, thereby, starting the process of rebuilding a regional hub for tourism-related businesses and mining. We believe this is a great idea; we believe in regionalisation. The Todd Mall is tired and needs upgrading, and we will fast-track that development. The Alice Springs court rooms are in need of improvement and we will give priority to this issue. We will complete the sealing of the Red Centre Way and ensure the excellent Discovering Alice tourist guide is completed.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member for Araluen.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Central Australia is bigger than Alice Springs. We will not forget the other regional centres - all those Aboriginal communities; we will not forget anyone. This new government is not in the business of excluding anyone from any place. We are inclusive and have a very strong commitment to the regions.
The Chief Minister has promised to visit the major Aboriginal centres so he can gain firsthand knowledge of issues affecting people where they live.
If youth are bored, trouble inevitably follows. This is not simply a problem unique to Aboriginal communities; it is true everywhere regardless of race or colour. If you want to give youth an alternative to boredom and drugs, you concentrate on sporting and social opportunities. The government will emphasise the value of all sports for the development of youth in our communities. Sports such as tennis, basketball, swimming and track and field will be supported. We will work with sporting authorities to ensure youth have access to these sports.
On the other end of the age scale, one of the ways we can lure highly mobile tourists from all over Australia is to review the legislative requirements for fossicking. The Mills government will strive to attract this important tourist sector while ensuring the interests of landholders are protected.
I am honoured to be appointed Minister for Women’s Policy. As Minister, my aim will be to build an equitable, inclusive and safe society where women are valued and respected. I hope to see more women providing leadership, decision-making responsibilities and influence across all policy areas in the Northern Territory government and the private sector.
Whether contributing to the economy, the business community, in the traditional areas of health and education or in the mining industry, equal participation in all facets of society by women is critical to the Northern Territory’s future.
I would like to believe, as a community, we are listening and more conscious, more aware and more understanding of issues which affect both men and women’s lives. It is essential that differences between women’s and men’s experiences of combining work with family, participating in social and personal activities, or fulfilling community roles are equally recognised and supported.
We must strive to remove the gender pay gap. It is also essential that unpaid work is not taken for granted but appropriately recognised. Removing obstacles which restrict women’s financial independence and ensuring women’s longer-term economic security is a part of the Mills government’s commitment to shaping and holding our community together in times of change and challenge.
Women can and will take their place at the head of business and government based on their skills, ability and knowledge. In the coming months, a new women’s policy will be developed to set this government’s strategic direction for Territory women.
As Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I will be seeking greater efficiencies across government. There are more than 600 Internet and Intranet websites across the Northern Territory Public Service. Many of these websites are unnecessary and others are complementary. Our websites must be able to complement the new touch phone technology as that is what our young people use.
The Territory is a special place from the thunder of Top End storms to the brilliant sands of the Centre. Our Territory has the ability to leave you breathless and our future is bright and, potentially, equally as exciting. I am looking forward to working with you all from both sides of the Chamber. It is indeed an exciting time.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my husband Craig Lambley, and my children Alice and Harry Lambley who were here yesterday. They had a fantastic time; it was wonderful. It was fantastic to have them sitting behind me on such a memorable day to celebrate the opening of the first session of the Twelfth Northern Territory Assembly.
I also thank my campaign manager throughout the election, the vibrant, vivacious, never silent Kate Coffey, who was a source of great inspiration and loads of fun during my election campaign. I thank my electorate officer, Carley Plume, who also helped at different times in an entirely appropriate way. Carley is not a political animal like some of us; however, she was always there and has been a wonderful support to me over the last two years since I became a member of parliament.
I thank my parents, Max and Pam Priestly, in Grafton. Mum has just gone into a nursing home, and dad is fighting off cancer. They are both still alive and kicking, and I know they are very proud of me. I also acknowledge my in-laws, Norelle and Dennis Lambley, who live in Caboolture. They too, are very proud of me and give their support in very unobtrusive, but lovely ways.
I thank Terry Mills, the leader of the Country Liberals and our Chief Minster, for being the rock he is. He is entirely consistent and someone I admire immensely. I thank my colleagues, new and old, who formed the new government. It is a delight to look around the room and see such a brilliant group of people. I am so excited. The talent, enthusiasm and potential within our team are truly exciting. We have some great leaders amongst us; people who will be shining lights in the future - watch this space. It is wonderful.
I acknowledge the Country Liberal Party. An enormous effort - a very professional effort was put in to win the election on 25 August - how the campaign was managed, and the people who gave tirelessly. It was an outstanding effort, and you should all be extremely proud of yourselves.
I acknowledge my new ministerial team. I do not know how it happened, but I have managed to attract some great people. They are all extraordinary, and through the period of the last eight weeks we have formed a great little unit. They have worked tirelessly for me, particularly over the last few weeks, in preparation for parliament. I highly respect each and every one of you and I cannot wait to continue the journey with you.
I congratulate the new members of parliament who have formed our team. It is fantastic to have you all with us. As a born and bred conservative person, I thank the Northern Territory for having faith in the Country Liberal Party and putting us in government. We will not let you down. It is a great honour and we will be working hard every day for the next four years to not disappoint you.
Mr GILES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been much commentary over how the election was won. One name which does not come up often is Senator Nigel Scullion, the CLP senator for the Northern Territory. I pass my congratulations and thanks on to Nigel, as he put an enormous effort into this over many a long year. You know Nigel very well, Mr Deputy Speaker, so do I and a few of the core group. I put on the record Nigel Scullion’s efforts in this.
I congratulate the member for Blain for his leadership over the last four years, the recent election success achieved by the Country Liberals’ team in forming government, and his election to Chief Minister.
The election showed how concerned people were with Territory-specific issues, especially in the bush, and the need to stabilise the finances and balance the budget.
I welcome and congratulate all new members and re-elected members of the Legislative Assembly. Also, the people of the Northern Territory who have chosen us to act on their behalf. I send a warm special thank you to my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia. I also thank my electorate officer, Tanya Turner and all the staff of my ministerial office.
On a personal basis, I will quickly thank Murray Stewart, Daniel Davis, our branch chair, and the Country Liberal Party. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to those colleagues not in this Chamber - the losing candidates - Kim Loveday, Jane Johnson, Allen Fanning, Tony Clementson, Rohan Kelly, Jo Sangster, Rhianna Harker and Rebecca Healy from Barkly, someone who would have made a very good member for Barkly. Unfortunately, we have the cat back.
Our success in the August election would not have been possible without the tireless and unselfish commitment of Country Liberal Party members and supporters. The commitment of the Country Liberals to listen to, to work with, and support all Territorians regardless of where they may live was not just at election time. A commitment was made by the Country Liberals to demonstrate we are a party for Territorians, and we have quietly and diligently gone out to all regions to listen, to engage and, ultimately, develop the policies which encourage the support and aspirations of all people.
I am proud to be a member of a political party which truly believes in and is dedicated to supporting Territorians. I would like to formally thank the members and supporters.
I thank the people of my electorate of Braitling for returning me for a second time to represent them in this House. They also supported me earlier in Alice Springs when I ran for Lingiari. The people of Braitling have been very honest, extremely supportive, and thankful for the role I play in their electorate.
We have a former candidate for the seat of Greatorex in the crowd, Mr Phil Walcott. Thank you for participating in elections in Alice Springs, Phil. I am glad my colleague, the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan won, but I appreciate the efforts you put in.
It is a privilege and honour to represent the interest of the Braitling electorate and to have a direct impact on shaping a better future for generations to come. I believe inland Australia has never been developed. About 70% of Australia is an arid zone and has been underdeveloped. If we want to build the Territory, we have to build the infrastructure and start with our inland routes of transport. That has not happened. We see the national reform going on and everyone is talking about developing the Territory, but if you do not build the economic infrastructure you will not build the Territory.
We keep having debates about Aboriginal affairs, but it is about the economy. Economic development is underpinned by four principles: economy, culture, social and environment. We do a fair bit around social - we look at education and sometimes we have really good measures or interventions; sometimes we just mess around the edges. We talk a little about the environment. Culture is sometimes there, sometimes forgotten; however, the economic cycle is always misplaced. You cannot just build an economy; you have to invest in the infrastructure to make it happen.
On the Tiwi Islands, the member for Arafura needs a 32 km road built to help him and his people get the woodchip from the plantation to the port. That will build about 106 jobs immediately in forestry. Correct me if I am wrong on the jobs.
The member for Arnhem needs bridges around Ngukurr. Ngukurr is quickly progressing as an economic hub in her region. If you do not get the roads and bridges fixed, you cannot support the economic growth, tourism will not happen, and the motel will not be realised to its full potential.
It is the same with the member for Stuart. Work on the Tanami must be accelerated. We are prepared to make that financial investment in partnership with the federal government. We are not going to be a mendicant state. We will not keep bagging out the federal Infrastructure and Transport minister. We will enter into a partnership arrangement to try to put economic enabling infrastructure on the ground.
The member for Namatjira is in the same position. A few years ago it was scheduled to cost $522m to two-lane seal the Outback Way. That is a lot of money; however, over the last 11 years of the failed Labor government there was a good opportunity for a national partnership approach to put in place enabling infrastructure. I understand the economic arguments many people will make - it is not a viable transport route, the trucks do not go that way, there will only be a few caravans. However, that is the infrastructure required to open the country up - the Tanami, the Sandover and the Central Arnhem will open our economy and the Territory and give the arid zone an opportunity to compete. If we keep focusing on urban areas of the country we forget the people in the middle and lower end who live in geographic middle Australia. That is how you fix things.
I will continue my hard work each and every day for all my constituents, for all Central Australians, all Territorians, including the people who live in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, member for Daly. The people who want the Port Keats road sealed - we have already spoken about what we can do in the future on that. There are a number of issues, particularly in my Braitling electorate I will continue to focus on: law and order, assaults and break-ins. Under the Banned Drinker Register, sure, there might not have been as many people going into the bottle shops, but there was secondary supply or they were breaking into people’s houses.
In 2007 when I ran for Lingiari, I was going through Tennant Creek and spoke to people in the hardware store there. They told me the biggest sellers in the Tennant Creek hardware store were padlocks and six-foot high fences to keep people out of bar fridges in back yards. That has increased over the last few years in Alice Springs.
Public housing disorder: I will be talking extensively to the Housing minister about fixing up the public housing mess. The provisions of the Housing Act are not being adhered to. The repairs and maintenance budget and its application are not being carried out to the potential I would like to see. There are many areas of opportunity for reform in that process. In particular, we are looking at legislation from other jurisdictions to see how they do the jobs.
We need to look at how we move forward with town camps in Central Australia. We cannot continue having Third and Fourth World living conditions in the middle of suburbia. Something needs to change in that environment. You cannot have people drunk every night beating up women, the kids cannot sleep, they do not go to school, and the cycle perpetuates. Something is not working. Leadership needs to be happening at the administrative level of the town camps in Alice Springs and across the Territory. Some are worse than others. They are Third and Fourth World conditions.
There are a number of other election commitments and directions I want to take to the electorate of Braitling which I will continue to work towards over the next few years.
I look forward to working with the community, with government and stakeholders, to address the significant challenges and opportunities in the portfolio areas of transport, infrastructure and local government to develop and deliver a more prosperous future for the Northern Territory. I will now talk about the portfolios.
As Minister for Transport, it is important to note this is the first time the Northern Territory has had a stand-alone Department of Transport. That is important. The Department of Transport provides safe and effective transport systems and services which meet community and government needs. Work has already begun on delivery of this government’s election commitments for improving cattle roads, continuing the improvement of Tiger Brennan Drive and the Savannah Way - something the member for Arnhem would appreciate - duplicating Lee Point Road, carrying out an audit of speed limits and road conditions, and the construction and upgrade of boat ramps.
Improving cattle roads is a key priority of this government, as is reinforcing existing cattle roads such as the Carpentaria Highway and the Tanami, Buntine and Douglas Daly Roads, and extending the seal on key priority cattle roads such as Daly River, Port Keats and Oolloo. An audit of speed limits is currently taking place using an evidence-based approach of speed limits on the Stuart, Barkly, Victoria and Arnhem Highways. It would be wrong for anybody to say there will be open speed limits - open slather.
We are conducting a professional audit of our roads to provide evidence-based research on where any changes could be made. The review is being conducted by the nationally recognised Australian Road Research Board and will look at the impact of the introduction of speed limits on major highways since 2007. I anticipate that report to be delivered to Cabinet towards the end of October or early November. The Territory government is committed to working with the city of Darwin to duplicate and upgrade Lee Point Road to have capacity to accommodate recent and future development. We know this is something the previous Labor government did not look at despite the incoming residents to those areas.
Other priorities of my ministry will be the upgrading and construction of boat ramps at locations across the Territory such as Shady Camp and in suburban Darwin.
A renewed focus on transport service delivery has already begun in the Northern Territory with improvements through opening of the MVR on Goyder Road on Saturday mornings. I thank the Chief Minister for working with me on that. Initial feedback from the public has seen an overwhelmingly positive response to this initiative of the new Northern Territory government. For those who do not know, MVR customer transactions increased by around 106 000 in the three years since 2009. However, the former Labor government had not bothered with initiatives like Saturday services to reduce customer service waiting times. It took us a few days. Since Saturday services began last month, nearly 1100 front counter customer transactions and 200 vehicle inspections have been completed. It is my aim to create an environment where people do not have to be engaged as often with the MVR services, where mums and dads do not have to line up for hours at a time, and where greater engagement occurs with the public sector for services which will, in turn, support the broader economy.
Other priorities for MVR customer transactions will involve enhancing online services, encouraging people through Quick Pay, streamlining legislative requirements and expanding the Motorcyclist Education Training and Licensing Program. I will seek to drive delivery of better access to public and commercial passenger transport and school bus services through the management of over $40m per annum in transport service contracts. As Minister for Transport, I have recently approved the changes for commercial passenger vehicles to improve the services delivered to passengers in wheelchairs through offering greater financial incentives to drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis, and by providing greater accessibility to the wheelchair accessible taxi fleet through increasing the minimum dimensions of these taxis. I have also temporarily approved an increase in the number of available taxis to the general travelling public during certain hours in Alice Springs.
I will listen to industry and its concerns. I have already met with the Taxi Council of the Northern Territory. The council raised a number of matters with me and I have requested the Department of Transport to review those matters, in consultation with industry, and provide me a report by mid-2013. That review includes the full implementation of the Five Nines review conducted a few years ago. There have been many concerns raised with me about subleasing taxi plates. People have provided documentation in relation to subleasing taxi plates, something that is not permissible. I have asked the department to investigate those concerns as well.
Road safety is a particularly high priority for the Territory government as every fatality is not just a statistic; it is a sister, a brother, a mother or father and a senseless waste of life. Reducing death and serious injury will be targeted on Territory roads through a comprehensive, holistic, safe systems approach focusing on safer roads, safer vehicles and safer drivers. While undertaking an initial investigation of fatalities and serious accidents in the Northern Territory between 2001-11, I found more alarming figures than I had imagined.
In looking at the open speed limit debate, I asked the department for statistics. They provided me with a whole range of information from 2002-11 on fatalities and serious crashes. This revealed to me that it was more alarming than I had previously thought: 500 people were killed on our roads in that 10-year period! That is 50 people every year. Over that same 10-year period, 5000 were injured seriously enough to require admission to hospital. That is 500 each year. Twenty times the number of members in this Assembly are hospitalised each year. I am trying to determine what is killing people on our roads when it comes to open speed limits, or a change in the speed limits. Of those 500 fatalities, 234, or 47%, were alcohol-related! For fatigue-related, it was 26 people. Not to say that is not important; it is very important to those people and those families. A total of 181 of the 500 were not wearing a seat belt. When growing up I was told, ‘Get in the car, put your seat belt on’. I have friends who jump into a car and do not put a seat belt on. I kick them in the backside and abuse them.
We all know people who drink and drive. I encourage everyone in this Chamber to kick them in the backside. Do not let people drink and drive; it is killing people!
Of those 500 people who died on our roads in those years, 20% - does not sound much, but look at it this way - 100 of those 500 people who died were pedestrians. We have the pedestrian council talking about open speed limits, ‘You are crazy, you are mad, I am going to complain, I am going to write to everyone’. What does that say about the pedestrians? One hundred people out of 500 died. It is absolutely crazy!
Seventy-one percent who died were men, 33% were under 25 years, and 50% were Indigenous despite only making up 30% of the population. I receive a phone call saying someone has died on a bush road, 10 people in a car rolled, drunk, no seat belts.
I will endeavour, whether in this portfolio or not, to continue the fight to stop people drink-driving. Drink-driving is the killer - and no seat belts. I implore people not to drink-drive. We all know people who will drink-drive or do something stupid. Kick them in the backside, kick them in the backside again, and then kick them in the backside. It does not matter if it is your closest loved one, kick them in the backside.
Our election commitment was to expand the current anti-hooning vehicle confiscation and forfeiture provisions for offenders to include repeat drink-drivers and unregistered driving offences. Unregistered and unlicensed also proves statistically significant in the research I have done. The number of accidents where people have been unlicensed or unregistered is enormous, way beyond what you would think it should be statistically.
I put or moved many legislative reforms previously about vehicle confiscation or forfeiture provisions. They were not supported by the previous government. I will now be taking that option up to send a clear message to not drink-drive.
Improving driving behaviour is also being addressed through a suite of programs such as DriveSafe driver education and licensing programs in urban and remote areas. I congratulate the previous government for its role in the DriveSafe program. I understand it is a fantastic program, and we will continue to support that and all road safety measures.
Road safety school-based education programs involving road safety officers, a new middle school road safety resource, heavy vehicle road safety awareness programs, child restraint, drink-driver awareness campaigns, and Indigenous road safety issues will all continue and be bolstered.
Another major transport initiative being implemented is the Territory participating in national reform in areas of marine and rail operations. Those who are paying attention would acknowledge I gave notice today of the intent to introduce legislation tomorrow around national rail reform.
Much of our infrastructure in the Northern Territory has a tarnished image. The port has a tarnished image, the roads and rail have a tarnished image, although Genesee & Wyoming have done a pretty good job improving the status of the rail. The construction division has a poor image. These are all areas in my portfolio.
There is no bigger tarnished brand in the Northern Territory than the shires. We have to work to improve the reputation of infrastructure in that area. Labor did not do the right thing.
The port is a good example. The port has fantastic people working for it. However, because of a series of poor decisions by the previous government, including inadequate infrastructure, a lack of investment in efficient systems combined with the unwillingness of previous Labor ministers to back the port and make progressive reforms, the Darwin port brand is tainted with negative perceptions. It is my job to rebuild that.
The port will be a key focus of mine throughout this term of government as we seek to rebuild its reputation, improve its competiveness, and put in place necessary private sector reforms and standards in an effort to better compete on the world stage.
Darwin Harbour should not be home to a bulk port. In future, I want to see Darwin Harbour as a clean harbour. I have already tasked the Department of Transport to identify potential suitable sites for alternate bulk loading facilities so we can maintain our harbour for clean industries and recreation. This will not happen overnight; it will be a long process but is the direction I am taking things.
Some of the areas I will be seeking efficiencies in are pilotage, maintenance of navigational aids, repairs and maintenance of wharf infrastructure, along with moving our city wharves to at least a break-even financial position rather than the heavy loss situation it is currently in, subsidised by the commercial operations of the port.
Darwin’s port reputation as an export gateway to Asia was further enhanced only this week when the first train carrying nearly 9000 tonnes of iron ore arrived at East Arm port for export to China from South Australia’s Peculiar Knob mine.
The viability of establishing a South Australia/Northern Territory logistical chain for new and existing mining projects offers significant savings in reducing shipping costs for exporters. For the next three months, two trains a week will each deliver 160 wagons of iron ore equating to 18 000 tonnes per week to East Arm Wharf. The train will make a 2200 km journey by rail along the Adelaide to Darwin rail link. This new operation reinforces Darwin’s position as an export gateway to China with a combination of bulk ore handling facilities at East Arm Wharf and the north/south rail link for new and existing mining projects.
I welcome this new short-term project and am confident further similar-type mining projects will assist in building the port’s viability.
The Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure plays a lead role in planning, construction and maintaining government infrastructure across the Territory. With regard to infrastructure development, the department provides strategic advice on policy on a whole-of-government basis for infrastructure planning, building sustainability issues, energy management and capital works project definition to ensure built assets are fit for purpose and consider life cycles.
Within the department, the construction division provides project management services for the design, procurement and supervision of the NT government’s infrastructure program and works closely with clients from across government.
The Department of Infrastructure replaces the former Department of Construction and Infrastructure. The change heralds a new opportunity to send a message that the Department of Infrastructure will improve its image, engage with the community, and build confidence in the timely delivery of infrastructure vital to the development of the Territory.
As we seek to improve our performance and image there will be hiccups along the way, there will be setbacks, but we are moving forward in this direction.
I will be especially diligent in my role as Minister for Infrastructure to ensure all contracts and tenders awarded on behalf of this government through the Department of Infrastructure will be transparent and will adhere to proper probity guidelines.
We want to ensure a level playing field for procurement of contracts, keep tendering procedures as simple as possible, and remove once and for all allegations or inferences of potential corruption.
This government aims to have all public servants accountable for decisions made, to act with the highest professional standards, and ensure transparency and fairness in all procurement activities.
I have asked the Department of Infrastructure to deliver high quality, fit for purpose capital projects and repairs and maintenance programs which support the government’s priorities and commitments.
Many people would not be aware that a large component of the very poorly administrated SIHIP program regarding repairs and maintenance has been allocated to the Department of Infrastructure to project manage. The Department of Infrastructure will deliver $22m in upgrade and refurbishment work, and $35m in new housing with delivery costs only expected to be around 8% of the total project cost. This is a very good opportunity for the Department of Infrastructure to improve its community engagement, to work with people on the ground in the design and construct of the procurement process - the tender documentation and the project to be delivered - and to send a message to the Department of Housing that we are a viable alternative to the much maligned current delivery processes. There is no doubt the government is committed to achieving better value for money in project delivery costs.
The Department of Infrastructure will have a renewed focus on working with the Department of Business to assist Indigenous organisations win government contracts for housing and other works in remote areas. Indigenous employment will especially be boosted by holding contractors accountable for achieving good outcomes, especially when these works are in remote areas where a ready-made workforce might be readily available.
It is my intention to oversee the necessary change and improvements to ensure the public service has a system which gives the construction industry confidence in its dealings with government.
I now move to local government, not just the shires, but local government including the municipalities of Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Litchfield, and Coomalie and Wagait shires. It is important to talk about the elephant in the room - the shires.
In 2008, the then minister for Local Government oversaw a series of local government reforms to create better opportunities in the regions and ensure service delivery standards were maintained and money spent with greater accountability. The former government went too far with the process. It threw out a strong cultural model and replaced it with a financial model. It did not deliver better services. Today, we are faced with having to reform shires because the CLP was elected on a mandate of providing stability and sustainability, ensuring services are delivered to those living in the regions, and dealing with the inability of the former government to do the job it was elected to do.
Most people know the influence of the shires on the election. I stated many times the shires were toxic. I recall standing in this Chamber being abused and castigated by the former minister for Local Government for using such descriptive language. For those new to this Chamber, that minister was the former member for Arnhem, who had a 30% swing against her. I raise this because what was not acknowledged by the previous government was the fundamental flaw in the development of the shire model.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move for an extension of time for the member for Braitling.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson.
The model was implemented too fast without adequate consultation.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Mr Giles: Would we do that to you, Delia?
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr GILES: It took a model of strong cultural governance to put forward a model of strong financial governance, or the pursuit thereof. The fundamental flaw was throwing out the voice of local people. This must be returned. Yet, no matter how often this was raised, government turned a deaf ear. Many political commentators have described the result of the general election as being, in a large part, influenced by the dissatisfaction of the shires. Not by the people who work within the shires, but by the model which removed the voice of many Territorians and by the stealth with which that change was advanced. The challenge is to recognise the hard work and efforts of the majority who work in the shires and local government and to make the necessary changes to return a greater balance to cultural governance while maintaining financial security.
I can hear those voices yelling loud, calling for immediate change, but I will be working as fast as I can, going slowly in an effort to actively engage with the residents of the Northern Territory. In this respect, as Minister for Local Government I have removed the shire sustainability task force, and will shortly announce the establishment of a ministerial regional governance working group which will be tasked with the responsibility of developing an options paper of alternate models to strengthen regional governance. The timing for developing this paper will be accelerated but will not be driven by a hastily set time frame. Upon completion of the options paper, it will be distributed for community feedback. Community consultations will take place and confidential submissions will be sought from the public and organisations.
I encourage the shadow minister to meet with me at any time to discuss the progress of such measures. I look forward to working together to right the previous Labor government’s wrongs in the area of local government.
An issue I am sure Top End councils are keen to hear about is the progress of identifying a site for a new dump in the greater Darwin area. This is an important development for councils in the Top End. I am working with the Chief Minister, who is also the minister for Lands and Planning, to identify a site to get the project moving. The new dump site is a commitment to the greater Darwin area in the 100-day plan. The information will be provided to the Top End Regional Organisation of Councils in line with that commitment. I have already had preliminary discussions with several council heads on this issue. I am excited to be part of this sector as Minister for Local Government, and am determined to do my best to improve local government in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, colleagues, members of the public gallery, people who work in my office, Territorians recently voted for real and meaningful change across the Northern Territory. That is what we are going to deliver. I quickly want to focus on one important point. The seat of Lingiari comes up quite often in debate. My advice to people is if you want to build the Northern Territory you have to build roads and bridges. The person who delivers the most in the area of roads and bridges will have the best opportunity for the future. You are not going to build the social, cultural or environmental capacity to make gains in those areas unless you have the economic infrastructure and build jobs. You will change social disadvantage by building inland Australia and middle Australia.
Sir Winston Churchill poignantly noted:
I, as a new minister in this government, welcome the opportunity to be a part of a government which does what is required, listens to Territorians and delivers for all.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will raise a number of issues in my Address-in-Reply. I start by sincerely thanking the constituents of Sanderson for having the faith to return me as their representative to this House. irrespective of whether the other side raised issues during that campaign – during the last 48 hours they ran a campaign against me - all part of politics. I congratulate the Labor Party for the campaign they ran the last 48 hours, although I did not believe what they were saying was correct.
However, I move on to a brighter issue - serving the people of Sanderson. I still have my Saturday morning at the shops where I take my mobile office. I was there on the first Saturday after the election and found people were quite excited about the shift and a number of things that had transpired in the first week. I continue to be there on Saturday mornings talking to my constituents about a wide range of issues which I will cover during this presentation. The brunches I have are also proving very popular. We were at Wulagi last Sunday, and the stream of people coming through was gratifying. People are giving good feedback, mainly positive. Obviously, there are a few negative things, but we are able to address those.
It is good to stay in touch with your constituents. I have made a commitment to remain accessible on weekends, talking to people at times when otherwise they cannot get to an electorate office. I ask them to continue discussing matters important to them.
I will thank a few people before I move into another part of the Address-in-Reply. First, I thank my electorate officer, Dee Davies. As a local member, you need to move throughout your community and engage with people. It is necessary to have someone in your electorate office who is capable and able to manage a whole range of issues. My electorate officer, Dee Davies, has done a superb job looking after the electorate office and many of the people in my electorate. I commend her for the job she does.
I also thank my branch for, without them and their tireless assistance, all of this would not be possible and I may not be here. I thank the chairman of the branch, Doug Higginson, and many others too numerous to mention. I sincerely thank you very much.
A number of people are the backbone of a campaign and are there irrespective of what time or day it is. These are the people I would like to thank. First, John Moyle, who is tireless in his efforts on Saturdays and at Sunday brunch. John is 93, about to turn 94, and I constantly tell him I want to be him when I reach that age. In fact, I would just like to make it to 93 or 94. He is an inspiration to all of us in our branch because he is still maintaining a very active role.
I thank my two running mates, the candidates in the north Darwin branch team, Rhianna Harker and Rohan Kelly. It is great to see the regeneration of young people coming through our ranks. We now have what I believe to be the youngest person in the parliament, the member for Drysdale, Lia Finocchiaro. I apologise for using your name, but it should be recognised the member for Drysdale did a superb job, worked hard and was rewarded. The job in the northern suburbs is a little harder when you are up against high profile candidates. I congratulate Rhianna Harker and Rohan Kelly for their efforts and what they did to secure the swings they obtained.
I thank a good friend of mine of 25 years, Ron Baker. Ron Baker is chief of everything. He cooks the barbecues and manages transport and logistics. Without him, so many of us would not be able to our job. On behalf of the rest of the team, I thank Ron and his wife, Rosie. What many people in the real world do not realise - I am sure this applies to both sides - is that anyone who puts in as much effort as Ron Baker and campaign managers, whilst they are out doing that, their families and partners do not get to see much of them. It is also an acknowledgement of the partners of politicians and political candidates; we should acknowledge their efforts.
In doing so, I encourage the candidates who were unsuccessful - there are many on both sides of politics - to keep working hard and pursue your dream. For those who did not quite make it, I share what they are going through. I have been there and can understand how they feel. Again, I encourage candidates to continue working to ensure we have good competition. We certainly have an interesting variety of people coming into parliament. We need variety and depth in this House.
I acknowledge my family and my children, Kristy, Adam and Damien, and their partners, Marie, Cassandra and George, and my grandchildren, Taleisha, Dakota, Jemaiya, Jarman, Chloe and Madison for their untiring support over many years of campaigns starting in 1997. They were there then, they were there for the last one, and have been there all the way through. They put in a huge effort during campaigns and elections.
One person I would like to acknowledge who has put in probably the greatest effort is my wife, Linda Fazldeen. She is my rock, my guidance. I bounce everything off her and, without her, I may not be in this House. You need a partner, and many members in their maiden speeches recognise their partner as the person who made it possible. You look for people who give you the ability to fly and provide the wind beneath your wings and it is so important to have them. Without them, it is a struggle to fly. With their love, encouragement and ongoing support, you are able to fly high with ease. I acknowledge and thank Linda for her untiring support and love for me which I really needed through some pretty hectic times and campaigns.
Members of parliament need to give much to the community. Again, your partner is the one who misses out on time you could be spending with them. However, it is a great reward to see the community and I do not have a job - this is what I do. Every morning I get up and look forward to what I do, which is what makes it so easy.
I would like to move to some of the issues we face not only as a government, but as a community. We have a huge deficit to deal with and it is going to be a challenge. However, with our ministry and Terry Mills’ leadership - we have heard him talk about some of the challenges ahead. As a government, we will support our leader, our ministers, and all of us to resolve some of the major issues left as a legacy by the previous Labor government.
I would like to talk about housing. We have the most expensive rents in the country. The average cost of renting a house in Darwin is about $700 per week and the average cost of a unit about $530 per week. All this has come about through a lack of planning and timely land release. I am trying to obtain a graph from the previous government demonstrating a demand for housing blocks and showing the number released.
In about 2008-09, demand was around 2400-2500 blocks. We turned off about 1500. That was the best year. The following year, 2009-10, about the same number of house blocks were required and about 1300 were released. The following year there was about the same demand but it went down to 1100. Instead of planning which allowed for timely release of sufficient blocks of land to take the heat out of the housing market the previous government was releasing fewer, which pushed prices up. I do not know what the drivers for that were, whether the previous government was asleep at the wheel or whether it was planned. However, the government was making a killing in stamp duty on the sale of land and houses. One often wonders what the strategy was.
The cost of buying a home in the Territory is so high many people just do not do it. They look at the high cost of buying a home or the high cost of rent and they leave. Young people in the Territory, the children of those who have helped build the Territory, cannot afford to buy a home. Those on middle incomes - it is not people on low incomes, they can hardly do anything - those on middle incomes - when you talk to non-government organisations who help people you find they are struggling to give financial counselling because they look at what they are doing - two young people working, perhaps with a few kids, are struggling because of the high cost of rent. There is very little disposable income.
I recently met with the chief executive officer of one of these organisations. They are stunned that two people on middle incomes are struggling. They have looked at their books and can see, because of the high cost of living - childcare and a range of things - they struggle and cannot afford to buy a home.
Doorknocking during the election campaign I met a pilot who works for CareFlight. He said he cannot afford to live here. His wife was on maternity leave. They have another small child and she was staying home to care for the baby. He has to leave. When we reach the point of not being able to keep pilots to fly CareFlight planes you know we are struggling. We are in real difficulty and it all comes back to the high cost of rents and the fact these people do not have the income to sustain high rents or buy a house. There is no way to do what every family dreams of: buy their own home. That is a legacy from Labor governments we have to deal with.
We propose a planning commission. In opposition, we produced a document titled Planning for Greater Darwin: A dynamic harbour city. We did not see a document from the Labor party. This document was done in opposition with limited resources but with the input of some concerned citizens who had capacity and experience in putting these plans together. What we see is a very well-structured, well laid out plan for the greater Darwin area. When we released this the previous government said - I am making an assumption here - ‘Damn, the opposition put this fantastic document out, we better do something’. Several months later we saw an A4 document stapled together with a …
Mr Elferink: With a five-year-old photo on the cover, if that is the one.
Mr STYLES: We have the ordinary cover - yes we have a very old photo. It seems to have been put together in a rush. There are some good points; however, the previous government probably went through our document and took some inspiration from it. That is not for me to say.
Let us look at the cost of living. The cost of living has been pushed up, which puts pressure on wages and companies trying to employ people. It is all right if you are a wealthy company or a large company and have big dollars to spend. However, the cost of living, due to housing costs, rents etcetera, puts enormous pressure on business in the Territory finding skilled labour. People come here, try to survive and, in a very short period of time, leave.
I had a conversation one Saturday morning at a shopping centre with a guy who owns a business. As a small business owner, he is struggling to survive. He says it costs too much and he has been offered a fly-in fly-out job in Western Australia and he said, ‘I am probably going to take it. We are Territorians but we can’t afford to live here.’
Again, this is the legacy of Labor’s poor planning and untimely release of land to take the heat and pressure off housing prices.
The government is trying to help families where it can. It will be releasing, through the Minister for Housing, plans on how to tackle that. Little things, like increasing the back to school vouchers so families will receive $150 to help get their child into uniforms, books, etcetera.
We will be working to get rid of Labor’s carbon tax. I listen to the radio every day, read the newspapers, and listen to what people are saying. Sadly, we are losing our competitive advantage. I heard the other day there is a downturn in a range of mining industries. People will say that is because the price of iron ore has gone down; however, people in these companies are doing the numbers on whether it is viable. In some instances, when you start putting on mining resource rent tax, carbon tax, a range of taxes, you kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We will be working with the federal coalition to ease the pressure on families and business.
Much has been said about the public service. We need a very strong and vibrant public service. I have many public servants in my electorate and sincerely hope they become part of a stronger public sector.
I listened to the opposition speaking about jobs and the public sector. I would like to relate the story of a person who rang me saying they were sick and tired of doing the job of about two-and-a-half people. In their particular area - this has been during the last eight weeks because, if you listen to the previous government, everything has gone to pack in the last eight weeks. Labor was in government for 11 years but it is our fault now.
When we were in opposition it was all the CLP’s fault. Labor had over a decade but it was all the CLP’s fault. Now we have been in government for eight weeks it is still the CLP’s fault. I struggle to understand why the previous government did not say they had a problem.
You have to acknowledge a problem before you can fix it. Sadly, the previous government did not acknowledge it had overspending problems, employment problems, and a whole range of things. However, this person asked, ‘Can you do something about this. There’re two in our section. There were five; we need five’. They are tired of doing the job of five people. There are many people on short-term contracts.
We will look at properly resourcing the frontline services like police, teachers, nurses, healthcare workers and also support for youth. We need to build confidence in our youth and to do that we need to work smarter. In that context, we need to address an $867m deficit. I am led to believe it could be around $1bn - a 20% overspend.
I do not know where the previous government got its economic credentials from, but my mother could run the place better than that. She taught me the basics of economics: you cannot spend more than you earn, except when you put money in wealth-generating investment returns such as a home. Most people I know do not have money sitting in the bank to pay cash for a house, we have to save and borrow. However, when you borrow for the sake of borrowing and spending, it becomes a problem.
As the Treasurer pointed out in her Address-in-Reply, we are paying $750 000 a day in interest on the debt incurred by the previous Labor government. That is a legacy we have to live with; a challenge for us. We are up for the challenge. The Mills government will fix this problem and get the economics of the Northern Territory back on track.
However, we have to cut spending and reduce debt. The Renewable Management Board is currently looking at that, and I look forward to receiving its report. I am not looking forward to finding out our exact fiscal position in relation to the deficit. That is quite scary for us, and if you talk to people in the real world they would be horrified to realise the level of debt the previous government incurred. It is quite sad.
I will move to the Banned Drinker Register. The opposition says many things. It says the rivers of grog are going to flow again. The Banned Drinker Register was not working. I talk to businesses at my shops on Saturday mornings. I have seen the result of the Banned Drinker Register and have spoken to some of the people who were with them. They quite openly say, ‘Yes, he is on the Banned Drinker Register and is absolutely smashed’. This was about five or six days ago - same deal. I was told these people were on the Banned Drinker Register - I did not make an assumption - because you cannot check to see if anyone is on the Banned Drinker Register.
The government made much about secondary supply, but when you talk to police officers and prosecutors, how can you get a conviction for secondary supply when you cannot check if someone is on the Banned Drinker Register or not?
The BDR was not working. I heard the member for Karama say these people are off tap. I listened to the member for Fong Lim yesterday try to tell the member for Karama, and the member for Wanguri, that taps are in bars. Under the Banned Drinker Register, you could walk into a bar and drink until the staff decided you had enough. You go into the bar and get to the point where responsible service of alcohol takes over and people say, ‘Sorry, you cannot have any more to drink’. They go outside, get their mate to buy a bottle of rum, and away they go; they get charged up. It did not work.
On some of my trips from Darwin to Alice Springs I spoke to many people about alcohol and habitual drunk legislation. Aboriginal people want to be involved in the process and become part of the solution; they do not want to be the problem.
It is the right of all Australians to have access to alcohol. It is also our responsibility to protect the vulnerable - the women, children and men who are subject to pressure to buy alcohol for people on the Banned Drinker Register.
On this side, we are about tackling and fixing the problem not penalising the entire community for the behaviour of a minority. It is very important we do that and early intervention is the key. That is what the habitual drunk legislation is based on.
I am unsure if the opposition was listening to some of the things which occurred. Dawn House issued a statement which said domestic violence had increased 7% as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. I am trying to find that article; I remember reading it. That was based on the fact that men on the Banned Drinker Register put pressure on people to get alcohol for them. The wives or partners are threatened. When they do not or cannot, they are bashed and we have a problem.
That is not the government saying that. That is an organisation to protect women and children which keeps its own statistics and information. I applaud Dawn House, it does a fabulous job. Staff work hard with limited resources with probably an overwhelming number of people.
As the Minister for Alcohol Policy alluded to after the election, we will tackle the problem. We will have habitual drunk legislation and people who are day after day accessing alcohol, even if they were on the Banned Drinker Register prior to the election, will find themselves in a place where they will receive some real assistance and real job training. I look forward to that occurring.
Businesses are struggling and need a hand. We need to tackle crime. We need to tackle antisocial behaviour. We, on this side, believe in accountability, responsibility and consequences. I am sure everyone in this House, the staff, understands that otherwise we might not be here. We all need to be accountable for our actions, be responsible, and there needs to be consequences. We have laws in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia, in fact throughout the Westminster system and the world which do that. They are all designed to keep us safe, something we are all taught as children. However, we were all taught there would be consequences if we do not follow the rules of a community, a house, a school, or anywhere else.
Approximately 62% of police time is spent dealing with drunks. If we get habitual drunks off the street and into some meaningful rehabilitation and work training, and if we can reduce the time police spend dealing with drunks, not only do we lift ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Araluen. We need to free up police time. When I talk to police officers they, like the rest of the community, are tired of the antisocial behaviour and associated problems. We need to free police time so they can deal with real criminals, violence, domestic violence and other issues.
We will be putting in initiatives for mandatory gaol terms for repeat adult offenders. We will be sending young offenders to boot camps.
I have heard people say we cannot do that. It is time we had a little tough love. I hope most members in this House have seen shows on television about various boot camps around the world. When I was a police officer, Wildman River was a great program. I remember in 2008 or 2009 speaking about it in this House. The buildings were still there when we were talking about it. Lo and behold, the next week we said, ‘Why don’t we reopen it?’ Then, of course, the government came back the following week and said you cannot do that, there is nothing there. I heard later some of the items were apparently removed or bulldozed - I cannot remember the exact facts. When you talk to some of the young people who were at Wildman River it was a turning point in their lives.
We need to have facilities like that where young people who refuse to follow the rules designed to keep them, and everyone else in the community safe - we need to give them some tough love like you see on those programs.
When I was doorknocking I ran much of this past people and asked their views. The overwhelming support for boot camps, activities for young people, accountability, responsibility, and consequences was enormous. Probably 90% of people supported what we are advocating. When you talk about polls and focus groups, doorknocking your electorate is not a bad focus group because you get a real feel for what people want and what the community might need.
We move on to jobs for young people - the mining and energy industry. I was heartened to attend the recent mining club luncheon where the member for Katherine, and the Minister for Mines and Energy, spoke about the Northern Territory being open for business. This is great. We need to facilitate mining. I remember talking to people at the front door who would say there is no difference between the CLP and the ALP. I would say, ‘Well, I have a different view. Labor wants power’. They would say, ‘Power is good, the government is in power’. Being in power, from my perspective, when I look at Labor policies, is about telling you what is good for you. It is a little like the nanny state. ‘We know what is good for you. We will tell you; you sit back and do what you are told.’
I used to say the difference with the Country Liberal Party is our philosophical beliefs are that we are here to facilitate you, your business, create jobs, create wealth and, of course, create taxes. We need that because we need business to increase and we need receipts for the Northern Territory to increase because we have a huge debt legacy from Labor.
How do we do that? We create things. We do things. Liberals and conservatives have been very good at that over the years. In my lifetime, I have seen the cycle. I have watched Labor run up the MasterCard to extremes and when it all becomes too hard people say, ‘This is terrible’. Look at what is happening in Canberra at the moment. We have to start cutting programs - $19bn here. They are going to dip into the superannuation of seniors who worked hard to put it there; they want to tax that at a greater degree. So, they are putting their hand in people’s pockets now. Why, Madam Speaker? Because they overspent and have no restraint. They keep spending money and running up the MasterCard. Someday, someone has to pay it back, just like my mum taught me - basic economics. It is economics 101 and, sadly, the previous government had it wrong.
The federal government has it wrong at the moment as well. We are paying enormous amounts of interest which could be spent, as the Treasurer and the member for Braitling said, on roads and other things but, no, we are massively in debt.
How does this affect youth? Many small businesses in this town are struggling. If you are tied up with INPEX, great! INPEX is a great thing. We are now going to be part of the energy supply of the world. The former member for Daly would say, ‘It is great, we have INPEX and our young people can get high paying jobs’. Well, some can get higher paying jobs, but I talk to the hairdressers next to my office in Northlakes and they tell me they are struggling. I spoke to some teachers in the gallery today and asked how they are going with housing. I wish I had never asked the question because they said they are struggling to pay the rent. These are teachers. These are middle-income Territorians who cannot afford to live here. Under a Labor government, prices would have increased with the same policies and we would be in even more trouble. Fortunately, we have had a change of government. We can now start to address those issues and provide the 2000 homes the Chief Minister mentioned.
How do we keep teachers here? How do we keep mechanics here? How do we keep hairdressers, the people who work at Coles? When I walk around my shopping centre and talk to some of the people who work at Coles, the hairdressers or in the bottle shop, these people are struggling. If you look at Coles, the people at the counter are often older women married to blokes who are in the mines - fly-in fly-out - who have come back home to Darwin, or they have been here a long time, own their homes, and can survive here. If we do not do something about that we will have the same problems. We have a plan we will implement to tackle those issues.
I mention Charles Darwin University and youth. I applaud CDU, in conjunction with the oil and gas industry, for providing training to our young people. We need to provide high-quality training so our locals can get the jobs people from interstate were previously able to take from our young people. We need to keep our families together. If we do not provide for this, and if we do not do something about the housing legacy left by Labor, we will lose more young people.
In the four years prior to coming to government I listened to young people. I taught 40 000 of them in my time working in schools and still know many of them. They would say to me - they still call me Constable Styles - ‘We’ve got to leave town. We cannot afford to live here’.
When I first came to Darwin 32 years ago, parents went south and the kids stayed here. It split the family. They packed up and, in many cases, took the kids with them. What did the Country Liberal Party do? We encouraged people to stay and build their families. What has happened during 11 years of Labor? It is not the oldies who are leaving - the parents. It is the young people saying, ‘We’re going to split the family up mum and dad. You’re right, you’re here. We can’t afford to live here.’ I do not know how many people I doorknocked who had their kids living with them. In my electorate, I cannot remember how many there were, but it was heaps.
It is so important we pursue the policies we went to the election with. We had many good policies and the people decided - the people in the bush decided - they are sick of being taken for granted and want real change. Madam Speaker, I can assure you, members in this House, and the public that the Mills government is a united team. We are operating extremely well and are supporting each another. We have a huge job to fix the legacy the previous Labor government left us; however, we will continue to work hard. We will strive to fix problems we have been left with by the previous Labor government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to the Address-in-Reply. I am a little disappointed so few of the Labor members, other than new members who made their maiden speeches - and I congratulate them for their maiden speeches. I do not recall seeing any of the other Labor members speak other than a 15 or 20 minute contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. The address is given to us by the Administrator of the Northern Territory where she outlines what her government will do, obviously with the advice of government as is the standard protocol of the Westminster system. This is an opportunity for ministers of the Crown - ministers have stood and other members of parliament stand - to talk about how they will support or be critical of what the government will do under the Administrator’s guidance.
Under the Westminster system, essentially, the power of the government rests in the Administrator’s chief advisor, namely, the Chief Minister. It is an opportunity to hear a clear and articulated position from all members as to what they believe is wrong or right with the Administrator’s address, hence the reply component.
For opposition members to remain silent, with the exception of the two maiden speeches and the short contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, indicates they have not put a great deal of thought into how they will respond to the issues raised in the Administrator’s address over the next four years.
I am curious about the silence because I would like to know what members on the opposite side of the House think of the Administrator’s address. To hear their silence is to understand they have nothing to offer at this point. I am sure things will improve on the other side of the House but, currently, they clearly have nothing to offer the Administrator and, consequently, the people of the Northern Territory in where they want to take things. We have already seen there is no articulation of their belief system beyond trying to justify the decisions they made in the past and the conduct of the former government, and to attack the government of the day. This pretty much occurred before this parliament ...
Mr Tollner: Ninety percent of what they come up with is personal slander.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr ELFERINK: I am getting to that ...
Ms Walker: Never you, though, Dave.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the member for Fong Lim. The lowest ebb of this parliament we have seen so far was demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition on Day 2. I do not want to trawl through that again ...
Mr Tollner: Day 1.
Mr ELFERINK: Day 1, yes, I apologise - the second session of Day 1. If that sets the standard and scene for the quality of opposition we are going to enjoy in the Northern Territory over the next four years, Territorians will have every right to be disappointed in their parliament. I hope it does not continue, and I urge people to oppose by all means - question, challenge, ague with; all of those things - but let us do it on the issues.
I want to comment on the maiden speeches we have heard in the last few days. I enjoy listening to maiden speeches. They are, in some respects, the most well-researched, best considered, naively honest in some ways, speeches in the parliament. I enjoy listening to them from both sides of the House because I hear hope, passion, and a desire to be involved in the community articulated in every one of them. That is true for all of the maiden speeches I heard today. I made some notes. I was impressed with every one of them.
The member for Nightcliff spoke fondly of her electorate. I was surprised to find she and I went to the same childcare centre in Rapid Creek. I suspect I was there a little earlier than her. She has clearly entered this House with passion and a desire to do something and, like me, grew up in a very political household. Discussions around the dinner table I remember in my household. I remember all those types of things and understand her pledge to dedicate her time in parliament, in part, to those people she calls the underprivileged of the community. Those are noble sentiments. Doubtlessly, I expect her to pursue those through her philosophical and political lens.
I do not agree, necessarily, with what her lens suggests, but I listen to what she has to say and understand that heartfelt desire to look after the underprivileged. I look forward to her contributions in the future as to how we protect the underprivileged and whether the philosophy simply becomes more of the same. When talking about more of the same, I am talking, essentially, about welfare and welfare responses to the underprivileged. I presume that means both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike.
I found it astonishing she, at 38 weeks pregnant, took this challenge on. Not many people can achieve that. I remember it being raised at the time she was pre-selected and reading the press on it, yet here she is. Clearly, she managed, which indicates to me we are dealing in this House with a new member who is capable and committed to what she believes in.
I also listened to the new member for Johnston, Mr Vowles. I listened carefully to his relationships and the people who had an influence on his life. I noted the comment his dad always said to him, ‘Work hard and you will achieve’. I thought, ‘Well, there is a good piece of advice’. I do not want to put a political slant on it, but I believe in hard work. People should be rewarded for their hard work. In fact, here is the difference between me and someone on the left of politics: people should be able to keep the rewards of their hard work.
I move to the new member for Arnhem. She made two points which attracted me. One: do not take the bush for granted. That has been heard loudly and clearly by this Chief Minister and is something he articulated in his victory speech. The Berrimah Line will be something of the past. I heard that and listened carefully to it. She discussed work not just as a source of income, but as a source of personal dignity. That is how a person lifts themself out of what they are and makes them better.
It is funny that when we meet a person the first thing we ask them is their name. The second question we ask is what they do. We do not ask them what their income bracket is. We do not ask, ‘Do you drive a Mercedes Benz or a Daihatsu Charade?’ There are two facets of the same thing in those questions. One is, ‘What do you call yourself?’ The other is, ‘What do you do? How do you identify yourself?’ A person without that second component is often someone who has, I suggest, an almost incomplete identity. If they do not do anything, what is the rationale for being alive? Where will the dignity come from? I understand and hear that. It caused me to go back to my maiden speech in this House 15 years ago because it struck a chord with me.
The new member for Drysdale, smart, intelligent, bright, a wonderful contribution felt from the heart and, of course, part of a great Italian family. By the time she went through the names of all her relatives and her thank you list most of her time was taken. However, I expect big things because I consider the new member for Drysdale to be a clever person who quickly will understand the environment she is in and I look forward to her contributions. I note she has committed to spending as much time in this Chamber as she possibly can without any prompting or encouragement. Clearly, she is engaged with this Chamber and understands the enormous changes she can make by using the tools available to her in this House.
The member for Arafura - this one really caught me. I listened carefully to the member for Arafura and will quote what he said:
That is exactly right. Any people, not just Aboriginal people, living in the modern world have to cope with change like never before.
In my lifetime alone, which is just a fraction shy of 50 years, the technological changes that have occurred within those 47 years have been profound. They have changed faster than almost any other time in history. To see people, like Aboriginal people, being encouraged by their leaders to take up the cudgels of that change leaves me with the impression it is well-understood that change is inevitable; it is going to happen. It is like the tide coming in at high tide; there is nothing you can do to stop it. Change will be there and it is not just Aboriginal people; it applies to every person
I remember when I was at school, the first desks I sat in still had the holes drilled into them for ink pots, blackboards had just replaced slate in the previous five or six years. I walked around in bare feet and the teacher smoked in the classroom. They were unthinkable changes in those times. Now you go into a school and it is a technologically advanced place. My five-year-old daughter knows her way around an iPad better than I do. In fact, she says, ‘Dad, you’re doing it wrong. Do it this way’. That is the world we live in. I have to get used to change. My kids will have to get used to change and the recognition that change will happen; it is a reality we all must face. If we embrace it in the right way and use change to our advantage it will become the vehicle by which we can protect what is precious to us.
If I believe my culture from Dutch heritage is precious, the technologies available will enhance the capacity for me to protect it if I choose to do so. I do not suggest to anyone they should protect their culture; that is their job, but the technologies available are the vehicle by which they could be enhanced. I will leave the decision as to what happens to people’s cultures to those cultures.
That is the principle of liberalism to which I have dedicated my political life and philosophy. I believe in the rights of choice, as much choice as people can possibly have.
I will go back to the member for Arafura. He said one other important thing, ‘The public service cannot fix Aboriginal people’s lives’ - absolutely. I could not imagine a public servant trying to run my life; it would be a disaster. God, it is bad enough with me in charge, let alone some third party. Whilst it sounds a bit extreme, the philosophy is the same.
One of the reasons the Soviet Empire failed after 80 years of existence is that, essentially, Communism had decayed into creating a society which was one large public service department. You had a public servant for every occasion to manage every aspect of your life. You were guaranteed a job but that job was dictated to you by public servants. You were guaranteed something on the shop shelf but that was one item, there was no choice. Some third party in a remote office told you what to buy off that shop shelf. Freedom implies choice but choice implies responsibility and - I picked this up from the member for Namatjira - the responsibility must ultimately rest with the person making the choice, and I hear that.
The member for Stuart - what a life. Listening to what the member for Stuart had to say I was staggered. People say to me from time to time, ‘John, you’ve done it hard over the years’ for this reason or that. I say, ‘Yes, but other people do it hard’. When you listen to the stories from the member for Stuart you think: whatever has happened to me in life pales into insignificance. Yet, from that adversity, comes metal. From those challenges comes personal strength. From the difficulties faced in life comes a belief in self more unshakeable than anything else.
The member for Stuart does not need, and never will, need somebody to make her decisions for her. She values and understands the freedom of choice she has. Her contribution to this debate was, to my ears, a celebration of self and one she was supported in by her parents, her husband, and her husband’s family. She has embraced those choices, taken on the difficulties those choices offer up, and found it useful as a touchstone to advance herself. It is only fit and proper that she ends up here at this point in her life. Where does she go from here? I do not know, but I suspect if she brings the same sense of ‘the buck stops with me’ as what she does in this House, from here to somewhere even bigger is entirely conceivable.
I am enormously proud to be in a Chamber and number amongst one of my colleagues someone who understands so completely she is in charge of her own life, and understands that if people really want to change what is happening in the bush we have to start expecting from those people what we would any other person - a demand from them of their own personal responsibility.
I also listened to the new member for Daly and am flabbergasted at the attack on him by the Leader of the Opposition. I have known the member for Daly for some time now, and his integrity, as far as I am concerned, is beyond question. There is no evidence other than the scrap of paper tabled yesterday, unsigned, unattested to, unproven, and used only in this House to besmirch the member for Daly’s good name. It was one of the poorest efforts I have ever seen in this House, and I have witnessed a few. He is a man of broad experience from the private sector and the public sector. He comes into the House with a mountain of experience under his belt and a great belief in the future of the Northern Territory. Likewise, I will be proud to stand next to him as a member of the Mills Country Liberals’ government.
Whilst it was not a maiden speech, I listened closely to the contribution by the member for Namatjira. I do not know how many people listened to it, but all should have. It was eloquent, well-considered, well-argued, utterly consistent, and with the philosophies of personal liberties and freedoms which we on this side of the House hold so dear. I am delighted with everything I have heard in this House.
I said at the outset I was going to take a trip down memory lane. I looked at my own maiden speech which goes back to 1997. God, I feel old all of a sudden. Right or wrong, I was very critical of the CLC. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the criticism may have been valid, other components were not. I basically described the CLC as an organ too closely aligned with the Labor Party. That has changed over the last 15 years substantially. It was also an organisation which had much control over the people who lived - I was referring, essentially, to the executive arm of the CLC. If that was true then, it probably is much less true now. I have become much more sophisticated in my understanding of these issues since 1997. However, I did, amongst other things, say this, and I quote:
which I claimed at that time the land councils had become,
At the heart of my maiden speech 15 years ago was that Aboriginal people are not the problem; however, we have to abandon this belief that by some miraculous turn of a policy paper we turn people’s lives around. I do not accept it. I did not accept it then, I do not accept it now. Since that time I have seen billions of dollars poured into remote communities around the Northern Territory and it has not produced the results we have been seeking. I do not blame the Labor Party for trying. It is not disingenuous in its intent. However, we have to bite the bullet and start saying to people, ‘You are responsible for yourself. Pick yourself up by your own boot straps, take yourself forward and make something of yourself.’ This does not apply to just Aboriginal people, this is a human condition.
I know of two quadriplegics in the Northern Territory - both wheelchair-bound men. Both gentlemen run their own mechanical workshops, one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin. They are both employers. If there was anyone in the world with the right to give up and say it is all too hard, it is not fair, it would be those two gentlemen. However, despite that, both continue to run successful businesses and are employers of Northern Territorians. I genuinely believe the capacity to be better than you are does not come from your gender, or emanate from our race, it emanates from who you are as an individual. Whether you are a paraplegic, a quadriplegic, an Aboriginal, or a woman, it is who you are as an individual person so long as the community you live in is prepared to recognise your individuality and prepared to accept and give you the freedom implied in individuality. Then, anyone can make their way in this world.
That example can be found in 25 seats in this Chamber. The example can be found in many places all over Darwin, the Northern Territory, Australia, and the world. Wherever human freedom blossoms, people rise above their challenges - the things that would hold them back - and become better people. I believe in creating an environment in which people can become better and that means challenging them, confronting them, and holding them responsible. If you do those things and ask that of people, enormous things can be achieved.
There is singularly in the Northern Territory one corrosive element above all - it is not alcohol; alcohol is a symptom. That corrosive element is welfare and the way the welfare state sucks people’s freedom away from them by making them dependent. I have said before, of all the policies since European settlement of Australia, despite assimilation and some of the other policies in the late 1700s and early 1800s, welfare has accounted for more deaths than any other policy approach. For that reason I remain extremely critical of welfare. I do not argue for its complete removal because that would lead to massive problems, but to ask people to earn their way through life and expect they contribute to something they are given will not lead to poorer outcomes.
Yes, there will be much resistance in the short term, but in the long term if you ask people to contribute they will have a modicum of dignity. Dignity, for me, is very much like a drug - once you have some you want much more because you can do so much with it. I look forward to the next four years in this parliamentary Chamber working with every one of the 25 members, particularly with the Country Liberals team. In relation to representation in the Northern Territory, what we have is like a breath of fresh air.
The voices coming from the bush are saying to me, and the rest of the Territory and Australia, at last the answers for the Northern Territory can be found in the skills and talents of the people who live in remote areas. We have to find the mechanisms to create or enable those potentials to become actuals.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude this important commencement to the Twelfth Assembly. I foresee an Assembly from which will come significant change for the Northern Territory, and it will be change enjoyed by families wherever they live. You cannot have monumental change which erects monuments; it has to be in the lives of people. That is a substantial change, and I am determined to see results from our efforts in this Chamber.
Over the last days we have heard various members give speeches, some for the first time in parliament. It is always a special time; they look ahead to see what is to come, uncertain. Others were in reply to Her Honour the Administrator, who outlined the direction of this new government.
The speeches were a mix of aspirations and dreams. Some spoke of the nature of the work ahead, some were frank, honest and open accounts of their life’s journey to this point in time. All of them together give us a very good start.
Changes of government are rare, particularly in the Territory. The election in August was only the second time in the Territory’s history we have seen this change take place.
Territorians voted for change no matter which way you cut it, right across the Territory. Most noticeably, in the remote places there was a profound shift which cannot be ignored for a moment. However, there was an underlying frustration, disappointment and fatigue right across the Territory and the urban areas as well. They wanted change and this new government has been given the job of ensuring it happens.
I am very mindful of, and have heard in the first Question Time, some of the comments made through the course of this debate accepting there will be change. People vote for change but do not want it to happen to them. They want change to occur, but not to them.
There has to be change; there has to be an adjustment. The first adjustment will have to be to accept the fundamental that there is a money problem in the Territory which needs to be fixed. That is going to be a significant challenge for some to come to terms with because there is so much invested in maintaining a belief the previous government did a good job when the facts conflict with that perception which has been stridently adhered to. I must take away from today the observation of a stubborn resistance I fear we will meet in this parliament with the belief held by the Territory opposition that everything is okay. They hold onto a legacy. They defend and confect a story about the past when families of the Northern Territory, and those who have had the responsibility of raising their families, have high responsibility for delivering services or who work in the public service at many different levels, know there is a problem.
This government will not be distracted by the belligerent, strident, arrogant assertions of the opposition that everything is okay. The truth needs to be told and we will endeavour not to fall into the trap of conducting a political contest here. It will be a plain discussion of the reality determined by numbers which require a response. For all those hard-working Territorians who take responsibility for their own affairs - some of them take responsibility for creating economic opportunity and run businesses - you have to conduct your business well; you have to exercise fiscal discipline. Very few people have the luxury of practising ill-discipline when running a business. This is the most serious business because it affects people’s lives. At the same time, we are charged with the responsibility of building social cohesion, respecting people for who they are and believing the power is in people to deliver the change that is necessary; having trust in people. We have to keep that faith in people. At the same time, we have to do what people instinctively know is the right thing, which is ensure we run a good operation and an effective and efficient government.
People have aspirations, expectations, and I expect there will be some push back because change is required, people know that. When change begins to unfold it can be of concern and create some discomfort. I am asking for people to trust us and know we have the best interest of the Territory at heart. It will be a task we will not shy away from. For those who commentate and those who contest will find all means to, perhaps, block, challenge, diminish, distract or deter. We cannot do that because, just as our first speeches have been uttered in this parliament, there will come a day for our last speech. I ask all members to consider what their last speech will be.
We have set ourselves a task here. I have been in opposition for the greater part of my time in this parliament. I am mindful of all the things I have said. I have served a long apprenticeship. I am greatly honoured to carry the aspirations of people right across the Territory. I will carry with me the meeting at Ampilatwatja where they were quietly and graciously humble saying they were grateful I had come. That was nice. I was pleased to be received so well; however, when I learnt no chief minister had ever visited that community I found it hard to believe. This is just in case members opposite become a bit defensive - no chief minister! There have been Country Liberal Party chief ministers too. I am not being political here.
The only way forward is to recognise there are people equal to all other people living right across the Northern Territory. Once we start recognising that and make that adjustment, we have the capacity to make some real change. We need to change our focus a little; move our sense of what is right and what is valuable. It ain’t the policy, it ain’t the politics, it ain’t the money, it is people, and that will make the difference.
While we will have the contests, and we have already seen the nature in which this will be conducted by the opposition, determined in our first day, I urge honourable members to recognise what this is about. It is not about politics. It is about using this Chamber - yes, sure, the opposition; I know what your job is; I have done it for 11 years. Your job is to test the veracity and capacity of our commitments, our policy, and ensure, through that contest, we are focused correctly. You can test it all you like. Go for it! However, do not forget many people are watching this. They will know whether you are arguing in the interests of what is right and good for the Territory or if you are arguing to belittle, denigrate and bring the tone of this House down. I will do all I can, and I urge my colleagues, and all honourable members of this Chamber to rise above that wherever they can because there is much more at stake than scoring a political point. Of course, there will be some politics but, at the heart of it, we should never turn away from our real business - to consider what our last speech in this parliament will be and the story it will tell.
There are many things I could say, but before I complete these remarks, I noted today what I detect will be the battleground - the defence of the record of the previous government will require the energies, tactics and strategies of the Opposition Leader and all the support the Opposition Leader can muster to defend that position. Whatever means are made available, foul or fair, will be employed to defend the record of the former Treasurer and the assertions made again and again and the stories told. I sense the contest is right here and it is one of credibility. It is not about the former Treasurer or the record of the former government; it is about providing quality leadership for the future of the Northern Territory and telling the truth.
If you have a different version of events when the numbers say one thing and another story tells another, I am looking forward to that debate. We will continue with that debate in here and out of here and truth will win out. You can be as clever as you like and tell your story and endeavour to convince people; however, truth will win out in the end. Already, most people who have carried real responsibility in the Northern Territory through the public service know there is a problem and want someone to help lead and authorise them to fix that. If the former Treasurer is persistent in maintaining it we will have to allow some passage but we will have to move on. We will look forward to that debate. I noticed today there was some sensitivity on that front, but we are not going to back away because the story needs to be told.
We will deal with the housing issues. At the end of the day, there will be the last session of the Twelfth Assembly. We will look back, we will walk out to an election, and ask people to make a decision once again. I will remember, as all my colleagues will remember and know we said, ‘We have work to do, and if we do not live up to your expectations it is your call’.
We believe the direction we have set is one we can achieve. We want people to work with us - we can do it. We have set the agenda. It has been outlined in the Chamber and we intend to complete this course and have every confidence in the capacity of the people of the Northern Territory to work with us to achieve the objectives set.
I commend to honourable members the first Address-in-Reply setting the agenda for the Twelfth Assembly.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this House condemns the government for removing the Banned Drinker Register with no alternative in place and calls for the government to outline their plans for the return of the rivers of grog to our bush communities.
I bring this motion to the House on behalf of the many Territorians expressing dismay and disbelief at the reckless decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register with no credible or alternative controls on problem drinkers. Even more troubling, I call on the government to spell out its timetable for implementing the election promise made by a number of bush candidates to support the establishment of drinking clubs, and to bring back the infamous rivers of grog to our bush communities.
Let us call this for what it is. The Country Liberals’ manifesto launched as part of the 2012 election campaign alluded to the Banned Drinker Register not working and the inconvenience of providing personal identification as part of the purchase of alcohol. Chief Minister, people on the street know the Banned Drinker Register was working. Talkback radio has been flooded with grassroots criticism of the scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register and the return of drunks and the humbug to our local shopping centres and parks.
Territorians well recall the Chief Minister’s promise that, if elected, the Country Liberals would immediately remove drunks from our streets. They cannot reconcile that promise with the scrapping of the BDR. However, there is another force at work here. It is clear the CLP ploy is to quickly strike out the positive initiatives of the Henderson government in this area and to sully the real progress being made in controlling the supply of alcohol to people with a track record of problem drinking and alcohol-related offences. It is a CLP decision built on ideology, not the evidence at hand; a decision politically understandable and appealing to some of the CLP constituency, but morally wrong and another insight into the true character of the Chief Minister, a man who said in his introduction to the CLP election manifesto:
The 2012 election should be about doing what is right ahead of what is simply spin.
The issue of problem drinking and the damage wrought by alcohol abuse to individuals, families, and local communities is a core issue where a responsible Territory government has to show leadership and a concern for the voices, particularly the voices of our greatest resource, our children.
Regarding the inconvenience of the BDR, let us put that to bed. One of the heartening aspects of the BDR was the way Territorians generally accepted the small inconvenience of producing identification as part of the purchase of takeaway liquor. Territorians largely accepted that measure because they could see the BDR was working and it was central to a total package: our Enough is Enough alcohol reforms. Well-minded Territorians do not have a problem supporting measures which were clearly working - taking problem drinkers off tap and making our shopping centres and public spaces safer for all.
Police at all levels described the BDR as the best tool they have ever had in their daily battle with alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime. However, that is not good enough for the CLP. Health and community workers, frontline workers, embraced the BDR because they too could see it was working. For others, there was no more running the gauntlet on the footpath outside grog shops, and families felt safe letting the kids run down to the local shop for milk and bread.
A responsible government would have given thought to the consequences of scrapping the BDR without any credible replacement. However, now that good work - tackling the supply of grog to 2500 problem drinkers - has been swept aside. Who are these problem drinkers? Let me remind the House these are people taken into protective custody three times in three months involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence, or repeat drink-drivers who have driven under the influence at very high levels, considered at risk of placing others at risk.
The CLP says it wants to focus its work on the demand side of the alcohol equation as well as supply. Territory Labor has always argued there needs to be a complementary focus on both supply and demand as well as rehabilitation.
This is the worrying part of the CLP’s plan for alcohol management. It seems to totally discount the physical nature of alcohol dependency and believes it is okay to effectively put 2500 problem drinkers regularly coming to the attention of the police back on tap to feed their addiction and support their binge drinking and the inevitable humbug of others. The CLP says it has an alternative moral focus on the compulsory rehabilitation of problem drinkers in rehabilitation centres yet to be built. Let us call these for what they are: lockups to take problem drinkers off the street, out of sight, out of mind.
The member for Fong Lim, the Minister for Alcohol Policy says, on behalf of the government, the construction of these new facilities may be 12 months off. Twelve months for drunks to be back on the street annoying and pestering others as they feed their alcohol dependency, Twelve months of shopkeepers and customers running the day to day gauntlet of problem drinkers and humbug.
Seemingly ridiculous, but not so when you consider the other part of the CLP’s approach to alcohol management and the lost souls with the hardcore alcohol problem. It is to allow drunks back on the street and build support for the establishment of drinking clubs across the Territory, including the return of full-strength grog to keep them there. At first glance it could seem appealing - let people make their own decisions about access to alcohol; show people the way of responsible drinking; establish drinking clubs so people do not have to travel to larger centres or our suburban shops for access to alcohol; use drinking clubs and the money earned from the sale of alcohol for whole communities supporting worthwhile community projects. Appealing perhaps at first glance, but how will this plan be implemented and how will it work?
The member for Blain, the Chief Minister, insists there will be mature discussion, consultation and opportunities for communities to make decisions and take responsibility for their decision on access to alcohol. However, who decides? Who speaks for the children? Are we to see a return to the bad old days when, infamously, access to grog was often determined to be men’s business, for men to decide their rules for their drinking clubs? A return to the old days such as at Wadeye, where a senior cultural leader took affirmative action physically demolishing the local drinking club because of the misery it had brought to the community.
Why is the CLP endorsing a plan which supports a return of the rivers of grog starkly highlighted in the Little Children are Sacred report? Does the CLP believe the establishment of drinking clubs and the return of full-strength beer helps address the core issues of family safety and wellbeing? What plans does the CLP have for spending public money, taxpayers’ money, on the implementation of its plans and the establishment of new drinking clubs? These are all-important questions which require an answer.
The new alcohol policies of the CLP government are deeply troubling. They appeal to the idea that people should have the right to drink and determine their own rules for access to alcohol. Indeed, the CLP is already using taxpayer funds to promote its way forward, proclaiming in a newspaper advertisement that Indigenous people in bush communities should have the right to decide what is best in relation to access to alcohol.
That right exists through the development of alcohol management plans under our Enough is Enough alcohol reform package and is accepted as part of the Commonwealth Stronger Futures framework.
My questions to the Chief Minister are: how will you ensure discussions and decisions about grog in our remote communities are undertaken in a careful and considered way? What are the minimum standards you have in mind for school attendance, community safety and wellbeing that should be established before opening the rivers of grog? Does the government really believe the establishment of drinking clubs will lessen the movement of people between the bush and town?
Not so. We are living in 2012. Territorians living in the bush will be increasingly mobile, living on or visiting our larger centres for education, to look for work, to access health services, and a myriad of other reasons. Indeed, the member for Fong Lim has argued in this parliament that he is in favour of urban drift. I quote:
The incoming government has said closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage is one of its highest priorities and, in working in this critical area, the government will consult with local people on what works for them. We agree. Indeed, working in partnership with local people has been a hallmark of our work in addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Our focus has been on consultation and discussion with local people about their priorities, ensuring the voiceless have a voice, and there is a balance to the loud voices and self-interest of any one group. More grog and more power to drinking clubs have not featured as a priority for the people we have been listening to. The key priorities brought to us have been:
healthier and safer families
more opportunity in education and training, and meaningful employment
to take firm action to turn around the shocking truth that Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory are being hospitalised for assault, with most assaults fuelled by alcohol at 80 times the rate of other women
to build on our achievements in leading the nation in closing the gap in Indigenous death rates.
Territory Labor’s focus is to work to ensure all our kids, no matter where they live, can wake up in the morning full of hope and excitement, proud of who they are, where they come from, with a purpose in life and with choices and opportunities before them. That has been, and will continue to be, a priority. Not more access to grog or supporting drinking clubs and a drinking culture which is central to the day-to-day life of the bush towns. We understand the pain the families feel when their loved ones leave home to drink and the real dangers associated with binge drinking and bush drinking camps. Promoting drinking clubs as a solution, with daily drinking as a lifestyle and a town’s social life built around the club, is not the answer.
The Little Children are Sacred report was clear on its conclusions on drinking habits and clubs. It found, based on evidence from around Australia as well as the Northern Territory, that, and I quote:
That is on page 167. Put simply, the board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children concluded that the lives of Aboriginal children are more important than the right to drink. We agree.
Our focus has been to work with local leaders, health professionals and other levels of government with the best available information to develop sound alcohol policies and programs, improving the lives of all Territorians. We are at a loss to understand the Country Liberals’ priority of more grog and drinking clubs ahead of education, health, jobs, housing, and essential services and infrastructure in our bush towns. We also reject the notion that tackling alcohol dependency and abuse is somehow sign of a nanny state. The compulsory wearing of seatbelts, pool fencing as a way to prevent child drowning, and a long history of government regulation of alcohol and other harmful substances, are not signs of a nanny state. They are evidence of a responsible government working for all its constituents.
I put these questions on behalf of concerned Territorians to the new government. Territorians are seeking an explanation of why you so foolishly dumped the Banned Drinker Register, the best tool police say they ever had in dealing with problem drinkers, before you had an alternative in place, and to make clear your intentions and timetable for developing drinking clubs and more grog, returning those rivers of grog to our bush communities.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The argument put by the Opposition Leader which we are required to respond to is weak, disingenuous and based on a false premise, added with deliberate misinterpretation for the sake of the argument. To put it frankly, if this was run in the wider community in the presence of thinking people, it would not have rated very highly at all as a convincing presentation.
I accept the new government has made a decision, taken a different path which, in its early stages, would cause some concern. That is understandable. However, there can be no doubt at all my government went to the election with a very clear promise to scrap the Banned Drinker Register. We have taken the steps to put that decision into force, but why did we make that decision? The reason was clear. The Banned Drinker Register was a failure. Violent assaults in the Northern Territory are up 5% on last year and increased 44% under the Opposition Leader’s time as Deputy Chief Minister. A total of 19 988 people were taken into protective custody during Labor’s last year in power. The Banned Drinker Register did not stop the supply of grog and the same offenders kept offending. The people who were drunk on our streets before the Banned Drinker Register were drunk on our streets after it.
Crime increased across the board under the Banned Drinker Register, as did alcohol involvement in crime. They are the facts contained in the crime statistics removed from view under the former Labor government to allow it to run an argument and con the Territory into believing the system was working. There was greater interest in the policy position of the former Labor government than giving people the dignity of facts and figures by which they could be judged. They chose to remove that and now run this spurious argument that it was a wonderful scheme. It was not ...
Ms Lawrie: Open your eyes!
Mr MILLS: Open your eyes. We now have people drinking all over the place and they are now seen by the Opposition Leader. Before they could not be seen, everything was fine, ‘This scheme is working very well. I have never seen drinkers outside the Territory parliament. I simply have not seen them, Julia’, but everyone says, ‘Gee whiz, they are out there, I have seen them’. I saw them there before, I see them there now. When I see them I say, ‘You should not be drinking. Now nick off or I will call the police’. I ring and I deal with it because I am facing up to reality, unlike the Opposition Leader. She will not face reality and lives in some fairy world trying to defend her own position.
Your position is not worth defending because there is a reality lived by Territorians and they should not be conned; they should be told the truth. When it comes to grabbing a word spoken by a number of police officers and running it as the strongest defence for the scheme which is so important to you, because it is very important to you to appear right, good, and true and the police had the best tool ever and it was given to them by the Labor Party. The horrible Country Liberals took it off them and now they are dreadfully exposed. If they had to choose between a scheme which did not work and 120 extra police, what tool do you think they would choose? We have put extra resources on the front line - proper policing on the front line.
If someone was under the influence of alcohol before your Banned Drinker Register, which did not work - and my colleague, the Attorney-General, will outline in excruciating detail the facts and figures in case you do not understand it does not work - whether they are on the Banned Drinker Register or not, a person under the influence of alcohol should not be served.
There will be some adjustment; I am not blind to that. I understand how societies work. I understand how human behaviour works. There is a scheme in place; people adjust to it. Who do you think adjusts to it? It is largely the people who do not have a problem with alcohol. However, the ones who have a problem and need for alcohol adjust to it by finding secondary supply. They will not be deterred by a scheme such as that. My colleague, the Attorney-General, will show you what happened. It had no effect on those who had a problem with alcohol. As noted in the Northern Territory News on 2 August 2012 - this was before the election when this glorious scheme was in place which fixed everything:
Ms Lawrie: For Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs.
Mr MILLS: I did not interrupt you.
That is an NT News report before the election when this scheme was in operation. The top four protective custody clients were on the Banned Drinker Register and yet were taken into protective custody 117 times, 97 times, 88 times, and 74 times respectively. You told us, ‘They are off tap. Three times in six months they are out of circulation. They are going to this other scheme.’ What about this poor bloke - 117 times? What happened? He was on the Banned Drinker Register. The person taken into protective custody 117 times in just 12 months was still able to access alcohol. That is the point. This person was obviously on the Banned Drinker Register but, nevertheless, continued to access alcohol. Did the scheme work? Obviously, glaringly, no. This was noted in the NT News on 3 August 2012:
Of course it denied it. It defends its own position because that is more important than the truth:
That is called the secondary supply issue. The people with the problem still had access to alcohol. They will find a way. Where there is a will, there is a way. It proves it once again. The crime statistics also confirm that. Further in the same issue:
Flawed system! It was good for presentation purposes, created the desired effect and, in opposition, you can milk it for a while; however, the truth will dawn on people, and the truth will win out in the end.
On 30 August 2012, the Director of Licensing stopped the requirement for licensees to scan IDs. We said in the lead-up to the election we would do it and we did it.
If we did not do what we said we would, what do you think one of the first questions from the Opposition Leader would have been today? ‘You said you were going to do it but you did not do it. When are you going to do it?’ We did what we said we would.
In the coming year, I plan to introduce legislation which will formally repeal the mechanics behind the scheme and will progress the government’s commitment to mandatory rehabilitation legislation for habitual drunks. That is currently being worked on. Drunks will be taken off the streets and forced to undertake rehabilitation before being released back into the community. Anyone taken into protective custody three times within six months for being drunk will be on a compulsory court order. If the drunks breach the court order they are forced into mandatory rehabilitation.
We will not return to a scheme which completely failed to reduce crime and was absolutely ineffective. We are working on this; it is a highest priority and we will deliver as we said we would.
When it goes to the issue you have spent a fair bit of time on, Opposition Leader, speaking about - obviously not reading what has been reported on this matter - our plan to open up the rivers of grog for the communities is absolute nonsense; there is nothing further from the truth. The reality in all this discussion, and also laced through the Opposition Leader’s comments, is this paternalistic approach where you deny the people who are the subject of many of our conversations and discussions about alcohol the opportunity to be involved in the discussion. That is all this is about. It is giving local people, in this case Aboriginal people, the opportunity to talk about things such as how a good shire scheme would look from their perspective. ‘Guide us through this and we will work with you to come up with a scheme for local decision-making that is of benefit to you and we will work with you on that.’
‘What is a good way of operating schools in your community?’ We will put in a system where we will involve people in that discussion rather than decide for them, implement that, and then resource it and defend your idea and your policy position.
There are a number of other approaches we would take. Brought into this discussion was grog. Everyone talks about the problem of grog; however, what has been missed is the respectful discussion with communities who want to be involved in an adult conversation. The paternalistic approach has removed the dignity from local communities to be involved in that discussion if they so choose.
To conclude that having that discussion immediately pushes you to the point where they are going to open the floodgates to alcohol is very disrespectful to the people involved in the discussion. It also betrays the lack of real care and understanding of the people in these communities. They want to be involved in this. They want to talk about these matters and to hold up Aboriginal women to say the men are going to decide for them - those Aboriginal women need to be speaking. They speak loud and clear and should be heard. So should the women who have lost their loved ones in town or on the roads. They need to be heard as well. So do the men who are off the grog and want to explain their position. So too, the men who want to bring their community together want to be heard; let them all speak.
To conclude it would be a swift discussion with the intent - this also betrays the attitude of the former government. You think you will go into a consultation process with people and you have already determined the outcome. That shows you know best and have no real regard for the conversation or the different voices in the debate. I have visited many communities that would not mind being involved in that discussion, to allow that community to start to function and process important and complex matters such as alcohol.
Alcohol is just a topic. The decision-making process must involve local people. I expect this would take quite some time because a great deal of rebuilding needs to occur to provide the confidence that these conversations are real. I recently had a meeting at Maningrida where they welcomed this approach and an acceptance of the approach was agreed to and to let it take time; there is no rush. That was underlining this whole discussion and it was not about alcohol, it was about allowing voices to be heard. Those who work with Aboriginal people know they may take some time. The important thing is the quality of the journey and discussion. That is what we are talking about. Obviously, that point is completely missed by the Opposition Leader, either by intent, or her inability to grasp those subtle but important aspects of a way forward by treating people properly, engaging with them respectfully, and allowing time for these things to unfold. That is what it is about.
To capture this and try to run some argument that it is about opening up the rivers of grog is inconsistent with everything said by the new government while in opposition. It shows the Opposition Leader will craft, use, and appropriate any material, twist it in whichever way suits, and run an argument to advance her own position while ignoring reality. In the Twelfth Assembly it will probably not take too long before the truth surfaces and people start to grow tired of this. You have to have a little more substance than we have seen tonight - a mixture of emotion and false allegations based on false premises. You are building the idea that there has been monumental change and now people are running the gauntlet. They cannot go into the shop because it is mayhem. The Attorney-General will outline some of the excruciating facts which were callously and arrogantly removed from circulation by the previous government, and which we have given people the courtesy of looking at so they can see what is really happening. This is a silly motion; it should be rejected completely.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, while it is always good to hear from the Chief Minister, I was hoping the Alcohol Policy minister might speak first because the Chief Minister scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, the Attorney-General is in charge of the habitual drunks legislation, the Treasurer is negotiating alcohol reforms in Alice Springs, the minister is in charge of licensing, so I am unsure what the Alcohol Policy minister does. I look forward to hearing from the Alcohol Policy minister next. I am sure he will make an interesting contribution to the debate. The Alcohol Policy minister might be responsible for making inflammatory comments which allow other ministers to come in behind him and seem a little more reasonable. We can always rely on the member for Fong Lim for an interesting comment or two.
Mr Mills: You are revealing your political tactic.
Mr GUNNER: I am revealing a political tactic by saying I would like to hear from the Alcohol Policy minister? I am not sure if that is quite revelatory; however, it will be interesting to hear from the member for Fong Lim. I am sure we will hear from him soon.
In Fannie Bay, as I am sure everyone in this Chamber is aware, we have a number of hot spots. As local member from 2008, I thought it was really important to establish relationships with people who lived in and around the hot spots in my electorate. As a local member, you have to deal with the realities; you cannot walk away from them. You will always be held to account for them. I thought it was important to develop a relationship with people who had to live with the problem of hot spots day to day. When you are doorknocking someone in Westralia Street you do not ignore the park opposite the shops, you ask them, ‘How is it going? What is it like at the moment? What problems are you experiencing? I would love to hear from you any time you have problems. I always want to know what is going on. The lines of communication are open, talk to me.’
You have really good lines of communication with people who live in and around these hot spots. The communication from all of them this year is they have seen a positive change in the parks and around the shopping centres. That feedback came through loud and clear from people living next to the Westralia Street park, and from people living in and around the corner of Parap Road and the Stuart Highway - that has been a terrible corner. We have had to do significant work through Parap Road to get on top of it. It is more than the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register is one element in a range of things, but there have been positive changes through the area and the Banned Drinker Register has been part of it. We have seen positive changes through that area.
The Fannie Bay shops have seen positive changes. There were people in business who you could say were not early believers in the Banned Drinker Register and that was fine. However, they became converts and one was Manuel Kotis from Fannie Bay shops. He asked, ‘What are you doing to my shop? What are you putting in? How long do I have to deal with this? What is it going to be like?’ However, he then saw the change in customers coming into the shop and the change in who was camping in the park outside his shop. He saw a real change and knew it was as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. He said, ‘This is working’ and he was a convert. He was not an early believer, but he saw it working and saw the outcome. He said that as soon as it was scrapped he saw people back in his shop he had not seen for six or 12 months buying alcohol again. He had not seen them. They were not around, not in the parks, but they were back the minute the Banned Drinking Register was scrapped. All of the traders in and around Fannie Bay shops make the same comments. This has happened in other places around my area; however, at Fannie Bay the traders are prepared to be vocal and most have spoken to the media sharing their concerns and what they have experienced with others.
Manuel, and other traders at Fannie Bay, said to me, ‘We are hitting an all time low. We are coming off a period where the Banned Drinker Register was working, things were good, the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped and things are now getting bad and we are really quite concerned.’
I did an interview at the Fannie Bay shops with Captain Seafood, Mr Tim Copping, where we said since scrapping the Banned Drinking Register the hot spot has become hotter. The traders have said the nature and behaviour of the people at Fannie Bay shops is worse than it was. We were seeing a positive change under the Banned Drinker Register, it was scrapped and, suddenly, bang, it is worse. We did some media and, a couple of weeks later, had the unfortunate incident at the Fannie Bay shops with Liam, the young shopkeeper who was bashed. I visited Manuel. I know the Chief Minister visited him as well, and credit to him for that. Manuel has said repeatedly that as soon as the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped things became worse. Those people who bashed Liam at about 4.30 pm came back at 9 pm drunk. Police had not found them yet - that is five-and-a-half hours - they returned to carry on some more at the loading dock out the back.
This is what we are now working with. These people have been running these shops for - Tim has been there for about 20 years, Manuel has been there forever - they are institutions. They have a good corporate history of the area. They say we reached an all time good spot with the Banned Drinker Register and as soon as it was scrapped it became really bad. These people have decades of experience at the shops and parks and say as soon as the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped there were significant problems because the Banned Drinker Register made a positive change.
It was not a cure-all, it is not the silver bullet, but it made a difference and that is important. People were noticing there, along Parap Road and in Stuart Park, an outcome from the Banned Drinker Register. As soon as it was scrapped they saw an immediate change in the number of people in the parks and the aggression.
In this House it strikes you as strange sometimes how people can look at the same things with a different set of eyes. However, there is clearly no doubt we disagree on the Banned Drinker Register. We disagree 100% on the effect it was having and where it was going. One thing people have asked me is, ‘Why scrap it before bringing in other plans?’ It does not make sense to them to scrap something before the government’s plans were ready. It defies common sense. Why do that?
I will go back to Manuel, who said, ‘What annoys me most since the Banned Drinker Register has been removed is the new government has done nothing to replace it’. It does not get it especially when, in the 100-day action plan on the front page, it said it would immediately remove problem drunks from the street. There is expectation the Country Liberals were going to deliver - going to do something, but all it has done …
Mr Elferink: One-hundred-and-twenty extra police.
Mr GUNNER: … is scrap the Banned Drinker Register.
The member for Port Darwin mentions 120 extra cops. Our understanding is that 94 are the ones to be delivered through our agreement with the federal police. There has to be 120 on top of that. You cannot just take the 94 the feds are paying for - that is a nice saving on a political promise. People are expecting the Country Liberals to do something because it said it would. You said you would immediately remove all the problem drunks from the streets - front page of the 100-day action plan.
I will be interested to hear the member for Fong Lim explain how they will do that. On our side, we have some interest around your plans and how you will carry them out. It is not clear yet exactly how you are going to introduce your plans.
It was interesting to hear what the member for Sanderson said about the plans: if you choose not to undertake the voluntary program you will be taken to a mandatory rehabilitation facility.
I remember thinking at the time, ‘That sounds interesting’. If you choose not to do it, you will be made to do it. I do not understand where the word ‘voluntary’ fits in that. How do you make someone go? There has to be a trigger. There has to be something saying it is mandatory. Is that criminalisation? We are quite interested to see …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: … if the Country Liberals are going to recriminalise drunkenness. The Attorney-General will speak later and I am interested to hear what he has to say about the government’s plans. We heard from him after the election where he was asked directly, ‘It sounds to me like you are recriminalising drunkenness’. The Attorney-General said, ‘Some people would say that, perhaps that is true, because there will be a component of the criminal justice system involved in this’. The CLP is looking to recriminalise drunkenness. If you are a drunk, you are a criminal.
It is going to be fascinating to see how the government will do that. We are looking forward to the detail of the legislation on criminalising drunkenness and mandatory rehabilitation. We are curious as to how you will do that because the experts are saying it does not work.
John Boffa said:
The experts are saying it will not work.
I am interested to hear how the CLP will recriminalise drunkenness and how it will work. What expert advice does the government have to say this will work? The government was recently asked where the expert advice was coming from and how it would work. Is it an evidenced-based approach? The Attorney-General said, the evidence he has came from years of being a general duties police officer. Fair enough, everyone has personal experiences they bring to the table.
The reporter asked if there was any scientific or industry evidence, ‘This is, essentially, something we are doing from the ground up’. The government is making it up as it goes along based on the experiences of the Attorney-General as a general duties police officer. I respect the work of general duties police officers. I know quite a few of them and have had much to do with them over the last four years because I have many hot spots in my electorate. They all say they like the Banned Drinker Register you scrapped.
Apparently, the experience of being a general duties police officer is enough to work out how to recriminalise drunkenness and make a mandatory rehabilitation plan work, even though the experts say it will not. I am interested to hear how the Country Liberals are going to recriminalise drunkenness. It is going to be very interesting to hear from the Attorney-General and the member for Fong Lim, the Alcohol Policy minister, on how these will work.
I want to thank the member for Fong Lim, the Alcohol Policy minister, because when I requested a briefing on what the Alcohol Policy minister does, to his credit, he rang me straightaway and said, ‘We are onto it; we are happy to do it. I am currently working with the department on a few things and I’ll get back to you soon’.
I thank the Alcohol Policy minister for that. It is nice to receive a phone call from a minister saying, ‘I have your request for a briefing and am happy to oblige. I have to do a few things with the department first.’ That is fair enough because you have a big agenda and I am interested to see what the Alcohol Policy minister has to do with it. What things are being left to you? What is within your ambit? That is a serious question. I want to know what the Alcohol Policy minister is doing while the Chief Minister scraps the Banned Drinker Register.
The Attorney-General is in charge of the habitual drunks legislation, the Treasurer is negotiating alcohol reforms in Alice Springs, and the Business minister is in charge of licensing. I am interested to hear from the Alcohol Policy minister about how he will deal with problem drunks because the front page of the action plan says they will be dealt with immediately. The government seems to have redefined ‘immediately’ because we are a fair way into the term in relation to ‘immediately’. I am interested to know how the Alcohol Policy minister is going to deliver the reforms.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution. I am surprised he does not know a great deal about this policy because I stood on at least three occasions in this House prior to the election and described in some detail what was in my mind’s eye, and the mind’s eye of the then opposition members as to how this would work. I will get to that in due course.
Let us deal with the first assertion being woven into this discussion by the opposition and implied in the terms of the motion: the BDR did its job. No, it did not. It did not come close. Listen to the member for Nelson’s observations. He says, ‘We want to trial it for two or three years to see if it works’. You do not have to trial it for two or three years, you compare one year with the next.
In the financial year 2010-11, the financial year prior to the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register, there were 20 354 protective custody apprehensions in the Northern Territory. In the year following, the 2011-12 financial year, that number was 19 988. The difference between the two years was a fall in apprehensions of 366 Territory-wide. To put that in context, from a statistical point of view there is no measurable significant difference.
The BDR, after coming into operation, and the $18m plan the previous government applied to its alcohol policy, was able to reduce protective custody apprehensions by 366. Arithmetic off the top of my head, but for every one less apprehension across the Territory the government expended $50 000. That is not a successful program by any measure.
Moreover, if you believed the system in place was working, it would not have been possible for a person who had been apprehended three times in three months to obtain liquor. Why is it - this was pointed out by the Chief Minister - the platinum member of the frequent flyer club was apprehended 117 times in the year the BDR operated? It means, by the government’s rules, that person would have been on the Banned Drinker Register 114 times during that year. This means the person was able to access alcohol with such frequency they presented themselves as being so drunk the police had to take them into custody and they were unable to acquire alcohol once every three days. That is not evidence of a system working. Many people on the Banned Drinker Register were accessing alcohol.
I remember the debate when the previous government wanted to introduce it in this House. We, on our side of the house, said, ‘The problem is no consequence flows from being on the Banned Drinker Register’. If you breach your banning order and get picked up again you get another banning order and, in case you are dragged in again, you get another banning order. This person will have received 114 banning orders. He was clearly, deeply affected by these banning orders. It was just amazing.
The next three - I heard the Chief Minister give these statistics - 97 apprehensions, 88 apprehensions and 74 apprehensions. Collectively, 376 apprehensions amongst four people and 364 would have been whilst these people were subject to banning orders. Four individuals managed to get so drunk so often they were picked up 364 times whilst they were on the Banned Drinker Register which means between four people they managed to get arrested every day of one year whilst on the Banned Drinker Register.
Mr Tollner: What was the consequence? Did you fix them after all that?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. The consequence was exactly what we warned when this legislation was introduced. They would receive another banning order, and another banning order. Oh, my God, they are drunk! Give them another banning order, quick!
Then the previous government has the audacity to come into this House saying the Banned Drinker Register worked. It did not work; it was an abject failure. It was a failure across the whole of the Northern Territory. If you look at the number of people taken into custody for the one year the register was in operation, it did not work – 366 fewer apprehensions?
The astonishing thing is if we take the first 69 frequent flyers and pull them out of commission for that one year, you would have 2300 fewer apprehensions because that is what the numbers showed. This is the evidence-based approach. Apparently, I have an absence of evidence and, therefore, I must suddenly become inert because I do not have any evidence or a doctor to back me up. Here is a bit of rocket science for you guys: if you take these people out of commission and place them into some form of restraint, mandatory rehabilitation, whatever you want to call it, whilst they are not being apprehended because they are being kept in some form of restraint - custody if you like - they will not be picked up.
So, four individuals picked up every day for one year, if you had them out of custody for three months, those four individuals would not be picked up one day for every three months. I do not need a doctor to tell me a person restrained from doing something with a consequence attached to their conduct will not commit the offence or become drunk. If we have these people out of commission and, in the process, trying to bring some change to their lives, involving ourselves rather than some passive process, saying to these people, ‘You are responsible; we are going to take you out of circulation and you are responsible’ then that is what we are planning to do.
I listened to the member for Nelson today. This is one component of the policy we have seriously considered but I have some concerns about it. The member for Nelson says he does not like criminalising it, which means these people will have to go through the court system, but he then says, ‘Look just treat these people as though they are sick. Pull them off the street and whack them into mandatory rehabilitation’, and I support that.
That is an astonishing way to proceed. I baulked at that when I originally thought about this policy a number of years ago because there is a problem with the state randomly taking people off the street and holding them in custody for three months without some form of judicial oversight. The reason our policy involves the courts is we are inviting judicial oversight of the process rather than simply pulling people off the street.
If we were able to convince the community at large that we could proceed with a mental health response where we could arbitrarily take people off the streets without reference to any form of judicial oversight that, perhaps, is something we would examine. However, I am concerned about habeas corpus and other trivialities of that nature. The policy the previous government tried to introduce did everything except the one thing it had to do: make the drinkers who continually appear, responsible for their actions. It made the community responsible, it made society responsible, but it did not say to the drinkers sitting in the park drunk that they are responsible for their actions. That is anathema to the members opposite, because it does not accord with the philosophy that you can manipulate society to engineer a result in the handful of a few.
I do not believe you can. It has been tried again and again, but I have seen no example where mass movement by government to target a handful of individuals has achieved the outcome it sought. I continue to argue for a process which invites judicial oversight. This is why, as I explained in the past, the thrust of the policy - and the details have to be bedded down - is once every six months, perhaps three months, but six months is the figure we used - if you are picked up in that period three times for being drunk, like the previous government’s policy - I believe it took this part from our policy because ours was written about eight years ago - you then come before a tribunal which will give you a pretty straightforward order. It will probably say, ‘Do not turn up drunk again’.
I do not want to live in a society where government polices whether people can get drunk or not. People can get drunk in their back yard, their home, wherever; that is their business. When that drunkenness has a negative effect on the community as a whole we are interested in holding those people responsible. The order will say something like, ‘Do not turn up in public drunk’. If a person says, ‘Wow, that is a pretty serious order, I am going to comply with it’ and they are not drunk in public again, problem solved. They do not come into contact with the system we are describing.
If, however, they do, and I suspect the majority of these people, particularly the frequent flyers I have referred to, continue to turn up as public drunks, they are committing an offence which means they go to court - this is where the judicial oversight part comes - where they are charged with a criminal offence. That is the criminalisation component. I am using the criminal justice system as a vehicle to get judicial oversight into a system where we take people off the streets with a view to a health outcome. It is a hybrid and I have never hidden that.
The member for Fannie Bay says we are criminalising public drunkenness. Okay, that is not the issue. These people are so seriously sick the last thing they are going to worry about is some trivial offence. However, it invites judicial oversight so the court gets to determine whether or not those people have committed an offence this parliament describes. If the court determines that is the case, then the court determines a mandated sentence whereby you will spend three months in a mandatory rehabilitation facility yet to be built, that is true.
Once inside that facility we have them in a controlled environment where we can, hopefully, bring about some changes. We do not guarantee that; there may be no ‘road to Damascus’ conversion. However, whilst these people are in these facilities they are not at the Fannie Bay shops, not in parks and gardens in Darwin, Alice Springs or wherever they are turning up and being nuisance drunks.
If we only collect the first 70, we will remove 2300 arrests - 14% of the people currently being apprehended by taking 70 people into custody. Let us say we introduce this and do it on the previous government’s plan of three times in three months - that is the yardstick - we will end up with perhaps 600 or 700 in custody. If we can remove the top 600 people who go through this system on a regular basis, we will slash the number of public apprehensions. I do not need a doctor of philosophy or medicine to tell me if you have the vast bulk of frequent flyers out of circulation they are not in circulation. It is common sense; you do not need a doctorate to figure that out.
Once you have these people in an environment where you can bring something to bear on them regarding corrective behaviour you may have some success. However, expecting them to clutch a banned drinker notice under the BDR and, through their alcohol-fogged haze, to suddenly say, ‘I will take this seriously’ is nonsense. That is where the BDR truly failed. We have been advocating, and I have explained in this House time and time again, this is about removing people - taking them out of circulation.
If you want to see whether this system works, look at assault rates and the presentations at Alice Springs and Darwin emergency sections. You will see a fast fall in presentations. I expect to see a change in the homicide rate because so many are the product of drunks in our parks and gardens stabbing each other. I expect to see a fall in the number of offence rates directly related to taking these people out of circulation. That is the plan, has always been, and has been articulated time and time again. However, it is not a promise to change the world based on the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register did not work. The previous government knew it because it was targeted at habitual drunks. When it realised it would only get about 800 or so, it started to expand it to domestic violence and offences relating to drink-drivers. The courts will deal with people who commit acts of domestic violence and drink-drivers for the offences they commit.
Our policy is not targeted at drink-drivers, people who go to the pubs, people whose eyes are too close together, or whether or not they have committed acts of domestic violence. Our policy is targeted specifically at those chronic alcoholics who, time and time again, come before the police as protective custody cases. That is the intention of the policy. People who are chronic alcoholics are, essentially, drug addicts. If you see a drunk sitting in a park clutching a little brown paper bag and a sherry bottle, they are no different to a heroin addict sitting in a park finishing shooting up. They live the same dreadful, despicable, disgusting lives.
We intend not to pander to these people saying, ‘Here is a banning notice, do not do it again’, because these people are true addicts and will go to any length to obtain their source of addiction. For that reason, the Banned Drinker Register did not work. Do you reckon they really cared one iota that they were on a Banned Drinker Register? Clearly they did not, and were able to source the liquor again and again.
That is why we will introduce a policy which will remove these people from circulation and have a dual advantage. One, it will have the law and order advantage because people will start to see less and less of these people in the parks and gardens. The second advantage is we will have these people in an environment where we can give some form of treatment to them. The rest of the community, those people who do not turn up drunk regularly in police cells, will then be able to get on with their lives, far less molested than otherwise would be the case, Banned Drinker Register or not.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, who has spoken to it. I am a keen supporter of the reforms of the previous government because I have faith in the model of that system - by reducing supply of alcohol to problem drinkers you will see a reduction in the terrible things that go with problem drinking - antisocial behaviour and the flow-on of all those things.
The reason I am such a strong supporter and believer in that is, having lived in northeast Arnhem Land for more than 20 years and having seen, from a grassroots level, the introduction of an alcohol strategy that has delivered such good results, delivered real change, and will continue to do so because, thankfully, it has not impacted – well, it has to a slight degree by the removal of the Banned Drinker Register - but it is a strong story, a positive story, because it is a system which has not come because government imposed it upon people, but because people at a grassroots level demanded it.
If you look to the history of the Gove region with the introduction of bauxite mining or exploration that began in the 1960s, and certainly at the Yirrkala mission homelands at that stage, the homelands movement had not been established so there was quite a concentration of people at Yirrkala. It is a well-known fact that the Yirrkala people challenged the Gove joint venture to operate the Gove bauxite mine and refinery and to build a township. It was the first land rights case heard in an Australian court and, to the devastation of those traditional owners, they lost the case. However, it was what started land rights in Australia, and, we know, much positive change after that.
What is lesser known is that the next challenge the traditional owners put through a court of law was to the availability of alcohol on the Gove Peninsula. With survey camps having been set up for mineral exploration, followed by people moving there during the construction phase, came canteens and alcohol. Traditional owners challenged that and were devastated to have lost that case as well. They could see how serious and deadly alcohol was for their people.
The local alcohol management plan has quite a story to it. It came about in November 2004. I am sure it was starting well before that, but official paperwork started to appear around that time.
I have spoken about this letter in the House before. It is a very powerful letter written and signed by three strong Marika women, Rirratjingu women, one of whom has since passed away, the late Dr Marika. I have no doubt their voices in this letter ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, can you move closer to the microphone? You are not being picked up properly. Speak straight into it.
Mr Tollner: You can slouch on the desk if you want.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, that is what you did. No problem, Madam Speaker.
I will read some extracts from this letter, written and signed by three strong Marika women from the Rirratjingu clan, speaking on behalf of the Mala leaders of the Gove Peninsula. Typically, because Dr Marika, well-known linguist had written this letter, she has done a paragraph in Yolngu Matha and then translated it into English. I will not read the Yolngu Matha, but I will read some of the paragraphs which put up the case, a case still current today.
This letter was written to a number of key stakeholders in Nhulunbuy. The one in my hand was addressed to Syd Stirling, the former member for Nhulunbuy, but a copy went to a number of key stakeholders in the community, including the mining company. It goes on to say:
One more paragraph, Madam Speaker.
That is the bulk of the letter. I have not read it in its entirety, but that, in essence, is what they were asking people. That letter was written in November 2004. Over the next few years, there was a huge consultation process. The Liquor Commission came onboard and, essentially, the upshot was that on 1 March 2008, just before I became a member of this House, Gove had an alcohol management plan in place whereby anyone in the Gove region who wanted to purchase takeaway liquor - we know 70% of all sales of liquor in the Northern Territory are from takeaway stores - had to have a permit. It was even stronger than the permit system which went with the Banned Drinker Register. Essentially, you had to apply for a permit.
The Mala leaders of the Laynhapuy Homelands had made a decision that none of the homelands people would be allowed to have permits. At Yirrkala, the elders looked at every application from community members and would make the decision as to whether or not they would allow a person to have access to alcohol.
Of course, people could still visit licensed premises and purchase a drink at the Golf Club, at the Arnhem Club, the front bar at the Walkabout Lodge, but the difference was it was in a controlled environment. When you have takeaway alcohol, it is in an uncontrolled environment. If people have access to a lot of money on a particular day, they can buy a large amount of alcohol, drink lots of alcohol and do terrible damage to themselves and others. In licensed premises you are in a controlled environment, and I know it is very challenging for the licensees in those environments, but it is and should be a controlled environment. It is a harm minimisation program.
This permit system came in on 1 March 2008. I should add, it was based upon the success of a very similar program which had been in place on Groote Eylandt. People who have been in the Territory for a number of years would know that some of the alcohol-related issues on Groote Eylandt were horrendous. I was talking about this recently with the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, the member at that time. They were dealing with terrible issues associated with alcohol abuse and had to remove health workers and school teachers from communities at Umbakumba and Angurugu. They had to fly broken bodies out - women who had been bashed, people who had been on the receiving end of terrible violence because of people under the influence of alcohol.
The reforms in this region came from the grassroots, from people who were looking to the government, and other stakeholders, for support. Since 2008, there are at least 5000 or 6000 takeaway liquor permit holders in Nhulunbuy. Development of the system involved many people. I take my hat off to the local licensees who put the greater good of the community above their own business interests. They recognised they did not want to have to deal with, on their premises and outside their premises, and around the shops, parks and gardens, what we see when people are terribly intoxicated and unable to look after themselves: litter, and all of those awful things that go with alcohol abuse.
I want to make the point, because we seemed to have a semantic argument with the new government when it brought this up pre-election, that it is not supply. We are not talking about supply issues; it is about demand. Without a doubt it is supply, and I am not the only person who thinks that. In Central Australia there is a strong advocacy group led by Dr John Boffa, which also talks about the need to limit supply.
I also want to add that problem drinkers in my region are not exclusively Indigenous people. A sizeable non-Indigenous community makes up about half my electorate, and we have some people who are high income earners. Access to alcohol, people not short of money - it is a problem for both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community.
With knowledge of the success of the program in northeast Arnhem Land, I could see why the alcohol reforms under the Enough is Enough banner were being developed by the Labor government to deal with alcohol. I could see how it worked in the northeast Arnhem region. It was not a silver bullet for dealing with issues, but I have just pulled up on my screen a report prepared by the Menzies School of Health. Presented in March 2011, it provides an evaluation of how successful those alcohol measures were in the Gove region. It also highlights, during the time it has been in place, dramatic reductions in the number of people taken into police custody, the number of people presented at Gove hospital and in the number of calls to St John Ambulance. Also, around our town we do not see many people who have passed out under the influence of alcohol. We do not see the awful fights around our town shops. Occasionally, we do, but for the most part it is a very different place.
I can understand why Labor introduced the alcohol reforms. If we consider that the cost associated with alcohol misuse annually is around $642m - this also is in a report from the Menzies School of Health - $642m a year in the Northern Territory of taxpayers’ money which could be much better spent on health and wellbeing programs, in our schools and public housing. That $642m associated with the cost of alcohol is four times the national average. It is small wonder the Labor government had to put in some tough reforms.
We know they were not entirely popular at the time. Nor were they in Nhulunbuy, and it seems to be around the fact you had to have ID. People in Nhulunbuy now think nothing of going to the bottle shop to buy wine or a carton of beer and producing their driver’s licence. It comes as second nature. If I want to enter the Arnhem Club in Nhulunbuy, I have to swipe my ID to get through the door. I should add, that system sees that licensing venue in Nhulunbuy having fewer issues than any other licensed premise in Nhulunbuy.
The CLP, prior to the election, ran the campaign that the whole problem with the Banned Drinker Register - apart from the fact it thought it did not work - is that it penalised people. People who are responsible drinkers had nothing to fear, and the only cost to responsible drinkers was a few moments of their time. There is no cost associated with having to present ID as you make a purchase.
We also need to remember that when the very tough decisions were made to introduce these alcohol reforms - and the BDR was just one part of it - a number of very strong voices came out in support of it. I am looking at some previous notes when I spoke on this subject in parliament. We had the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, AMSANT, come out in strong support; the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition led by Dr John Boffa come out in support; Amity was in support; the Northern Territory Council of Social Service came out in support. That is just a few, and the same organisations are now speaking out publicly against the BDR being axed by the CLP government.
As has already been said by my colleagues, there is nothing in its place. The Banned Drinker Register has stopped. There is no shortage of stories in the media from people saying how things have changed since the BDR has gone; they have noticed drunk people, an increase in violence, an increase in people hanging around or passed out around the local shops. This is because, for a system which was working but was never given the time to effectively measure how successful it was - this is why it is so important to work with evidence-based policy - there is nothing, at the moment, to fill that void.
There has been a lack of communication and confusion for people about what this means. People in Nhulunbuy have approached me, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, saying, ‘I cannot believe they scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. We can see it works here. Does it mean it is being axed here as well?’ There was no communication to assure people in Nhulunbuy our local alcohol management plan would remain in place. One of the disappointing aspects is those people living around the Nhulunbuy region who were on the BDR, who had not been able to access alcohol from a takeaway liquor shop in Gove since 2008 - once the BDR was gone they could come back into Darwin. That was a source of much anxiety for people in my region.
When we talk about nothing there to fill the void, there is the promise of prisons. However, we are unsure if they are prisons or rehabilitation centres. I followed closely, as we all do, what was being said in the media and what members of parliament were saying. On 22 September, our Alcohol Policy minister was interviewed on the ABC. It was a little like not wanting to use the word ‘prison’. I will read some of the extracts. The minister said:
Then the interviewer asked:
If I skip ahead, he said:
The interviewer said:
The interviewer said:
The minister replied:
There is avoidance of wanting to use the word ‘prison’. The Health minister sidestepped away from that because he clearly did not have an answer on how this is going to work. We know an habitual drunks policy has been developed but, as members on this side have asked: are these people sick or are they criminals? I am pleased the Health minister recognised, on ABC radio, he is talking about sick people; however, if we are talking about prisons or mandatory detention, who is in there with these people? Are we talking about corrections officers, alcohol and other drugs professionals or health professionals?
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Then we had another turn of events in what we are trying to do with problem drinkers. I have in front of me the editorial from yesterday’s NT News. The Chief Minister quoted from an article in the NT News in his contribution to this debate, and mentioned questions raised by the NT News around the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register. However, I thought yesterday’s editorial was a classic and I want to read part of it:
What is missing - perhaps it will come out in the habitual drunks policy or the more we hear from the Minister for Indigenous Advancement - is how the CLP government is proposing to fix the problems in the bush in this four-year term.
There are some big issues out there, but in filling the void in peoples’ lives - let us say they go through this mandatory rehabilitation for three months - the door is unlocked after three months and they have not had a drink. What are they going to? What is missing in peoples’ lives to drive them to this sort of addiction, substance abuse and a life of misery not only for themselves, but for others around them? That probably goes to the bigger part of what is missing in this policy. The policy cannot sit on its own. It has to be across whole-of-government dealing with some deeply entrenched social issues we see in our communities and around the Northern Territory. Unless we deal with them, the extracts from the letter I read at the start from strong women at Yirrkala - these women will be writing this type of letter again, only the next one will be coming from places like the Tiwi Islands and our remote communities because of the prospect of the return of alcohol where people have already said they do not want it. That is where this debate will be going.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her insightful approach to a complicated issue.
One of the first speeches I made when I came to parliament related to the fact I went to Daly River in 1970 - people might think the grog problem is new. At Daly River in 1970 there were two pubs. One was Robbie’s Sand Bar, which probably gives you a brief description of what it looked like, and one was Fairweather’s pub at Daly River. Domestic violence was not called that in those days, it was plain old violence. I was 19 and had come straight from middle class Melbourne. I turned up at Daly River to grow vegetables and look after boys in the dormitory. It was an eye opener for me to see a man leaning over a woman with a steel bar, to turn up on Easter Sunday - we were singing hymns outside the church - to see a woman with her skull split down the centre, covered in blood.
I have said this before and find it hard to say even today, out of 30 boys I looked after in the dormitory half died under the age of 21, all because of alcohol. Things have not changed, and governments have not had the guts to change things because they are too closely associated with the alcohol industry in Australia, let alone the Northern Territory.
The difficult problems are too difficult. There is too much political concern that decisions made will be unpopular. The Banned Drinker Register is a classic example of that. I said during the debate on the Banned Drinker Register I did not think it would work because second and third supply would be its downfall; however, if governments did not have the guts to do something, unpopular as things might be, those governments would be condemned for that. The previous government should have been given adequate time to prove if the Banned Drinker Register was going to be successful.
We need to look further back than the recent debate on the Banned Drinker Register. I have listened to Central Australian politicians, and the member for Katherine, berating the previous government for the swipe card system in Alice Springs, Katherine and Nhulunbuy when people in Darwin did not have it. One can only presume the pressure on the previous government that all things were not equal in the Northern Territory got to it and it decided to apply it to the Darwin region and the rest of the Territory.
We have given it one year’s notice and the Attorney-General has shown us statistics which seem to have only come out after the decision was made - that is an aside. I also make the point, and have heard it mentioned several times, the government accused the previous government of hiding the statistics.
I want to remind the government that the CLP was part of the Council of Territory Cooperation when a motion was moved to lengthen the time between reporting statistics in relation to crime. In fact, it was Recommendation 5, which said the CTC recommends the minimum reporting time for crime statistics be reviewed to reduce the volatility in the numbers, especially when they are small, to assist in setting policy responses by government.
They were saying, statistically, figures were being distorted because in some places in the Northern Territory the numbers were so small you could make anything out of a change from month to month. I am unsure the previous government necessarily hid statistics. It agreed to the recommendations of that CTC report. That is why there was a change in the reporting of stats, which was supported by all sides of parliament.
In relation to the Banned Drinker Register, the government said, ‘that is it’, all over the Northern Territory. The member for Nhulunbuy has hit the nail on the head. Did anyone in government look at whether it was working in other communities? Nhulunbuy is a fairly closed community; everyone probably knows one another. Did it work well there? Did anyone do any research to see whether it was working in different locations? No, they made a decision based on what they thought one year’s statistics, mainly in the Darwin region, would prove - that it was not working. The government had made up its mind not because of stats, but because it was not politically popular. That is the real reason it was dropped.
I live right next to the pub, so I have a fair indication of what people think. Many people were quite surprised, after getting used to the swipe card system - many did not like it - the government did not let it run for longer. The longer you run a trial, the more chance you have of looking at trends. Twelve months in the Darwin region is not long considering how long it was running in Alice Springs. It had been running there for quite some time. How long has it been running in Nhulunbuy?
A member: Four-and-a-half years.
Mr WOOD: Did anyone see if it was effective in Nhulunbuy? If it was, would it not be good sense to keep it there? If the Banned Drinker ...
Mr Tollner: You heard from the member it was their alcohol management plan that worked.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Tollner: Listen to what she had to say.
Mr WOOD: Did you check to see whether it was effective in Nhulunbuy? You do not know.
The government has scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, and I had my doubts about it operating, but I would have liked longer term statistics to see if that was the case. The question now is: are those people still banned drinkers? If they are, how does someone know they are banned? Do you put photos on a wall in the pub and check people as they come in? What happens to banned drinkers today? I am asking some practical questions. Does the SMART Court still ban drinkers - the tribunal? What happens? Do those things still operate?
Mr Tollner: The point is, no drinker was banned.
Mr WOOD: You can answer later; I am asking those questions. What are the practical implications of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register and still having banned drinkers? Is there any point? I am simply saying there are some practical issues and it would be great to hear the government say, ‘We have scrapped it and these are the effects of the scrapping’.
In relation to the government’s preferred alternative to the Banned Drinker Register, mandatory rehabilitation, it was obvious the member for Port Darwin did not quite pick up on what I was talking about.
The problem I have with mandatory rehabilitation is you need reasons to put people in mandatory rehabilitation. From my point of view, it is a mixture of compassion and public safety.
If one looks at the Disability Services Act, one can see it is built into this type of service. I am not asking for people to be just taken off the street. If people have gone through the revolving door several times we should be looking at the Disability Services Act as a guide to what we might be able to do. For instance, this is the principle for treatment and care under the Disability Services Act:
There is another clause relating more to cognitive disability, which this is all about.
If you go further, it talks about the meaning of criteria for involuntary treatment and care. It says:
In this case, it says if the person has a complex cognitive impairment. It goes on to say:
(d) the person is engaging in repetitive conduct of high risk behaviour likely to cause harm to himself or herself or to someone else; and.
(e) unless the person receives treatment and care in a secure care facility, the person:
(iii) is likely to suffer serious mental or physical deterioration; and
(f) the person has the capacity to benefit from goal-orientated therapeutic services in a secure care facility; and
(g) the person can participate in treatment and care in a secure care facility; and
(h) there is no less restrictive way of ensuring the person receives the treatment and care.
Number 6 – Meaning of treatment plan under Part 3 says:
(1) A treatment plan for a person with a disability is a document prepared by the CEO stating the services proposed to be provided for the person’s treatment and care on being admitted to a secure care centre.
The treatment plan has to go to a CEO and a decision is made as to whether that person should be admitted. It is not a case of criminalising anyone. It is saying this person has some problems and, if you go down the path of the Disability Services Act, you see there is compassion, but there is also a belief this person is sometimes a risk to society. If you read the act, it has all the qualifications and safeguards in it. This would be the better model than the prison system because you are then mixing people up who should not be in that system unless they have caused a violent act, injured someone or committed murder.
However, if it is just picking up people because they have been through the revolving door several times, you should not be using the correctional services process at all. This is basically saying being drunk is now a criminal offence. It might be the long way to get there, but it is one of the issues.
Going back to the Banned Drinker Register, we have spoken about statistical proof. That is fine, but did anyone talk to people like the member for Fannie Bay mentioned, like the letter in today’s paper which said:
Has the government bothered to ask shopkeepers or landowners in areas which had persistent problems in relation to antisocial behaviour? You can deal with the statistics, but you also need to have a look for yourself. People were saying, anecdotally, it was working. It might not have got people off the grog, but it might have moved them from places they knew they were not going to get grog - to another park - and cause fewer problems. Did anyone check that? Did anyone ask people if they noticed a change after it had been in for 12 months?
I have not heard anybody say that is the case; it has been done purely on statistics from the Attorney-General. Whilst that might indicate over 12 months there was not much success, there may have been other ways this could have been evaluated besides the statistical approach.
The other issue discussed as part of the solution is the possible reintroduction into some communities of social clubs. I do not know where the idea of wet canteens came from; it is a Queensland term, perhaps a southern Territory term. It was always social clubs up our way. I do not have a philosophical disagreement with the idea of social clubs. Daly River had a social club. Br Howley set one up. In fact, to get people out of Fairweather’s pub he used to get invalid port - it caused invalidity – put it in the fridge to make it as cold as possible. Then, because that was one of the favourite drinks, he would get the men to sit around the community and drink it slowly, looking at it as a way of relaxing after a day’s work. Unfortunately, it did not work because down the road was the pub, and the only reason they really wanted to drink was to get drunk.
There have been attempts to make social clubs work. As far as I know, the social club at Daly River has finished because the community bought the pub. I was talking to Miriam Rose today about the pub and she said the problems are still there. They own the pub and still have problems.
We have been talking about these problems ever since I came to the Territory, so these problems have been going for 40-odd years. I have not seen any great changes. People have tried to bring in change. Many people have died; generations of young men especially, and women too.
Even though we say women are affected by abuse from men affected by alcohol through domestic violence, quite a few women are also affected by alcohol. You do not have to go far in this town to see that. The crying shame is no matter whether they are black or white, it is a waste of humanity. I saw people last night who have obviously had a hard time - the swollen eyebrows, the nose is not straight. You can see they are not that old but they are old, and their lives are disappearing. You wonder where and how you can turn these things around.
Social clubs, in theory, might be all right. Northern Territory senator, Nigel Scullion, does not agree. Marcia Langton, who a number of our Aboriginal members have thanked for her support, does not agree. Noel Pearson, who a number of new members have said is a great bloke, does not agree. Professor Peter d’Abbs, who has been around an awful long time, has also said we will have problems if we introduce alcohol into some of the communities.
I listened to the Chief Minister. He said the government is not going to rush this; it will be looked at over a long period of time.
Paul Toohey, who has been around a fair while in the Territory, has some interesting statements in an article. He is referring to the Chief Minister and Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland, and I quote:
They say the communities should decide - embrace the problem.
I agree with that because …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Paul Toohey raises an important issue. I have lived on Aboriginal communities and know powerful lobby groups, powerful people, can influence the way things happen. I have seen it in voting in local government, and I have seen it in other areas. I have seen it within my wife’s family, where the powerful, because they are powerful, are able to sway the opinions of others. I am sure the member for Daly would have seen it from time to time. Some people are able to win the argument not based on whether it is popular or logical, but because they have another reason. In this case, what Paul Toohey is saying is to lift the restrictions.
I hear our new members talking about the rights of Aboriginal people to have a greater say in the running of their communities, which is fine. However, as Paul Toohey said, you would have to ensure, when people are making decisions about whether there should be social clubs on their communities, much groundwork is done to ensure people are fully informed and not bullied or pressured into voting a certain way so any decision made was fair and reasonable.
The other community I worked in for quite some time was Bathurst Island. I went there in 1974; there was a club there then. They had a four can limit, which might have gone up to six cans. You might think that is a controlled social club; however, there were ways to get more than four or six cans of beers. You play cards and somebody goes home with 24 cans of beer and causes havoc. Many times people have said, ‘Let’s have a controlled drinking outlet in a community’. However, there are some clever people who know ways around it.
I asked Miriam-Rose today, ‘What happens? Are people banned from the Daly River pub?’ She said, ‘Yes, we can ban them, but then they hop in their car and one hour away is the Adelaide River Inn’. It is not easy; this is not a simple thing.
One of the problems is our society is too easy on the alcohol industry. When Ian Tuxworth was Chief Minister I was at Bathurst Island. I asked him to give us some money for anti-alcohol advertising. He gave us $3000 and we put together two video tapes. If I could find them they would be interesting. One had a bit of swearing because there were some blokes on the Vic Hotel balcony carrying on like they were all drunk, and a few words were said. At the time, Channel 8 would not play it because it said the words were offensive. I thought, ‘I hear worse on the movies; maybe there is pressure. They might be a bit scared to upset Swan or VB’. We made another video with a gentleman with a big stomach which was wobbling, making him sound as if he was unhealthy from drinking too much beer. They both played on television for a short period of time.
The reason we tried to do something that way was because we felt the influence of alcohol advertising, especially in Aboriginal communities, had a big influence on what Aboriginal people saw as the norm for drinking.
You might remember the XXXX advertisements. They go down the beach in a vehicle, open up the back of the vehicle and it is full of XXXX. The message is to drink it all. There is an overriding belief by the alcohol industry that advertising grog is successful because they do it all the time. They are not particularly worried about the effect of that on communities across Australia, especially remote communities. Perhaps people do not understand the subtlety of the advertisement and think it is the normal behaviour you would expect.
Other problems with alcohol should be looked at, as the member for Nhulunbuy said. I have mentioned advertising. There should be restrictions on advertising, but what causes people to drink? Is it lack of employment? Is it the welfare mentality? Is it overcrowding? Is it a perception there is no reason to live? If you have no reason to live, why not get drunk? Why not get on ganja? What are we doing in communities to make life better for people?
If we spent the same amount fixing up houses, providing jobs, getting kids to school, getting rid of welfare, we would have some chance to turn things around. People need a reason to live and, when they do not have one, many look to other ways of finding pleasure. One way is to get drunk. If there is no attempt to turn the things that cause problems with alcohol around, then we will not achieve anything, Banned Drink Register or not. That is trying to be a bandaid at a certain time in someone’s life, but if there is no early intervention telling people about the dangers of alcohol - that does not just apply to Aboriginal people - look at binge drinking, the alcopop industry. How many young people have a few wines before they go to town at 11 pm or midnight? I am not sure if Mitchell Street is much different to other places. If I asked the government to look at the Newcastle experiment and apply that to Mitchell Street I wonder what it would say. In Newcastle, pubs close at 1.30 am. They stay open internally, but once you move outside a pub at 1.30 am you cannot go to another pub. You cannot do a pub crawl after 1.30 am. You can stay in that pub until 3.30 am, but that is it.
That change, which was unpopular with the AHA, has decreased the amount of violence in the Newcastle CBD area considerably. It was supported by nurses, doctors, paramedics and the police. It was opposed by the AHA, the then New South Wales government, which only allowed the experiment in that area, and the present New South Wales government will not consider it elsewhere even though it has been proven to work.
Why? Because of the influence of the hotel industry. It is a very powerful lobby. You can see how difficult it is even talking about tobacco. How difficult is it when you have to attack the tobacco industry? We are dealing with big companies which have to accept a far bigger role in responsibility for what their product does. BP realised petrol sniffing was caused by unleaded fuel and took some responsibility - it produced Opal fuel. It tried to do something about it. It is time the alcohol industry did something to help people affected by alcohol. It might pay taxes through excise, but it needs to do more than that. That is the easy way. It needs to be hands on saying the industry has caused great suffering, especially in Indigenous communities, and needs to ask what it can do to reduce that suffering.
The industry cannot wipe its hands of what has happened in our communities, or the boys I used to know in the dormitory who died from alcohol. It has to take more responsibility rather than just promoting grog through sport or advertising. It is a problem in our society and will not go away with a feather duster approach. It needs tough decisions by government. Those decisions may be unpopular with the AHA but, if we are going to turn it around, we have to do something now.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing on this debate. It shows how out of touch the opposition is, and gives us the opportunity to explain some of our policy. For that, I am very thankful. I have listened to the debate so far and am somewhat bewildered. The question has been asked several times: why would you scrap the Banned Drinker Register before you put anything else in its place?
That was adequately answered by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General when they said it was not working. There were drunks everywhere. In many cases the situation had become worse. It was a costly exercise and was not working. What other motivation do you need to get rid of something? What else did we need in its place - another inconvenience, another great waste of money? No, nothing of the sort.
We need a good, thought-out policy and that is clearly what the government has in mind. What gets me about this whole debate is the lack of compassion the Labor Party has and, also, the member for Nelson, towards our local community. They seem to think it is okay to penalise the entire community for the actions of a few; to treat people who turn up to the bottle-o like criminals, demand ID and demand they have their driver’s licences scanned. They are not concerned at all about tourists who did not have a driver’s licence or other form of identification, and were not aware of the rules in the Northern Territory or the black mark that left in their minds. They were not concerned people felt they were being treated like criminals every time they walked into the bottle shop, and not concerned that people, after being treated like criminals, walked out of the bottle shop and saw drunks lying around the streets.
The lack of concern Labor has shown to local businesses concerns me, particularly businesses operating alcohol sales. These people had to put on more staff, reduce margins even further, and they had no say whatsoever in the introduction of the BDR.
The thing which concerns me most was the lack of compassion for the drunks on the street - people who clearly have illnesses, sickness, and addictions to alcohol. These people need treatment because they have lost control of their lives. They need to be taken off the streets and treated with dignity and respect, given the opportunity to dry out, to clean themselves up, and to reconnect with society and live decent lives.
The fact Labor managed to give someone a banning order 114 times shows no compassion for that person’s situation whatsoever. That person should have immediately been put into some form of mandatory rehabilitation. Clearly, Labor is not interested in dealing with problems; its only interest was dealing with its own self-preservation, and spinning some story to be seen to be doing something about a problem the whole community was aware of.
It concerns me that Labor members, who quite often say they are the great champions of Aboriginal society, do not seem to trust Aborigines to do anything. They do not trust Aborigines to handle grog, that is quite clear. They say, ‘Oh no, we cannot allow alcohol into this community or that community; they cannot be trusted’. I heard the member for Nelson say, ‘These communities are run by powerful men, you cannot trust them. The people are powerless to look after themselves because of powerful men who get their own way, and who will ride roughshod over an entire community’. The member for Nelson said Aborigines were particularly susceptible to television advertising, and we could not trust them because of the advertising on television about XXXX. He said it is particularly bad in Aboriginal communities because they take note of advertising and are more susceptible to what is on the television than most other Australians. I find repugnant the view that blacks cannot drink, which is the view which seems to emanate constantly from the opposition and the former Labor government. ‘We do not trust Aboriginals with grog - full stop’.
It might surprise the opposition to know there are now eight communities with social clubs. A further 22 communities have restricted access to alcohol. The idea is we ignore them. They are not allowed to have alcohol because we do not trust them. We do not think they can be trusted with alcohol.
At the same time, we talk about Aboriginal advancement in this House and the desire to have jobs and a better education. What about the communities that want to embark on tourist ventures? Some of the coastal communities might want a fishing lodge. The inland communities might want to do some nature-based tourism. Why should those communities not be able to have a restaurant for tourists, where they could sell tourists a glass of wine with their meal, or have a few beers after a long day trekking through the Australian bush or out catching barramundi? Why should those people not be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a meal? The only reason is because Labor does not trust blacks with alcohol; it is as simple as that. That is the line coming from the opposition all the way through.
The government has been quite clear about this. It recognises there is a problem with drunks on the street and in the parks in the Northern Territory and it wants to fix it. It is going to deal with the problem drunks themselves and, in the vast majority of cases, the problem drunks do not have the ability or the wit to deal with their personal issues themselves. As a result we have said, as a government, we will take on that personal responsibility and put them into a rehabilitation program.
Ms Lawrie: Lock them up.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the interjection, ‘Lock them up’. Of course they will be locked up. We will lock them up the same way we do mental patients unfit to plead - we put them in secure facilities. It is all right to put someone who does not have the ability to determine what is going on into a secure mental facility, but God help us if we put a drunk who has completely lost control of their life into a mandatory rehabilitation facility!
No, the opposition does not have that compassion. It would much rather see them out on the streets with 114 banning orders against their names still accessing alcohol, still creating havoc in the streets, still bashing women, still urinating on shopfronts and still creating all those social problems - ‘No, we have the Banned Drinker Register’.
The Opposition Leader says the previous government turned off the tap. No, you did not turn off any tap at all. Every alcoholic was still accessing alcohol and could walk into a pub where no one turned off the tap. I am sure the Member for Karama knows; I am sure she has been into a pub or two in her time. The only place you drink beer on tap is inside a pub. It did not matter who walked into a pub - if your name was on the Banned Drinker Register or not - you could still walk into a pub and be on tap with your name on that list. So, big deal, you never stopped anyone drinking. Now you have the audacity to say you were doing something. All you were doing was wasting money!
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy say Nhulunbuy has not had a problem with alcohol for years. She did not put it down to the Banned Drinker Register; she put it down to the Nhulunbuy Alcohol management plan.
Nowhere has any member of government said we were going to get rid of alcohol management plans. The Nhulunbuy alcohol management plan will still exist, the Alice Springs liquor accord will still exist - no one is talking about scrapping that. Where local communities make local decisions about how they deal with alcohol, we will support those communities. Whilst those communities support the Nhulunbuy alcohol management plan, we will support it as well. Whilst the Alice Springs community supports the Alice Springs liquor accord we, as a government, will support that decision. We will continue to ensure all those measures that are in place and driven by the local community remain in place. No one is talking about scrapping them.
Labor asks when talking about remote communities, if this government is going to pour grog on the problem in remote communities? Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is suggesting we are going there now to do that.
We have said, right from the word go, the first thing we want to see is rehabilitation programs put in place so we can start treating the problem. Where a person voluntarily steps up to the plate and says ‘I want to be rehabilitated’, we want to ensure there is a strong sector and organisations ready to support them and help them get off the grog. We will be better resourcing those NGOs which currently provide those services. For people who have gone beyond that, who do not have the ability to make that type of decision and have lost all control of their lives except for the daily hunt for grog, we will deal with them as well. We will put them into mandatory rehabilitation and do everything in our power to get them off the grog. We will ensure when they come out of those rehabilitation facilities we have good transition mechanisms so they can get back to their communities, get a job, or do whatever it takes to operate in a decent manner in a civilised society. That is a far more compassionate way of dealing with the community, businesses and drunks than Labor’s plan.
Only when we have those measures in place will we look at allowing other places to change their alcohol plans. Some places want to get into the tourism industry. If they want a restaurant, providing the community is supportive of that and it is universally agreed, we will support their application or, at least, give it consideration. I know of communities in the Northern Territory who have had a number of their citizens killed on the roads while walking back to their community from a pub drunk, at night, in the middle of the road, hit by a road train.
In one community, I am aware four people have died in the last couple of years - hit by road trains. That community said, ‘Look, if we wanted to put a social club a bit closer to the community, somewhere where the people did not have to walk down the highway in order to get home, would the government consider it?’ My response to that was, ‘Providing we have in place a system to deal with problem drunks and providing the entire community was supportive of a management plan to ensure that club is properly managed and it does not lead to enormous social problems, we would consider it’. That is all I have said, all any member of government has said - we will consider it.
Unlike Labor, we believe individuals can make the right decisions for themselves. Whether they are black, white or brindle, it does not matter. We do not take the view that if you are black you are not allowed to drink. To me, that is a terribly racist way to think and a terribly paternalistic way to deal with people. To suggest, as the member for Nelson did, that we cannot trust Aborigines in remote communities because they cannot handle their grog, because powerful men roam communities and that they are often victims of television advertising, I find abhorrent. A man who says he has lived in remote communities and who says those things - even if you believe it, you do not say it publically.
The member for Nhulunbuy said alcohol costs the Northern Territory $642m a year. I do not know if that figure is correct or not. She also said it was four times the national average. I do not know if that is correct or not. She is pretty well on the mark. Alcohol does cost our community enormous amounts of money so anything we can save - as the Attorney-General said, if you take a mere 60 people off the street you reduce incarceration of drunk people by almost 20%.
They are the people this government is targeting - the problem, long-term street drunks. Clearly, alcoholism is a problem in our community; however, not all alcoholics affect our community the same way. There is probably not a bar in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs which does not have its fair share of alcoholics. Often, blokes will sit in the same chair in the same spot every day and not move. They will sit there and quietly drink away their lives, shuffle off home at night, and somewhere down the road will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money in health costs. Similarly, there are people who knock off from work every afternoon and buy a big cube and go home and drink it. They do it every afternoon, but they go home and drink quietly in their house, watch a bit of telly and go to bed.
Those problems we have to deal with as a community. No one is saying we should not be trying to deal with them as a community, but the real issue for our community at the moment - and listening to people on the streets whether you are in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs – they have had a gutful of problem drunks on the streets causing antisocial problems and carrying on in the worst possible way.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you Madam Speaker, thank you member for Barkly.
It is clear our problem street drunks policy is to target the problem, the drunks themselves, not the entire community. It is not to penalise the entire community, or make the entire community feel like a criminal every time someone goes to the bottle shop. That was the main reason for getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register and the fact it was a costly experience with no benefit whatsoever.
Our policy is compassionate. We understand that quite often problem street drunks have mental problems because of their excessive drinking and are not in a state to make rational decisions. We have said we will step in and assist those people to get off the grog. At least dry them out long enough for them to make a decision as to whether they will get off the grog. Quite clearly, it is a difficult thing. All forms of addiction are difficult to kick, I can vouch for that. I have an addiction of my own which I have been trying for years to deal with, without a great deal of success. I understand alcoholics with an addiction will have a great deal of difficulty kicking that habit. However, that does not stop us from at least having a go, trying to point them in the right direction and giving them some hope in life and some ability to make the decision they want to live a normal, decent life as a member of civilised society.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am compelled to make a contribution to this debate. I listened for some years to the member for Karama as Minister for Alcohol Policy in the previous Labor government. She kept making great statements in the House about people being turned off tap. I cannot let that go by again. I remind the opposition that its Banned Drinker Register only related to takeaway alcohol; it did not relate to bars. You do not find taps in takeaway alcohol outlets; you find taps in bars. The Banned Drinker Register did not stop people from going into bars for a drink. The terminology used by the then minister responsible was not ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I advise the House that we used to tap kegs in Armidale at the Rugby Union, and we drank takeaway out of taps regularly ...
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Please be seated, member for Barkly.
Mr STYLES: What happened at the rugby club the member for Barkly went to is not really relevant. I do not know of any takeaway liquor outlet in the Northern Territory which sells jugs of beer you can walk out of the premises with. My understanding of the Liquor Act is things have to be sealed. Under the 2 km law, if they are unsealed they are tipped out. I can see the rugby club having problems here walking down the street with a jug of beer from a keg. That is not right and not relevant to the argument.
Look at what the Banned Drinker Register did - I mentioned this in an earlier debate in this House. Dawn House issued figures on some of the problems the Banned Drinker Register caused. Apart from the fact it was not working, it said - in an article I do not have with me but I recall – it saw an increase in domestic violence of 7% which could be put down to the Banned Drinker Register. That wonderful organisation supports women and children with domestic violence and other issues. It says the pressure on those women and the domestic violence which occurred as a result of the Banned Drinker Register put their figures up 7%.
The figures we have suggest violent crime increased. There are a number of increases as a direct result of the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register. I was on the select committee for youth suicide. We were listening to evidence from people from the Tiwi Islands and there was a range of people. About 18 or 20 representatives came to Darwin to address the select committee. Some of that evidence gave an astounding figure. Not much stuns or amazes me these days; however, I was stunned and amazed when the experts engaged by the Tiwi people to put together statistics said 82% of people on the Tiwi Islands smoke marijuana. It is an appalling situation when you have 82% of the people on the Tiwi Islands smoking marijuana.
We asked why that was happening. We were told because of the banning of alcohol, people had shifted their addiction from one drug to another. Interestingly enough, that was supported by information I had from people in my electorate.
They advised me that since the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register, they had an increase in visitors to drug houses in one particular street in one suburb, and another suburb. I will not name the street - I do not want to identify the people concerned. They had spoken to police, they had spoken to me, and they were trying to fix the issue. When the Banned Drinker Register came in they saw an increase in visits to drug houses.
The police have since dealt with one drug house. However, the problem with the second example I referred to is once the Banned Drinker Register came in, the drug dealers thought it was a great marketing opportunity. They banned people from buying alcohol so they moved in to fill the gap. They drove the Commodore to the corner, people rang a mobile number and it was delivered. You do not need ice, you do not need an esky and you do not need refrigeration. You do not have to produce your driver’s licence, your password, you simply hand over the cash, people hand over the marijuana and you get smashed.
Also, some of the marijuana they are selling these days - the hydroponically grown stuff - is a far greater hit than the marijuana people may have smoked 10 years ago. It is up to 50 times more potent. When you read the stories of people who get onto marijuana, it is causing huge problems - personal health and community issues. Schizophrenia is on the rise and the medication is struggling to control it. You are destroying people’s lives.
Alcohol does the same thing. The Banned Drinker Register was not working because it was just shifting the problem. The member for Fong Lim mentioned addiction. Nicotine is about as addictive as heroin. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. Alcohol falls into the same category. They are very addictive substances.
When someone gives you a piece of paper saying, ‘This paper says you cannot drink’, and you are caught drinking again and they give you another bit of paper - I wish that worked because we could use that. We could go to the drug addicts saying, ‘You are not allowed to buy marijuana, you are not allowed to buy heroin’. ‘What about ecstasy?’ ‘You are not allowed to buy this.’ If pieces of paper worked all our problems would be solved.
How was the Banned Drinker Register going to work when you cannot enforce secondary supply? You cannot find out who is on the list because of privacy laws and regulations. It is not published so you are never going to have secondary supply as an offence. Although you made it an offence under the Liquor Act, trying to prove it would cause many problems. Pieces of paper simply do not work.
What works is putting these people into a rehab centre - take them out of circulation. I do not propose to go over that again. Speakers in this debate have already explained that fact. I do not understand how the opposition does not get it. It is still trying to peddle a system which does not work, which interfered with seniors, tourists and a whole range of things. Not only did you put the community through a great deal of expense, trouble and inconvenience, it did not work.
The alcohol management plan in Alice Springs commenced in 2008. When you talk to police officers there - I am going there in about another month’s time and hope to talk to some people and get a briefing. In 2012, they were locking up the same people they were locking up in 2008 even though they had alcohol management plans in place. When the Banned Drinker Register was introduced, the same people were going through the watch house.
How can these people convince us and everyone else that the scheme was successful? It was an abysmal failure and, sadly, there are still people suffering because the previous government did not put in place - people involved in the consumption of alcohol are the problem not the rest of the community.
The previous government had things in place which penalised the community and did not tackle the problem. We have to tackle the problem. It is going to be difficult, it is going to be hard. However, we are up for making the difficult and hard decisions without affecting business, slowing down business, slowing down tourists or slowing down everything. We will give these people some real rehabilitation and real training and, hopefully, we can fix it.
There may be a few who will not want to go to these places and may put themselves in a position where they are not located and not able to accept the help. However, many people are alcoholics. You have to visit some of the clubs to see them. They quietly have a drink - they seem to consume much alcohol. They do not drive home, they get a cab home, they walk home, they do not go home, they do not kick their dog, and they do not get involved in domestic violence. Yes, they probably do need some help and, if we can, we will help those people as well.
When you say a piece of paper is going to help them - that is about what it is. We know from previous speakers that people have been given more banning notices than I have had hot dinners in the last 10 years - it simply does not work. They are still locking up the same people who were alcoholics before the Banned Drinker Register was introduced, and those people are still showing up in the books and sobering-up shelters; it is simply a revolving door system. They are still getting hold of alcohol. They could still go into bars under your system, which I found quite amazing. If you are going to ban these people why not say you need it to go into a bar, not just takeaway alcohol’.
With the absence of successful prosecutions for secondary supply, I was told by police officers it was a joke. I am sure someone in closing debate will say, ‘Oh, yes, but the commissioner said it was the best tool they had’.
Mr Elferink: We are going to give police a better one.
Mr STYLES: That is right; we are going to give police a far better tool. All the police officers I have spoken to – I have not asked them for their comments, I simply asked what they thought but had no debate with them. They said, ‘It is fantastic, great’. They are looking forward to being able to give these people some real help and taking them out of the system.
The Treasurer in the previous Labor government said, as a result of the report into alcohol abuse, it cost us $672m per annum. That is a big chunk of the Territory budget. If we can get to the real problem, give these people some real rehab and save even 20% of that - that is a lot of money we will save and can put into rehabilitation if they are not drunk, not creating issues, bashing people, getting involved in domestic violence, ending up in our hospitals, clogging up accident and emergency and, of course, surgical units. I am told we have the second largest faciocranial reconstruction unit in the world in Darwin. Why? Because people are bashing each other half to death with all types of tools - bare hands, star pickets, bottles or sticks. It is a disgrace and we have to fix it.
When I hear the opposition say, ‘It is terrible; you are going to do this and that’, well, we are going to tackle the problem. If these people are in a rehabilitation centre for three months they are not drinking, they are not on the streets, they are not involved in domestic violence, not bashing people, not clogging up beds, not clogging up our theatres for reconstruction. There is a range of things they are not doing. They are getting some real job training in areas where they do not need a university degree. Many people do not have much of an education. We need places where we can offer people training and give them a second chance to have the life so many other Territorians are enjoying.
I ask the opposition to take into consideration some of the things said by this side or at least give it a go. Given the opposition’s did not work, perhaps it might like to support something which works and will make a real difference in our community, not only to the lives of people who suffer this terrible addiction, but also the people who have to put up with the mess that is left and the problems you have with people camping around shopping centres or people’s front yards.
I am sure the member for Fannie Bay has the same problems I have in my electorate when I doorknock and people say, ‘We have a nice garden in the front; we come out in the morning and have to clean up human filth’. You do not have to go far; simply go to CLP headquarters on McMillans Road - they have the problem there. Two days ago I was talking to the lady who runs it and she said, ‘Can you get something done about it? I have to get the pressure cleaner, fill it up with Pine O Cleen every morning, and clean away human filth’. Who was in government for the last 11 years? It was the current opposition. You did not fix it. We will. Madam Speaker, thank you.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this great debate. The motion has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition and it is very specific - condemning the removal of the Banned Drinker Register without any other effective strategies or plans.
The member for Fong Lim participated in the debate, had an extension of time, and has really been the key in outlining the CLP’s alternatives, ‘We’re gonna, we’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that. We’ve got a whiteboard exercise going and we’re gonna do this, then we’re gonna put them in compounds and we’ll find out the layers of chronic disease and renal conditions and mental illness. Then we’ll bring in all the specialists. Then we’re gonna let them out.’
The member from Sanderson said, ‘They’re gonna get a job, and we’re gonna train them in there too’.
It reminds me of the residential building insurance legislation. The CLP argued tooth and nail - it was a fantastic debate. I refused to support the legislation because it said to me, as Minister for Lands and Planning, ‘You are telling us to sign up to something we are not quite sure of. You have not told us what it’s going to do.’
The CLP is now telling the opposition, ‘Sign up; we’ve got the plan. We’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that, and we might do this and we might do that. We’re gonna do this.’ The sense of irony in this debate is brilliant. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing to this House some of the first tangible examples of what the CLP is ‘gonna do’ as an alternative.
In this debate the CLP is massaging statistics, and you have to be careful when you massage statistics. The Banned Drinker Register is one element of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It is a package of reforms. The Banned Drinker Register was one tool and was cut in its infancy. Your statistics are infantile because the Banned Drinker Register was cut out twelve months after its implementation. The CLP, in this debate, is saying, ‘But what about the consequences? What were the consequences?’
As a resident of Tennant Creek, I was looking forward to the day a person reached the stage of going through the tribunal and the tribunal said, ‘You will do X, Y and Z’. If that person did not participate in that regulatory regime of conforming to X, Y and Z, they would go to the auto teller on payday, put their card in, and $60 would come out. They would come to my electorate office and scream, bellow and roar, ‘What’s the go here? There is only $60 in my account.’ I would say, ‘Sorry, you didn’t participate in the tribunal activities. You did not conform to the regulatory regimes. You are now on 80% income quarantining.’
Where I come from, problem drinkers drink in collectives. They use collective money to access large amounts of alcohol and they create big problems for themselves, their families and their community.
The BDR was part of the Enough is Enough reform which was rolling out but, unfortunately, a Northern Territory general election got in the way, cut the legs from under the Labor Party, and now the CLP is ‘gonna do this and gonna do that’.
I hope it gets on its ‘gonna’ pretty quick because it is like the Banned Drinker Register. It is talking about 12 months, perhaps longer. We will wait to see; however, in the meantime, there is nothing in its place, which is what this motion says. That is what it condemns. The lowest part of the debate so far has come from the Chief Minister, the member for Blain, when he looked at the member for Araluen and said, ‘Well, just imagine if we did not scrap it. The mob on the other side would come into this House and condemn us.’ Well, guess what? I bet your bottom dollar we would not have.
We would have applauded it as a brave and courageous move if you had left it in place while you took 12 to 18 months to develop your policy. We would have congratulated the CLP. The lowest part of the debate was where the Chief Minister said, ‘Oh, the Leader of the Opposition might question me in Question Time’.
One can imagine, because the CLP parliamentary wing has been performing Shakespeare for four years with the member for Blain playing Julius Caesar, the member for Fong Lim playing Brutus - you can understand why the guy is so nervous and paranoid. That is playing with Territory lives, and we are trying to get some sanity into the alcohol debate. The Enough is Enough package was thoroughly worked through, referenced by stakeholders and evidenced by the Menzies School of Health Research as trying something - move it forward.
I would like to benchmark my understanding of the problem drinker because that is where we were coming from. I grew up in a very crowded household with an uncle, aunt and cousins. Visitors coming to our house early in the morning would often see my father sitting at the breakfast table with a longneck of Tooheys Pilsner in a very good beer glass drinking. They may have assumed my father was a problem drinker; however, he had just finished 14 hours of night shift, had a couple of beers in the morning while we prepared breakfast and got ready to school, then he went to sleep all day and went to work all night. People might have assumed he was a problem drinker because he loved to have a beer at 7 am, but he was a shift worker and that was his pattern.
I would catch a bus from 37 Juno Parade, Greenacre to Lakemba Station, and I took great delight in going to the bus shelter - a bit of deviation before I went to school. In the bus shelter sat the metho drinkers. The metho drinkers were fascinating because not only did they give me a history lesson - many of them were war veterans. I remember a couple of these old boys were World War I war veterans and a couple were World War II. There were some mental illness patients, no doubt, and there was a couple of refos - your classic homeless person. They drank metho and I used to love sitting with them. I still remember vividly when they had their shot of metho the discussion really influenced me in many ways. I deduced that those guys were the problem drinkers; they definitely had a problem with alcohol.
That is what Enough is Enough went after. Our plan was going for the problem drinker, and we had to balance the debate out. When I arrived in Tennant Creek in the early 1980s, Tennant Creek through the 1970s and 1980s was the powerhouse of the Northern Territory. We produced more growth state product than Darwin, we had more registered businesses than Darwin, and the disposable income was phenomenal. You can imagine there was a great deal of alcohol consumed. At the time I first arrived, the place was rocking. Probably 20% of a population of 5500 people were Aboriginal, and they were living very much in a fringe nature in the town. I will never forget when I first started to explore what were called the black bars. It was pretty horrific stuff; it was a bloodbath.
With the alcohol debate and the struggle dealing with alcohol in the Territory I often ask my wife, who is a very good political commentator and does much research herself, ‘We are really struggling, have we got anywhere? It’s 10 steps forward and nine steps back’. She always says, ‘If you want a reference point, remember the blood on the street in Tennant Creek when those two pubs operated the uncontrolled environment known as the black bars’. That is a reference point for me because the local Indigenous community under Julalikari Council started to take control and participate in the alcohol debate. It went through an evolution of policy development as well. One of the things it did was first in Australia, if not the world – the Night Patrol.
It took a reactionary move to address the issues coming out of alcohol abuse in Tennant Creek, and it did a great job. It was a reactionary move and it removed people off the main street, out of harm, and tried to get them into safe environments and take them home. Then the sobering-up shelter developed in Tennant Creek. Then, of course, we went through the period of the grog wars. The grog wars were an interesting time because people coined Enough is Enough and decided on a method of prohibition. Prohibition turned into Thirsty Thursday. Thirsty Thursday was a day - the Indigenous community led it and said to Territorians, residents of Tennant Creek and beyond, ‘Join in with us. Let us all be part of a solution not the problem.’
I do not have any hang-ups about disadvantaging tourists or anybody else. I come from a community which said, ‘Let us all get into this and do it together’. Of course, you had complainers and whingers, and you had people who knocked it, but it was pure prohibition designed to have one day a week were families spent all the money on food and shopping and supported all those important aspects of family life and development.
That prohibition was exploited by the problem drinkers. They were so creative in the way they worked. I remember some of the brilliant ways the problem drinkers dealt with no takeaways on Thursday, the grog-free day. There was less humbug, there was more family shopping; there was a different vibration around the place. Some of the mainstream punters were complaining, but a culture of subversion grew around how to deal with Thirsty Thursday.
One of the classics was membership of clubs quadrupled overnight because people realised they could get takeaways from the club. That had to be changed.
The tavern licences were the best. You can get alcohol in Tennant Creek at 7.00 am as long as you purchase a substantial meal. When you witness the remnants of a bacon and egg sandwich on a table surrounded by empty green cans at 10 am - that was funny but not funny, as you can imagine. That was another way the problem drinkers took on the system and exploited it. The culture changed to, ‘We go to the roadhouse’, so they started to shift out and the roadhouses had to deal with the issue. Prohibition produced exploitation by whom? Not by the mainstream. We were still operating in the mainstream, people were still dealing with the grog in their own way, but that subversive culture, the problem drinker, kept pushing the envelope.
That is when Thirsty Thursday came to its end - the envelope had been pushed so far and wide. I was rather jaded about it all, as was much of the region, and we needed something new. I was fortunate enough to get into parliament and start to work with a Cabinet which was looking at a holistic approach that was fair, real, targeting the problem drinker and going somewhere I had never seen before, the point of sale.
My Cabinet and Caucus colleagues will testify I was a stick-in-the-mud. I debated because it was a good, healthy exercise done with real stakeholders in the Northern Territory not just politicians sitting around.
The member for Fong Lim asks where the motion goes - what is going to happen with your plans to roll the grog out. I can tell you stories until the cows come home, but let me pick up on two points from a maiden speech - a speech about vision. In her maiden speech, the member for Stuart said she had been influenced by Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton. These guys are academics, are Indigenous leaders, respected leaders, and I agree with the member for Stuart, they must be consulted. They need to be listened to in a CLP debate when you are going to take grog into the bush and start to spread the cheer around. Those leaders need to be listened to.
The other one was the member for Namatjira who, in her speech about vision, said something which really hit my heartstring - in real vision with Indigenous people you have to get away from talking to whitefellas and politicians and all the ya ya - you have to talk to the grannies. She is dead right. You have to talk to the grannies.
The member for Fannie Bay delivered a very important speech in this debate outlining the dysfunctional nature of different members with different responsibilities. You guys should pull all that together, really think about that and ensure you use those strategies important to Indigenous culture which were brought out in this House before any of these experts take you down a path which may make you feel a little insecure. Let me tell you, this is going to take some time.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform took a long time, much energy and much consultation. Without the BDR, there are 2500 problem drinkers. The old bus shelter, the metho drinker, they are back out there and are going to rock and roll for another 12 or 18 months, create havoc for themselves, their families and the community, while you guys are going through the process we already went through. It is important that is on the table because as all this chaos rolls out, you will get a better understanding of how important this is and how ‘we are gonna do this’ and ‘we are gonna do that’ is really just the whiteboard exercise. You need to move on from that to the next level.
What I did with Enough is Enough, as a local member, is take it on the road. One of the cohorts I love is the old people. I always go to the old people first. I show respect, I sit down and introduce myself, I start a conversation and then I listen. It is so important to listen. Normally, the conversation goes off into what I love the most - Territory history from an Indigenous perspective. It is fantastic. I have collected so much over the years.
I steer the debate back to Enough is Enough and a couple of things were coming through very clearly. The appreciation and valuing of getting ID, and we started to push that a little further to get a driver’s licence. Do not settle for the proof-of-age card. Do not settle for the Ochre Card, get a driver’s licence. Many of the older people started to celebrate the ID because it provided them with what the member for Fong Lim talks about - the right to purchase takeaway alcohol. They were sweet; they knew how to do it, they knew how to operate it.
I then shifted to the next level of debate, which was to be careful of secondary supply. If you buy for a banned drinker, the trouble the banned drinker gets into will follow you back. People started to debate that and started to talk about it in the region. It was about education and awareness of operating in a new system which definitely hit the point of supply, the point of sale, and then they could start to normalise their lives operating within the system.
The CLP used this as an election platform. It appealed to the mainstream Territory community and talked about how inconvenient it is and all the elements the member for Fong Lim provided in his debate. Those people bought it and we were very disappointed to see, on the second day - as if there is not enough to do as a new government - the word started to filter through the regions. It was like wildfire; it came down through the regions and local people I have known for more than half my life were asking, ‘Is it true, has it gone?’ I had to admit it was.
One of the sad points was when I was at a festival, a problem drinker I have known for a long time, now a senior lady, was drunk. She came to a really good family gig at the festival. She was drunk, and it was embarrassing for her and her family. You know the scene I am talking about. She congratulated me and said it was the best thing I had done. I said. ‘What was that?’ She said, ‘Scrapping the ID system - getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I took this lady aside and said to her, ‘No, there is a big difference here. Our party did not do that. The new government has done that’. She felt it was a good thing. That problem drinker will now be in limbo while you guys do that important work - coming to terms with what you are going to do.
When you go down this road you will discover how complex it is, how challenging, and, in that limbo, I hope this old woman survives. She will hit it hard. She will go back into the bottle shops around Tennant Creek or roadhouses, no boots on and in whatever state, and access alcohol. Whereas, the BDR, as one element of the package, provided real frustration for that woman.
I can give you anecdotal evidence like we have been using in this debate - you guys have not come up with anything better other anecdotal evidence. If you want a semantic argument, or a statistical argument, we will argue it. We will take you on. I will bring in my sister, a mathematician, and she will cut your statistics up. I am not really good at statistics, but by jingo, she is. I will take your statistics and we will debate you every step of the way.
At the moment you are working on anecdotes. You are going to learn the hard way. Good luck to you! In the meantime, my old friend is back on the grog. She does not need any ID; she can get into the bottle shop and do her own thing. That is sad. I still have that conversation with her whenever I see her.
There are many other elements to this debate I have sketched out. There are some nasty ones, commenting on politicians’ egos and massaging the egos of the political nature of this game, the backslapping, hand slapping, and the good old boys. ‘We are going to do this’, and the nanny state debate which crept into this House before the election. We are going back to the Wild West - all that good old jive. I could go there, but I am going to flip that page over to move on. This debate is far too important.
We talk about asking the grannies, talking to the elders, and really consulting - the Chief Minister says he wants to have the conversation; it is imperative members of the CLP participate in this.
In this debate it would be remiss not to go to two final elements. One is the incredible work and the fortunate situation we have in Tennant Creek and the Barkly where we have a Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Project, operating out of the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation. It is not happening in other places and we are promoting it. It ran out of funds, we got more funds, and Adele Gibson and a team of young Indigenous women are doing a fantastic job. The banner, Strong Baby, Strong Life, is really important work. The whole operation is based on education and awareness.
We talked about it in government and are talking about it in opposition. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a major issue for future generations of Territorians. The links coming out of the international research, particularly relating to foetal alcohol affected kids ending up in the corrections system, as youth suicide statistics, at the wrong end of the social spectrum, are really disturbing. There is no doubt that in the town of Tennant Creek we have a cohort of young people having children without awareness of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We need that as a high priority in this debate - not the debate about social clubs or making everyone feel good, and we are the bad guys because we cannot trust people, you are the good guys so you can. Forget that. If you really want to debate this stuff let us start to prioritise. If it is alcohol we are talking about and rehabilitation, the horse has bolted, mate. If we do not get foetal alcohol spectrum disorder right, we are in a world of pain for generations.
The member for Fong Lim tells us about the social issues in the street. That is one way to start to address the problem.
I have a media release from the Barkly shire signed off by respected leaders in our community - Barb Shaw, President of the Barkly Shire Council; Pat Brahim, General Manager Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation; Trevor Sanders, Anyinginyi Health Corporation CE. The heading is very simple, ‘Do our communities need grog?’ They are asking for something very simple and the Chief Minister is promising it in this debate. He is saying, ‘We are not going out there headlong into this stuff; we are going to have the conversation’. That is good to hear because these people want to be part of the conversation before there are any more cowboy antics, before any more, ‘We will scrap this, we are going to do this, and we are going to do that’. Let us settle this now, but let us always think of those children not born yet. Let us consider the young parents.
The member for Sanderson spoke about drugs and statistics he discovered from the Tiwi Islands. Those statistics are pretty common across the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about alcohol, we are talking about alcohol and other drugs - volatile substances. This is the real story. Let us not limit this debate, as the Chief Minister says, to the politics of it; let us talk about the people, let us get real.
The BDR was one element of a major reform in alcohol - the toughest reform the Territory has ever seen. It was too tough for the CLP - it scrapped it. It was too hard. It was disadvantaging the mainstream punter with a normalised lifestyle, going into a bottle shop not wanting to pull out a licence. I can get that; those are your values. That tough reform was trying to take on the challenge for the future.
The member for Nelson highlighted it - I love his history lessons and tonight’s history lesson was pretty tough - when he talked about Daly River in 1971. In 1977, I did some research in Walgett, where there was a wine saloon. I was a member of the RSL club, a member of the golf club, I went to the Imperial pub and the Oasis pub, but I had to check out this wine saloon. The member for Nelson revitalised my memory with his story of that social club, because that is where you bought port in seven ounce glasses. Let me tell you, they were not real social drinkers in that wine saloon; they were pretty hard core. They were the problem drinker the New South Wales government did not know what to do with. They were the problem drinker we had in the Territory when I first came here, and they sold port glass flagon bottles - you guys might remember that - and the destruction from a bottle, let alone the port. Then we went to 5 L, then to 4 L and then to 2 L.
At the end of the day, the point of sale was working because it was a tool we had in a package of tough reform that was evolving. However, let it be known in history, it had the legs cut from under it. It never had a chance to work, to put real statistics on the pad of the new Attorney-General - those real statistics mathematicians like my sister like to analyse over proper periods in research done with a proper ethical base. It had the legs cut from under it because of a political agenda and all you guys are part of it. As the Chief Minister said, let us all get back to the table and be part of it again.
When we talk about mandatory rehabilitation, let me in on the discussion because I would like to start back in the bus shelter with the World War I vets who sip metho.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this motion. It is true, when the Banned Drinker Register was introduced by the former Labor government it did not see the instant effect it had on our community in our ongoing fight against alcohol and alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour. The day the BDR was introduced, we did not see an overnight change in our streets, parks, shops, footpaths or driveways. We did not wake up the morning the BDR was introduced and suddenly feel safer. No, the effect was gradual. Day by day, week by week, people doing wrong when under the influence of alcohol were being added to the Banned Drinker Register.
The BDR was denying people of all races and backgrounds legal access to grog and it was working. However, the day the CLP scrapped the BDR with nothing in place the effects were instant across the Territory, none more so than in my seat of Johnston.
Within days of the BDR being scrapped, I had members of the public asking me what the hell was going on. Regular users of the bus came into the office saying suddenly things had become really bad out the front of Rapid Creek shops and asked why it was happening. ‘The BDR was scrapped and you put nothing in its place.’ They said to me, ‘You should bring it back’. I said, ‘You should call the new Chief Minister, not me’.
It was not only the public hit by the drastic change in our community with the scrapping of the BDR, the police have certainly felt the brunt. In the first week without the BDR and during the setting up of my electorate office, the police informed me they had nonstop calls to the Rapid Creek Business Village because of antisocial behaviour and people fighting, many of whom were banned from grog under the Banned Drinker Register and were, overnight, back in the line at the bottle-o and back in our local parks.
When the BDR was in place it was the best tool the police had to deal with the problem of alcohol violence and antisocial behaviour. The decision to scrap it has meant the good men and women of our police force have had an enormous increase in dealing with alcohol-related violence, harm, and antisocial behaviour. Our hospital and emergency department has also been busier than ever with victims of alcohol-related violence.
The CLP needs to move into the real world and talk to the people affected by this reckless decision, the emergency departments, the police officers and the people who voted it in.
I invite the Chief Minister to talk to the people of Johnston, also the electorate of my fellow colleague, the member for Nightcliff - her constituents come to Rapid Creek Business Village where my office is located - and tell them the BDR did not work.
Local residents who come to the supermarket or Greenies, and members of the public who have access to many NGO services, can tell you many stories of witnessing an increase in alcohol and antisocial behaviour and fighting since the BDR was scrapped.
The other day I had a police officer come into my office looking for a woman who had been viciously assaulted in front of the shops. A member of the public had called police because of what they saw. The woman, apparently, had major head wounds and they could not find her. People are passed out on the footpaths, wander around the streets, or even passed out in the heat of the day in the garden bed in front of my office. We have not seen this confronting behaviour for a long time.
Scrapping the BDR has impacted on local businesses. From what I have seen so far, it is bad for the good people of Johnston in Millner, Moil, Coconut Grove and Jingili. The fundamental core of who I am is to help the most vulnerable people, people who need help, people who need a helping hand to overcome something bigger than them. This disease is killing people. The BDR was working, was a great tool, and needs to be reinstated.
We expect government to do what is right. Government is supposed to make decisions which protect its people. The CLP government removed the BDR, a measure that worked. Overnight we saw the change. The effect of scrapping the BDR was instant. Overnight we felt less safe.
This is irresponsible. It is a reckless decision by government and it is hurting all Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): We have had an interesting debate and you can see the very clear differences in the government’s position and the opposition position. I thank the member for Nelson for his comments because he tries to play the middle man role. The point, fundamentally, he was making was the BDR was part of a suite of tools aimed at ensuring there was an approach to harm minimisation - to reducing the harm alcohol inflicts on individuals, their families and the community. It may not be everything to everyone, and you can always pick flaws in any set of policy tools with a range of implementation; however, his fundamental point in supporting it was he could see it was an attempt to deal with the harm inflicted by alcohol across our community and our society.
The point the government continues to miss is, fundamentally, the opposition has recognised you went into the election with a commitment to scrap the BDR. That was your commitment and you won government, so we understand you were going to scrap the BDR. The fact you scrapped it before you had an alternative in place is what we find ludicrous. Chief Minister, you made the accusation that if you had not scrapped it immediately I would have attacked you as Leader of the Opposition. You are wrong. You are incredibly wrong on that.
From the day I heard it was scrapped I was calling for it to remain in place until you had an alternative in place. I did media on it, I made public comments on it, I made as many public announcements as I could. I consistently said, ‘Don’t scrap it until you have an alternative in place’. Knowing that, you had your policy view on the BDR - you were going to scrap it. That is your view. You are in government. However, scrapping it without the alternative in place means, as a community, we will suffer the harm from that for a year, for 18 months, for however long it takes for you to construct your legislative framework, your mandatory treatment facilities, and have the resources to fill those facilities with, you would hope, appropriately trained and qualified staff.
We are hearing it is all a little loose out there - there is nothing definitive. Nothing clearly definitive came through in the debate from the government. Where are these facilities? In the early days, we were hearing perhaps something would be set up around Ti Tree. I said, ‘Well, that will be interesting. What serviced land is available in Ti Tree? Where will the housing be for staff for the facility? What cost for a facility like that in Ti Tree? Where is the serviced land?’ We are hearing Katherine.
The previous government had funding in the forward estimates for a prison farm at Katherine to mirror the Barkly prison workers camp. Are you going to scrap that prison workers camp and turn it into a mandatory rehabilitation facility? We do not have any detail on that. However, a commencement date would be at least 18 months away if you were to start work right now to have those facilities constructed and running. There is the cost associated with that, let alone trying to source the trained rehabilitation workers. Consult with the organisations which currently provide institutionalised rehabilitation services across the Territory and you will discover how hard it is to attract qualified staff in the Territory to these centres. That is assuming, of course, that these truly are going to be rehabilitation centres and not prison camps. Again, these are only assumptions because the detail was not provided in the debate from government tonight.
These are questions people are genuinely seeking answers to. It will take some time to construct that detailed legislation. It will time to identify the resources, the location, the sourcing of staff, the provision of housing, unless you are going to source staff but not provide housing in these regional and remote communities.
That is still an unknown quantity; however, you add significant on-costs when looking at staff housing across the regional and remote centres. The point you missed in this debate is all this takes time. Whether it is a year, 18 months, two years, in the intervening period we have unfettered access to alcohol. The cheapest form of alcohol is takeaway.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The bully boys are back. They have to shout out, because they cannot handle the truth.
In the intervening period, we have unfettered access to takeaway alcohol for 2500 problem drinkers. They were on the Banned Drinker Register for a reason. Why was the Banned Drinker Register targeting point of sale at takeaway? It was doing that because 70% of grog consumed in the Territory is takeaway. The bulk of consumption is off premise. We went to the heart of the bulk of consumption - off premise. Any studies done around patterns and behaviour of drinkers in the Northern Territory show the greatest rate of violent incidents and antisocial behaviour incidents are off premise. The reforms went to the heart of where the bulk problem was and the bulk of the problem drinkers’ behaviour.
The point you also missed in the debate - a point very ably made by the member for Barkly - is statistics cannot be genuinely deconstructed until something has been in place for a few years. I know you will never take my word on anything, but have a conversation with a statistician. Chop a program at year one and you will never get to the bottom of the statistical argument. Anyone who understands statistics will say you have not run it for long enough.
The Chief Minister and the member for Port Darwin are very excited because they have identified four people on the Banned Drinker Register who were frequent flyers. Give us the history of the other 2496? What is happening in their lives? How are they flying? What is occurring with the others? You say, ‘How would we know because the government hid the statistics from us’. Not true! We tabled every quarter in parliament. I held media conferences on it. We would have statisticians and police available.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform reports were every quarter. Contained within the reports every quarter was a detailed breakdown, a list of alcohol-related assaults, both DV and non-DV assaults across the Territory, broken down statistically across Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, and the balance of the rest of the Northern Territory. According to the government, the data was hidden. The data was provided on a quarterly basis in reports tabled in parliament, and debated publicly. I held media conferences every quarter. They would be alcohol-related assaults by both DV and non-DV categories. Lo and behold, turn to the other page of the so-called crime statistics we were hiding and you will see recorded assaults by alcohol involvement. Also, within the report were antisocial behaviour incidents. The reports were comprehensive, not that the government would recognise that because, according to the government, we hid all this data and information. We did not; we tabled it in parliament every quarter. We will put that furphy aside - inconvenient facts get in the way of spin.
If you go to page nine of this report, it would give you a pie chart - a breakdown of the type of BDR, the type of BAT notice, the type of court order, whether people were on their first, second or third. Going through, there were month-by-month breakdowns of the number of people being placed on the Banned Drinker Register. They would talk about the breakdowns in categories, whether they were infringements or protective custodies - protective custodies were running at about 54% of people being placed on the Banned Drinker Register - secondary supplies, DVO-related apprehensions and contraventions of orders. According to the government, none of this information was ever made available. I listened to this in the debate: the quarterly stats on alcohol-related assaults and alcohol-related incidents. Are these reports delivered every quarter, tabled in parliament and debated publicly? According to the government in debate tonight, this simply does not exist. The crime statistics were not provided to the public and were not debated.
It is extraordinary that you can bury your head in the sand to such an extent over the statistics. It is an inconvenient truth for you which gets in the way of your spin that we hid the statistics.
We heard the member for Nelson talking about the broader crime statistics which were turned into annual figures, in line with the rest of the reporting regime of our nation and a recommendation of the Council of Territory Cooperation, at a time when the CLP sat on it - there was no dissenting report around that. Why did it make that recommendation? They listened to the experts, the statisticians - and the member for Nelson made the point in his contribution to this debate.
Because we are such a small jurisdiction with such small numbers, we get weird anomalies in statistics unless you take them out to a broader range of time. Let us ignore that expert advice and the fact there was a CTC recommendation on it, because that would be an inconvenient truth for the government and its current spin.
The other inconvenient truth is the reality. I have been overwhelmed with the extent of support for the Banned Drinker Register since it was scrapped. I tell people it took me more than a year to work on a policy. I had to consult with a range of experts across the nation, analyse all the evaluations of our alcohol management plans done by Menzies School of Health Research, the plans which existed in Alice Springs, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, and the work we had done in Nhulunbuy in east Arnhem. Menzies School of Health Research performed many evaluations. We had to evaluate them and understand what was in them that showed signs of working.
We tested that evidence with experts within the Northern Territory, people like Dr John Boffa, also people in institutes who have spent their lives studying this stuff in Adelaide and Perth, and created some policy work around that, which was the basis of the Enough is Enough reform. We then tested that with the Police Commissioner, alcohol experts in the Territory, people who deliver alcohol rehabilitation programs, people who work in the court system - create the entire reforms not just the tool, which is what the BDR was but, of course, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, chaired by Michael O’Donnell, as well as the SMART Court, the rehabilitation system, and the ambulatory rehabilitation was set within it. Bear in mind, this was a $75m five-year program, a small skerrick of that in comparison - the $7m for the BDR tool. The rest was around the tribunal, the rehabilitation, the court system ...
A member: How many people did you rehabilitate? What chance did that ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... the bulking up of that was a phased implementation. We phased the implementation into the tribunal, into the SMART Court, because we had to hire clinicians to do assessments on people who were chronic alcoholics - all chopped off at its knees.
The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal did not even have the opportunity to use the powers it had through Commonwealth legislation coming into effect on 1 October, to quarantine welfare ...
Mr Elferink: We have not shut that component down.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin says the government has not shut that component down. How are you doing referrals given you no longer have the BDR tool in place? Much explanation is necessary to the public about the hit and miss approach you are taking in the early days to tackle the scourge of alcohol in the community. You ignore the fact this had the support of the Australian Medical Association, and AMSANT, the Aboriginal medical provider association of the Northern Territory. It had the support of the police, the Law Society, the Bar Association. It was universally embraced by the legal fraternity. Any of us who have worked with the legal fraternity for long enough know it is pretty damn hard to get anything universally embraced by it. It universally embraced the reforms, police universally embraced the reforms, including the Police Association. If it was just the hierarchy, the Police Association would have soon told us we were off track. So would the health practitioners - doctors, nurses and people working across the rehab institutions. Again, it is an inconvenient truth for the government to look at the range of stakeholders who universally embraced these reforms when announced and as they were implemented and people continued to understand.
I have said to people in the weeks since it has been scrapped who have been complaining, that it took more than a year of extensive consultations, considerations and testing to create the reforms. It took a year, and throughout that year we were reporting quarterly. We had to defend the system, we had to explain how it worked and we were being attacked by the opposition. We had a year of having to defend something pretty new indeed, because it did not exist anywhere in Australia or the world.
That being said, that is what you expect with comprehensive new and innovative reform. It took about three days after its scrapping for everyone to really love it. The airwaves lit up across talkback shows in Darwin. It did not matter where I travelled - whether it was Alice Springs or Tennant Creek - it was the same message everywhere. People could see the drunks back on the streets and in the parks.
Mr Tollner: You took your rose-coloured glasses off, that is all! They were always there, Delia. You were telling us …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: You are such a clown, Dave. The takeaway bottle shops would say it became so bad they had to hire security because they were being inundated by the 2500 people who had been refused sale for that time.
You can joke and laugh on the other side, but I am looking forward to the quarterly crime statistics. I saw the crime statistics quarter on quarter and, across all the quarters, alcohol-related assaults were down in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs ,,,
Mr Elferink: What about assaults? Assaults were going up and up.
Ms LAWRIE: This was an alcohol reform, you clown. Alcohol-related assaults were down across Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. Tennant Creek had quarters where they were down and quarters where they were up. The police explained the quarters they were up were when they had undertaken particular task force approaches to domestic violence - a good thing. You take the up on domestic violence assaults in those quarters. Nhulunbuy was up through different quarters. The overall Territory result in the last quarter was the 5% you refer to, that was the Northern Territory balance. When you ask police what is occurring outside the urban areas they say, they have police stations and police there, they are pursuing the non-drop policy on things. Many of these things are an inconvenient truth for you.
Governments make mistakes early and you have made one. Good governments accept that. Get on with the job of putting safeguards back in place in our community. Reinstate the Banned Drinker Register until you have your own system in place. Everyone has seen the difference since it has been scrapped ...
Mr Elferink interjecting
Ms LAWRIE: You will continue to bury your head in the sand because it is an inconvenient truth for you, member for Port Darwin. That is your nature, but I hope there are other people with more maturity in this Chamber in government.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to inform the House about the heart-warming initiative of Good Shepherd Lutheran College Junior School in Gray and Senior School in Howard Springs some three years ago. On 19 October, I was at the Palmerston Markets and had the pleasure of speaking with Tara Errity, the Community Development Officer of Good Shepherd Lutheran College. She mentioned the school, that day, had raised over $4000 for its Pink Day. I learnt that Pink Day was initiated by college executives some three years ago upon receiving news that one of the secondary school teachers, Jodie Springhall, had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The college executive and students were so concerned by this alarming news they took it upon themselves to fight breast cancer in support of their beloved teacher.
Pink Day involves the students and teachers dressing up in pink at the cost of a gold coin donation. I am reliably informed the teachers have an unspoken competition for the best dressed on this special day. There are also pink cupcakes and iced donuts available for purchase throughout the day, and all money raised goes to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. Pink Day gathers more and more momentum each year and is an excellent example of students being proactive and responding to a real life situation in a meaningful way.
One in eight Australian women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. In 1994, when the National Breast Cancer Foundation began, 30% of women with breast cancer lost their lives to this disease. Just under 20 years on, that figure has halved. There is no doubt the money the students have raised will go a long way to help improve prevention, detection, and treatment of breast cancer.
I am very pleased to say Jodie Springhall has won her battle with this dreaded disease and is now in remission. She is about to commence a wonderful holiday around Australia. May she have a safe journey and forever live free from the clutches of this disease. May the school continue to have the courage to fight for matters of importance, and forever support its school community.
I also acknowledge the achievements of Gray Primary School for being the Northern Territory Impact Award winner in the 2012 National Australia Bank Schools First Awards. I am exceedingly proud of the school’s achievement as I attended Gray Primary School from 1989 to 1994 and have very fond memories of those primary school years.
Gray Primary School was the first school in Palmerston and has a highly multicultural student base with half the students being Indigenous. Principal Sue Beynon identified a need in the school community for holistic support of its families. Principal Beynon had the wisdom and foresight to initiate a partnership between the school and the Smith Family to increase support to her students and provide support to the families and broader community.
After 18 months of negotiation, Gray Primary School and the Smith Family began a partnership with its Families Learning Together program. The partnership now boasts eight member organisations, including Good Beginnings Australia, Somerville Community Services, Copal and Healthy Palmerston, FAST NT and YMCA Top End.
On 19 October 2012, I attended the presentation of the National Australia Bank Schools First Award which included a cheque for $60 000 to this school - an astonishing amount of money. I am informed this money will be swiftly but well spent by the school on 30 iPads for students, a leadership program for Year 5 and 6 students for 2013, parent engagement programs such as 123 Magic, reading and maths for parents to learn how to help their children, financial literacy, healthy eating programs, Families and Children Together programs, music programs, parent yarns, Strong Men - Strong Kids barbecues, amongst many other things.
At the award presentation, the school heard firsthand from two parents about the positive impact these programs had on their home life, their marriage, and their interaction and understanding of their children. It was truly heart-warming and inspiring to hear these stories, and they are a testament to the hard-working staff and vision of Gray Primary School.
Since the beginning of the partnership in 2006, Gray Primary School has seen marked increases in its attendance rates, particularly amongst its Indigenous students, which is significant because as I mentioned, half the students at Gray School identify as being Indigenous. Student behaviour has also improved and academic achievement enhanced.
I send my thanks to Sue Beynon for her initiative and foresight, to Kylie for her passion and commitment to the delivery of these programs and maintenance of the partnership relationships, and to the families and students of Gray Primary School for embracing the partnership and all the wonderful programs and friends that come with it.
I also thank the National Australia Bank for its generous support of our schools, and wish Gray Primary School the best of luck at the national finals on 7 November. I will wait with anticipation for the result.
Driver Primary School is a delightful school in the electorate of Drysdale. I must admit that, as a former netball player for Gray Primary School and Sacred Heart Primary School, I have always felt a healthy competitive flare with Driver Primary School as they had a fierce netball team which was very hard to beat. That sense of competition is well and truly behind me, particularly seeing it has been at least 15 years since I played netball.
On 5 September, Sherrida Edgecombe, a senior teacher and Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Coordinator at Driver Primary and acting Principal Leanne Kelson, who ordinarily is Principal of Moulden Park Primary in Blain, travelled to Sydney to accept the prestigious Life Education Australia Fifth Annual Gold Harold Award for the Outstanding School category. The awards recognise schools which have excelled in their contribution to the healthy development of children.
I remember all too fondly the Happy Healthy Harold van arriving at school and the anticipation of spending class time in the caravan learning about how the body works and healthy eating. Of course, there was the wonderful Harold puppet we all know and love.
There are a number of reasons why Driver Primary School took out this illustrious award. Driver Primary School has a kitchen garden which facilitates student education in propagating, growing, harvesting and cooking a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. The garden also has a small clutch of livestock including chickens, quails and ducks from which fresh eggs are collected and cooked daily. Lessons on the farm vary from what students refer to as the fun jobs - collecting the eggs and harvesting the food - to equally important jobs like sorting compost, digging holes and, of course, scientific theory. I really enjoy my time teaching students on Driver farm.
About four years ago, Driver Primary School converted from a model where the individual student had to pay for participation in the Happy Healthy Harold program to a system where the school funded the lessons. This initiative was driven by the school’s leadership team out of recognition that the user-pay model resulted in small class numbers, poor educational resources and a lack of integrated messaging across the school. The leadership team and Driver Primary School wanted every child to benefit from life education and have access to all the resources that come with it. This has made a profound difference on the messaging the school can now deliver in its curriculum and ensures no student is advantaged or disadvantaged over another.
The leadership team should be commended for this bold but critical decision for the betterment of its students. The leadership team made a decision which made more work for teachers and administrative staff and tougher budget management, but they did it because it was the right thing to do. They did not have to make this decision, but they did.
The Principal of Driver Primary School, Mr Robert Presswell, whom I have not yet had the privilege of meeting by virtue of circumstance, is said to be a truly inspirational leader in the Driver school community and has reinvigorated the delivery and diversity of the curriculum throughout the school.
In closing, I congratulate the teachers and staff at Driver Primary School who work hard every day to ensure our children receive the best education and opportunities in life.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a woman who recently passed away who did much work in the Daly River region. Helen Drummond was born on 2 September 1954 and died on Wednesday, 10 October 2012.
Helen was an elder twin to Ivan. She went from a Melbourne hospital to Nazareth House Children’s Home under the care of the Sisters of Nazareth. It was discovered the twin bond was so close they were never to be separated, a fact seen and implemented by Sister Agatha, Mother Superior of Nazareth House.
At the age of two, Helen and her twin brother Ivan were adopted by Claire and Gerald Drummond. The parents discovered the children had their own language which excluded the rest of the world. Suffice to say, this is not unusual when you hear stories about twins. They had their own learning, and they had special names other than Ivan and Helen. The family accepted the way they spoke and how they communicated with each other.
A condition of the adoption was they were both to return to the Nazareth House, Sebastopol, near Ballarat, for one day each year until they were 13 years old. On those days, they would meet Mother Superior with their parents, and play with the other children, numbering from 50 to 100, before returning home to Glen Waverley. Helen was concerned for her future from a very early age and she was aware boys had it easier in life than girls. She tried hard to rely on herself to be self-sufficient in things which would make her happy. Helen loved reading, and did so quietly and consistently throughout her teenage years in a stable home environment.
She was an accomplished Irish dancer, winning several awards with her skills. She was, from an early age, concerned for the justice and welfare of those she had contact with. She developed a pride in those around her, and was intentionally selfless to their benefit. Aged 17 in 1971, Helen was one of only two girls who graduated with distinctions, majoring in the following areas: commercial principles, accountancy, economics, shorthand and typing. She went on to win a Diploma in Secretarial Studies.
In the years 1972-73, her first job was receptionist and clerical assistant to the Secretary of the Electrical Contractors Federation of Victoria. In 1973, at the young age of 18, and from Melbourne, she left home to become a lay missionary at Daly River Mission. That would certainly have been a major change in her life, going from southern Victoria to Daly River Mission. For the next six years, she was given a stipend of $45.50 per week to live on, which she saved to buy an annual airfare and presents for her family when she returned home.
During the time she was in office administration, she was a Commonwealth Bank agent, wages and accounts clerk, and obtained success in providing annual audits for five companies’ sets of books including: the Nauiyu Nambiyu Community Government Council and Merrepen Arts, the women of which she assisted in its establishment, which continues to this day. She also helped the local housing association, which constructs better and better housing developments and public facilities. She also did the books and helped with the local store and the Nauiyu Club.
After six years of work in the Daly River area, Helen returned to Melbourne to work at the CSIRO for one year, but was asked to return to the Daly. She returned to the Daly River Mission community for her seventh year on the condition she earn a real wage. In those days, the isolation of community life meant life was pretty basic - no TV and only one radio receiver telephone in the office, which meant the signal was relayed to Darwin with voice-activated switching with each person saying, ‘Over’ ‘Roger’, ‘Over and out’, and open air projection of films flown in each week as entertainment.
Survival in an Aboriginal community meant she had to deal with the cultural shock of bush life with a foreign language, tribal ways and beliefs, and communications in pigeon English with the Nauiyu Nambiyu people of Nungi Kurrunggurr - the deep green river, I believe - Daly River. While she was in the Daly River area, she would go lagoon hunting and foraging with the women and children in the early days and played netball and tennis. She was given an Aboriginal name Umuquorn. Helen went out on night patrols in the ranger’s boats on many occasions looking for crocodiles to spot, count, capture and tag. It was a life of adventure for a young girl from the Melbourne area.
She worked there until the end of 1988, during which time she became godmother to many children in the community. On one occasion, the women told her she would never drown, she was unable to sink. Some of these words are from the eulogy her brother delivered at the funeral.
By the time Helen left the community she had the respect of many people, especially from businesses and organisations in Darwin. She met with the women of the Daly River community to establish a women’s centre, found the funding for it and the staff to help develop their own skill sets in the arts. She was always aware of their dignity and need to come to the fore in self-confidence at their own pace. Her rsum declares her role working for Nauiyu Nambiyu Community Government Council between 1980 and 1988 as office manager, and eventually council clerk or, as it was probably known, town clerk. Her brother was of the view she was probably one of the first white women to be town clerk in an Aboriginal community.
After Helen left Daly River she worked at mission headquarters in Geranium Street, Stuart Park, with Br Andy Howley to establish the Alcohol and Family Recovery Unit, which included services to the wider suburban community with the aim of excluding no one who needed such counselling. As an incorporated body, it was for the development of Aboriginal and islander communities. This was only possible by the help of Bishops of Australia donating enough funds and a stipend for Br Howley, and wages for Helen for one year to get the program up and running.
In 1997, Helen’s parents moved to Darwin continuing their retirement and working and assisting Helen in her work. There was always a very unassuming way she went about her business.
By this time, Helen regarded herself as having among her personal attributes an excellent knowledge of local tribes, their homelands southwest of Darwin and good rapport with the leaders of these communities - the Port Keats, Wadeye, Melville Island, Bathurst Island and wider Daly River region.
During her life’s course she came to know people well. She was proud but not boastful. She also worked for the electoral office, became a Justice of the Peace, was registrar for the Northern Territory Justices Association, and continued learning skills as she went through life. She also assisted the court system, sitting in judgment in minor cases to ease the pressure within the system.
She was elected to be the Australasian Registrar of Justices of the Peace by delegates in Canberra, and she would have been in New Zealand at the time of her death. Her mind worked to the very end although her body was starting to fade on her.
One area of great interest and love was her dogs. She was well-known and well-loved in dog showing circles. She had standard schnauzers at one stage and papillons. I believe she also had cocker spaniels. I knew Helen well. She did very well in the show ring and was very kind and caring with all her animals.
In the last years, her health deteriorated but her mind never went. One of the things she was always concerned about to the very end was the welfare of her twin brother. She wanted to ensure all personal debts were erased so he did not have to worry when she was not there. Ivan was her twin brother and her rock. He cared for her to the very end. She passed away in the Palliative Care Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital.
One of the other areas of her life not many people knew about was that she belonged to the social group of women I belong to. It is nothing clandestine or like Emily’s list; quite the contrary. We went out to local restaurants and ate, drank, told bad jokes, chased men and then went home slightly intoxicated. Helen, being the kind of person she was and her background as a lay missionary, did the eating and drinking but not the chasing of the men or drinking to the early hours of the morning.
She will be sadly missed by Ivan, her sisters, and her extended family. I extend my greatest sympathies to them.
When you go to funerals and meet other people, it is sad to discover things you did not know when people were alive. None of my family or friends knew Helen was a twin. We did not know about her lay missionary work at Daly River or the Tiwi Islands. She was a quiet achiever whose life came to an end far too soon.
One of the last quotes from Ivan was that he believes her greatest disappointment in life was the divisive destructiveness of self-interest shown by others which could, and did, lead to some of the undoing of her good work with Aboriginal communities and through the Catholic Mission work. I say to Ivan, his sisters and his family, my sincere condolences and may she rest in peace.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was recently at a Bar Association dinner. During that time I became aware the newest senior counsel for the Northern Territory is a gentleman by the name of Ian Read.
As Attorney-General, it is worth introducing these people to members in this House because it demonstrates the quality and depth of people we have in the profession in the Northern Territory.
Mr Ian Read SC was admitted in Victoria in 1989. He has worked almost exclusively as an advocate ever since. He commenced working for Galbally & O’Bryan as a solicitor/advocate in the criminal jurisdiction. Mr Read SC joined the Victorian Bar in 1994 and read with John Rush QC and Michael Colbran QC, practised largely in the original and appellate criminal jurisdiction for defence and prosecutions, but also in civil and commercial fields. He went to Kiribati in 1998 with AusAID in a capacity-building role, holding an in-line advisory position with the national government whilst in Kiribati. Ian appeared before Sir Harry Gibbs and Lord Cook, now both deceased, in the Kiribati Court of Appeal. When I say he appeared there, I presume practising law rather than as a defendant.
He came to Darwin in 2000 and worked briefly in a policy unit in the Department of Justice then went to the Legal Aid Commission. He has practised predominantly in the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, and has appeared in the High Court. He has participated in community and professional activities, including advocacy and training workshops. His father was a country court judge in Victoria and his grandfather was chair of the District Court of Victoria. Clearly, it is a genetic problem in his family. He is married to Ngalmi, a Kiribati woman.
I want to place on the record my congratulations to Ian Read SC for his elevation. As Attorney-General I would like to acknowledge when I can these elevations. It is necessary that people in this House know who is in the profession and who is being advanced. Whilst we live in separate domains - those of us in parliament and those who practise in the courts – it, nevertheless, does us well to acknowledge each other and each other’s achievements. There will be times when we cross swords with people in the profession, times when the people and the profession agree with us in this House, but whatever the case, it is necessary and right to acknowledge positive things. The elevation of Ian Read is a very positive thing.
I also wish to mention a meeting I had with Mark Spain and Margaret Michaels of Clayton Utz, Darwin. In 1996, the well-known Darwin law firm of Phillip & Mitaros became Clayton Utz in a period of rapid expansion for the national, dare I say global, firm. The firm is based in Lindsay Street, Darwin and has three partners and a number of lawyers.
The first partner in charge, Mark Spain, has a long history of involvement in complex Northern Territory litigation. He was the youngest partner in charge of a Clayton Utz office. The other partners of the Darwin office are Margaret Michaels and, more recently, Polat Siva. It is worth noting, on 16 August this year, the office of Clayton Utz won the best law firm in Darwin award at the Euromoney LMG Australasia Women in Business Law Awards 2012 in Sydney.
I will be reporting to this House on my meetings with law firms large and small, individual lawyers, and other people within the judiciary and within the profession from time to time to demonstrate a promise I made to the profession: I will take an active interest in what happens in the profession and an active approach in demonstrating the profession means something to the Northern Territory government.
I would like to place on the record I have met, on numerous occasions, with the Chief Justice as well as having met with the Chief Magistrate on a number of occasions. I have toured both the court houses in Darwin, and toured the court house in Alice Springs to look at the specific problems each of these court houses have.
I thank the Chief Justice for his open and accommodating ways. I thank the Chief Magistrate for her openness and accommodation of my inquires from time to time. I will continue to report to this House about the meetings I have with various firms and speak of the profession I represent in this House.
As Attorney-General, I am and always will be mindful of the unique role this ministry has. Members may be unaware of this, but in England the Attorney-General is a champion of the judiciary, not a member of Cabinet. Being a Cabinet minister and Attorney-General may occasionally place you on the horns of a dilemma. That is considered so serious in the United Kingdom that the Attorney-General is not a member of Cabinet. However, in Australia, the practice is different and one has to navigate these difficulties from time to time as both a Cabinet minister and Attorney-General. I place on the record that I take my role very seriously and will be a voice for the courts when they are unable to be a voice for themselves.
I draw honourable members’ attention to another astounding practitioner in Darwin, a lady by the name of Raelene Webb QC, who I met recently in my office. She is a barrister at Magayamirr Chambers, Darwin, was first admitted in the Northern Territory in 1992 and studied at the University of Queensland where she obtained her law degree. She also has a Bachelor of Science with honours from the University of Adelaide; clearly a talented woman with a broad capacity. She has made her career in law and commenced as an associate to Justice Carney of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. She commenced work with the then Northern Territory Department of Law. In 1994, she was appointed crown counsel and has practised as a barrister since this time, appearing in a wide range of matters, tribunals, courts and has also appeared in the High Court. In March 1999, she moved to the private bar and has since acted as lead counsel on a number of matters before being appointed Queen’s Counsel on 17 September 2004.
Ms Webb QC is the current president of the Northern Territory Bar Association. I had an opportunity to go to the Northern Territory Bar Association and Miss Webb QC indicated this would be her last tenure as the head. Nevertheless, she is a remarkable woman whose passion shines through the work she does. I enjoyed meeting her very much.
I wanted, once again, to alert members of this House to the fine people we have working in the profession in the Northern Territory and the depth of talent we have. I thank honourable members for their attention and am certain all honourable members will agree that people like Raelene Webb QC are fine representatives of the profession in the Northern Territory and we are lucky to have them.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister for Tourism prides himself on his history as a shock jock on Alice Springs radio. He is now bringing that management style to his Tourism portfolio. The minister wants to pass legislation on urgency to establish a new tourism commission. The minister wants opposition support for ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Anticipation of debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister wants the opposition’s support for this; however, his office will not brief me on the legislation until after he has brought this to parliament. What is the urgency? Why the secrecy? More importantly, this legislation and his future tourism decision-making will impact on hundreds of Territory businesses. Has the minister discussed his legislation with them and taken on board any of their suggestions? How will the proposed tourism commission and transfer of tourism leadership to Alice Springs help us tap into the emerging tourism markets in China and India? These markets should be a key focus of our future plans. Indigenous tourism is one of the best tourism assets. Sadly, support for one of our most exciting and Territory-specific sectors, Indigenous tourism, is about to be take a big hit in funds under the new arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 68 - Anticipation of Subject:
Madam SPEAKER: One minute, I will seek some advice.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you for that ruling, Madam Speaker. I am a bit confused, but will see where we go.
Mr Elferink: If I may assist, Madam Speaker, I realise the member is probably unaware of it. It is a specific rule in relation to debates on the Notice Paper. Of course, we will make accommodations. We do not expect you to be across all the rules on Day 1. The Speaker will give you a certain amount of latitude, I imagine, for what you want to say. However, you cannot really have the debate before the debate is going to be had - that seems to be the thing. From the government’s point of view, we will not make a song and dance about it, but it is a rule. Perhaps if this is being done on your behalf, some thought should be given to the rules.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, the legislation pertaining to the relocation of tourism operations to Alice Springs is on the Notice Paper for debate. Standing Order 68 says you cannot talk about it because it is on the Notice Paper. However, you can talk in general terms about the matter - your views in regard to government policy or comments it has made publicly about it, for example.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will do my best to get through this in general terms without entering into the debate I am going to have very soon. I am concerned about tourism; it is our highest priority in the Northern Territory. I was listening to the minister for Tourism yesterday talk about the Dreaming side of tourism. It is a major strategy around an important issue for us.
I ask the minister to come clean on the tourism vision for Territory tourism and his personal priorities. I am proud to be the shadow for Tourism. I will shadow him in everything he does and ensure he spends taxpayers’ money wisely. I will advocate as strongly as I can for hard-working Territorians proudly investing in and developing a strong tourism industry.
Regarding the minister for Tourism’s comments yesterday, he should take a deep breath, focus on working with the people whose industry he is playing with and we can debate the merits of his legislation in the November sittings of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you for your general leeway there.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the general election 2012 in the Northern Territory and one of the suspicions confirmed today by the member for Braitling in Question Time. It was predictable from the member for Braitling because he is a new minister and was hit with a very direct question. Instead of answering the question or taking it on notice, he chose a vindictive and personal attack. In that vindictive and personal attack - which we have become used to from the member for Braitling in this House in opposition and, now, it looks like in government as a minister of the Crown - he said, ‘he did not get’ me - one of his big disappointments when he woke up on Sunday morning after the election was he did not ‘get’ the member for Barkly.
It confirmed a bit of a suspicion because I have been around the backblocks with mobile polling and supporting local Labor candidates for a long time. I discussed with my campaign team, constituents, and Caucus the nature of the campaign run in the bush in 2012. It was very different; very strategic, very targeted by the CLP, and washed with cash. I have never seen so much money change hands in bush campaigning. And the gifts; the gifts that changed hands were incredible.
The member for Braitling probably wants to take the advice I gave the CLP candidate for Barkly. It is very simple, ‘Examine your conscience and question the advice you are given in your campaign’ ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I listened to the member very carefully and am concerned he is making allegations of a criminal nature against a member in this House. If he is going to suggest that gifts and cash were given away in exchange for votes during a campaign, he can do it by way of substantive motion or report it to the police.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. No, I did not interpret it that way. He was talking in general terms.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When you talk about examining your conscience, the member for Port Darwin can examine his conscience.
I am telling the story, and it is a historical story relating to the confirmed suspicion that the member for Braitling outlined quite a vindictive line where he wanted to ‘get’ the member for Barkly. Well, the member for Barkly was re-elected as a Labor member. The campaign was very different and I will share one story about why, in an historical context.
As a Labor government, we worked hard to nail the growth town policy to look at closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and real work around this pragmatic move forward in policy and resources. We worked side by side with the Commonwealth government. That involved achieving very difficult, very controversial and hard-working outcomes in the Stronger Futures package. It also related to the development of the Labor government’s homelands policy. That was packaged up and provided a 10-year story of real Indigenous development across the Northern Territory.
I was particularly pleased with the outcome in the homelands policy. Not only did we keep the Commonwealth government at the table - it was walking away from homelands in the Northern Territory – but the Northern Territory Labor government, through much strategic work from the Treasurer, laid significant resources on the table to complement the Commonwealth’s resources. This was a great story for homelands for the next 10 years to complement the Stronger Futures package.
There is a little outstation 80 km south of Tennant Creek which I have visited over the period of my time from 2008 to 2012. I know the place well. There were significant problems relating to service delivery from the local resource centre. I just could not break through. Simple things were happening which I could not break through.
One of the things the Labor government came up with in the new homelands policy was to start to drive new initiatives to work with the Aboriginal resource centres, to really work on accountability and partnerships, and work together to solve the problem. It had turned into, basically, the local member visiting and discussing issues and not being able to get those issues resolved. It became pretty well ‘blame me’ and ‘blame the government’. That is straightforward; however, there were many other issues in this story. It became quite frustrating. I was very happy with the outcome of the homeland policy development and the work we had done with the Commonwealth government around the Stronger Futures and I told that 10-year story.
We had also develoed, for the first time, the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy in the bush. I was talking to people who were a little more isolated, a little more difficult, about how we could present new passenger freight models to the Labor government should we be re-elected and start to push the boundaries on that Regional Integrated Transport Strategy. We were doing great work, and I am sure the Labor government was ready to entertain more innovative moves into transport in the bush. These places could have been great pilot studies.
The local candidate for the CLP crafted a strategy as I had shared my dream of a passenger freight model with a couple of public servants who were members of the Country Liberal Party. They visited my office in Darwin and I openly shared my thoughts. They took those thoughts away, fed them to the CLP and crafted their strategies. It culminated in, for this particular outstation, free buses being provided. People were bussed into town and given accommodation at the Eldorado Motor Inn with meals and so forth, then bussed into mobile polling booths - first pre-polls, and then on the Saturday morning static in Tennant Creek. The bus service was very effective and moved many Indigenous constituents straight to the ballot box after experiencing wonderful hospitality. It was amazing to see this change, historically, in how the CLP decided it was doing business.
This is when I started to think the CLP was different. The member for Braitling really summed it up for me in Question Time when he hit me with that very vindictive comment, ‘We did not get you, but you are still on our list. We are going to get you.’
When I think back on it now, the advice is to examine your conscience and really question your campaign advice. I do not have time to tell you some of the funny stories about people, great friends of mine over many years, who ended up on those buses and in front of a Labor camp at both the pre-poll and the static on the Saturday and some of the hilarious things that happened. My Alyawarra came back so well after going toe-to-toe with a very hostile booth at Alpurrurulam with a gentlemen by the name of Lindsay Bookie. It was fantastic, all my Alyawarra started to come back. By Saturday morning in Tennant Creek I had an increased vocabulary and was able to communicate with those constituents who found themselves on the bus with the promises they were made and the whole strategy about coming in and voting for the CLP.
At the end of the day, my campaign team, who were absolutely fabulous, were getting rather concerned with this strategy and with the busloads coming in one after the other. I said, ‘Look guys, let’s face it, we are the Labor Party. If we go down today we will go down with dignity. Now, hold your nerve, stand up straight and look people in the eye and tell our story, which is the 10-year story of really addressing Indigenous disadvantage, straightening some of the systems, and delivering for Indigenous people in the regional and remotes.’
To cut a long story short, here I am back in this parliament representing the people of the Barkly for another term, in opposition. I am a proud member of parliament, representing a place in which I have spent more than half my life.
Member for Braitling, thank you for the honesty in your emotion today in Question Time confirming my suspicion. You can be assured, I am on your tail with honesty and integrity and we will hold you to account, and your government, every day every step of the way. I look forward to, once again, teaching you, young fella. If you choose to learn the easy way, good on you; if you choose to learn the hard way, whatever it takes.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wulagi Primary School students accompanied by Ms Jodie Houghton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Daily Hansard
Daily Hansard
Madam SPEAKER: The daily Hansard is not available due to replication issues between our internal Lotus Notes server and the Department of Business Internet server. Members were e-mailed the daily Hansard last night. The issue will be rectified.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Increase to Number of Members
Public Accounts Committee – Increase to Number of Members
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, the number of members to serve on the public accounts committee will be increased to six.
For honourable members’ attention, the reason we are moving this motion is we moved a motion yesterday inviting the member for Nelson to join us on the Public Accounts Committee, but standing orders only allow for five members. This motion is to accommodate the member for Nelson being on the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for moving the motion. We welcome the member for Nelson onto the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to working with him. I believe the member for Sanderson will be chair and we look forward to working with him and examining some of the things said in this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for allowing me to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee. We no longer have the Council of Territory Cooperation; however, I recall the member for Port Darwin saying the Public Accounts Committee could do some of the work the council has done. I hope we can expand the role of the Public Accounts Committee to make it more open and transparent. One of the differences between the Council of Territory Cooperation and the Public Accounts Committee is, in general, the Council of Territory Cooperation meetings were open to the public. There is certainly room to improve the workings of the Public Accounts Committee and I thank the government for allowing me to be part of that process.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions and appreciate the comments from the members for Fannie Bay and Nelson.
Motion agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Katherine
Member for Katherine
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries have leave for the period 12 noon today to the close of business 25 October 2012.
By way of explanation to the House, and I have described this to the leader of opposition business, the minister will be attending the Standing Committee on Primary Industries when it meets next Thursday in New Zealand. Of particular interest to the Territory will be discussions about drought reform, agricultural land development, and the National Foot and Mouth Decision Action Plan. I am sure members would understand, with a meeting of this nature and importance, leave of absence should be granted for the minister to go about the business of protecting the interests of the primary industries of the Northern Territory.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this to the House.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT
Change to General Business Item
Change to General Business Item
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay)(by leave): Madam Speaker, we have asked for, and the Leader of Government Business has consented to, some items on tonight’s general business being switched. The member for Nelson’s motion, which involved this minister, can be put next Wednesday to allow the minister an opportunity to participate in the debate. We thank the Leader of Government Business for consenting to that request and allowing the minister to be present for the debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the government and the opposition for agreeing to that. The motion regarding closure of certain areas to fishing is very important for many people and it would be a waste of time if we were to debate that without the minister being present. I appreciate the changes put forward.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have informed the opposition of this, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business ministerial statements being called on for business forthwith.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we have agreed to the request from the Leader of Government Business. However - and this is obviously the first week of sittings for a new term and everyone is still working things out - it would be preferable in future to receive notice the night before. This was a reasonable thing in the hurly-burly of the first week of sittings. We are happy to not look at it as an issue this time around. However, around statements and changes to routine of business we would normally get notice the night before. We ask for that to happen in future. It is no big deal in the first week of sittings for a new term, especially after the ceremonial day yesterday. However, that is a request for the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this has caught me by surprise. I could say it will not make much difference because the Administrator has spoken about these things, the Chief Minister spoke in his reply yesterday and, now, the statement covers more or less all those areas as well. I was not aware the statement was coming on now. I am the only Independent; however, it would be nice to know so I can arrange my papers for the purposes of being part of the debate. I hope statements can be sent through electronic means. Last night, thankfully, a government staff member dropped off a copy of the statement quite late, otherwise I would not have known about it.
I do not have a great problem because today I was going to respond to your Address-in-Reply. You cover many of those things in the statement and it will probably save me making three speeches, which would probably bore you to tears. I will try to cover it in one.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Economic Status of the Territory
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I put before the House the true state of the Territory’s financial position. Yes, the member for Nelson is correct to an extent. The explanation the Territory is owed about the nature of its financial position will now be outlined and be added to.
I noted too, with interest, the now Labor opposition exhibiting some sensitivity on this topic which reinforces the importance of the statement we are about to make and I am leading, which is the state of the Territory’s financial position.
It is very important to outline to Territorians the extent of the deficit and the debt left by the previous government. However, it is not simply the debt as it now stands, but also the previous government’s ongoing unfunded programs which are having a real impact on the deficit and will cause the debt to continue to grow.
It is necessary to explain to Territorians why my government now has to take steps to return the budget to a balanced position and repay the enormous debt burden which faces every single Territorian no matter where they live. We all have been left with an obligation, a debt, and a load to repay. It will not go away.
Fortunately, there has been change to a government which takes these matters seriously. I suspect Territorians, like me, thought the previous government was not declaring the full facts about the state of the budget. Unfortunately, early indications by the Renewable Management Board indicate we are now headed for a fiscal deficit of over $900m. This means we must make some very hard decisions and get the Territory back into the black.
What is required? Along with other economies, the Territory has struggled in the wake of the global financial crisis. The shallow assertion of the former Treasurer, as though that is the complete and sole explanation for the diabolical position we are placed in now, is wrong. It is an excuse and it is dishonest. As goods and services tax revenues flatlined - by far our major stream from the Commonwealth - the previous government poured money into capital works with the help of the Commonwealth’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan which funded social housing and roads, and schools for the Building the Education Revolution, as an explanation for where the money came from.
There is an argument for spending in a downturn to keep the local economy afloat, I can see that. Most of us can understand the logic there. It may have enabled many Territory firms to stay in business and keep staff in work, but that is not the whole story. We are now well beyond the global financial crisis and the Northern Territory no longer has the financial options available to keep pump-priming the economy. Indeed, the failure of the previous government to put any of the GST windfall aside for a day needed from 2001 through to 2008 meant the support provided during the global financial crisis came at a cost - a significant cost to the bottom line of the budget that saw ballooning deficits and an ever-growing debt.
The federal government this week signalled it will cut $22bn from its spending programs because of a fall in tax revenue. Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has recognised when income falls spending must be cut.
However, the previous Territory government continued spending and spending, but not just in one-off capital projects, it grew significant expenditure items in the budget on the recurrent side which locked it in. It painted itself into a fiscal corner. On the revenue side, GST did not grow as the previous government had hoped it would, our slowing property market lowered our own source stamp duty collections, and falling world commodity prices affected mineral royalty revenues. These are the facts.
The previous government continued to spend beyond its means despite falling revenue growth - the recipe for a problem we have inherited and one we will fix.
Let us look at some of the high-level figures at budget time in May and again at election time in August when the pre-election fiscal outlook was released. These are instructive. The non-financial public sector fiscal imbalance was $767m at budget time; however, in the pre-election financial outlook it has expanded to $867m - a $100m escalation in just three months. The ratio of nett debt to revenue is expected to be 98% by 2015-16, and that, frankly, is not sustainable. Unfortunately, the early indications from the Renewal Management Board are worse than this government expected.
Example after example is coming forward on commitments made by the previous government where activities were part-funded but not adequately reflected in the forward estimates on an ongoing basis, or where staff were engaged, such as the case in child protection, but there was no ongoing funding provided for those staff. National agreements are reached for joint funding of programs and services which the Territory must continue to fund when the agreement ceases or where the capital funds are accepted by the Commonwealth but no allocation is made to fund the ongoing operation following the construction of the facility, as in the case of the health system.
The fact is, without intervention the 2012-13 fiscal deficit is likely to be over $900m compared to the May budget figure of $767m. The impact of this, looking through the forward estimates, would see our debt rise to over $6bn in 2016. Prudent financial management says the operating balance should be in surplus in order to respond to the Territory’s infrastructure or externally impacted needs as they arise. Clearly, we cannot continue in this vein. Already, interest charges on our nett debt are costing us $750 000 every single day. If we were to continue the result would have to be fewer jobs, particularly jobs for our children in the future, and greatly reduced services.
Immediately on assuming office I commissioned the Renewal Management Board to get to the bottom of this situation. This board will provide an objective analysis of the real financial position and give advice on the way forward. The Renewal Management Board comprises former under treasurers, senior public servants, and other experienced Territorians who know the Territory and understand the workings of the Territory government. The board is working closely with agencies, chief executives and ministers. Examining agency operations in detail is essentially about identifying opportunities to do more with less, and this review is bringing forward good ideas for providing services in a better way, differently and more efficiently.
Other initiatives will focus on work practices which could be more efficient, and we will see the impact of this work in the mini-budget on 4 December 2012.
What are the actions to date? In respect of the public service, the mega-department approach was not working. With too many responsibilities gathered together into single agencies, connections to the outcomes needed were being lost. Chief executives were spread too thinly across their businesses and could not possibly keep an eye on what was happening everywhere. This is not necessarily a criticism of existing executives or departments. We are simply recognising that, in many cases, smaller work units are more efficient and more able to react to developments within their own areas of business. In many cases, large organisations have less ability to adjust quickly or readily to the needs of clients and stakeholders or to changing circumstances. The Territory is, after all, a small jurisdiction.
There is a need to refocus and enable chief executives to concentrate on their core business, to be closer to their business and more accountable for the outcomes of their agencies. Generally, smaller agencies are more flexible and responsive, and more nimble. Above all else, the smaller departments are designed to be closer to those they service. I note, however, the exception to this maxim, and that is establishing the former department as an Office of Children and Families in the new Department of Education and Children’s Services. This move is designed to bring practitioners charged with caring, protecting and developing our children closer together to operate far more collaboratively and effectively as part of the same organisation.
The new department will erase the barriers which have persisted in the past as practitioners were parts of different organisations. The network of schools and support infrastructure now available to child protection workers by virtue of being part of the education agency will improve outcomes for children immeasurably, and this is the main objective - to focus on children not bureaucratic structures.
Let us be very clear, for a number of years the approach to child protection has failed. We are directly linking education and related support services and are taking a new approach.
As for the public service and the proliferation of programs, the number of full-time equivalent staff in the Northern Territory Public Service has grown by just over 20% in the last five years. We now have over 20 000 public servants.
Growth in the number of executive contract officers is 50% over the same period of time. This simply cannot be sustained. It is largely due to the proliferation of programs, and more programs mean more people and, necessarily, more managers. This has made government bigger but not better. We are not going to load up the service with more and more programs. With chief executives and ministers, the Renewal Management Board is looking for duplication across same or similar programs in agencies and discovering where the gaps and opportunities exist, such as business-generating agencies left fallow for years now.
The Renewal Management Board is seeking more efficient use of our precious and finite financial resources to generate economic growth and social cohesion and pay attention to the forgotten areas of the Territory which are everywhere outside Darwin.
I acknowledge there is anxiety in the public sector. This is understandable given there has been a change of government. This is only the second time it has happened since self-government in the Northern Territory; it does happen more regularly in other places. I am genuinely sorry for the anxiety which may have been caused as a result of the decisions we are being forced to confront. However, after 11 years of Labor in government it has been very important to lay the foundations of how we will approach government, and what we will do from the start is be honest.
As part of the review process it has been essential to review high-level structures in departments. As I said before, there has been a 50% growth in executive contract numbers in the past five years. There are clearly too many chiefs, often at the expense of the Indians on the front line and the vital staff supporting the front line.
This is no reflection on senior public servants who are good and decent people. If this occurred in private enterprise, particularly during a period of contracting revenue, some very tough questions would be asked and need to be answered. We need to thin out the executive, flatten the structures, and demand greater accountability from our senior managers.
Their individual responsibilities are clear and they should be given the chance to truly manage or lead their colleagues through this exciting new period. This will provide greater connectivity and linkages from the work of each public servant to the strategic direction of the departments and the solutions being pursued in the interest of better service for Territorians.
The previous government presided over significant barriers and hurdles to business and the economy. The most glaring example of this is housing, and the constrained supply of housing for Territorians. The lack of housing supply has caused huge growth in house prices and rental costs which, in turn, have affected population growth and the ability of small- to medium-sized businesses to attract and hold on to staff. Business owners have been telling us how they struggle to find and keep qualified and quality employees. One of the greatest challenges to this is largely due to big mortgages and high rents.
We believe there is a relatively simple explanation to the current difficulties we face with housing costs. Many of the existing housing schemes did not plan for a solution. Their approach was to assist Territorians to buy established homes. Inevitably, this caused prices to soar and did almost nothing to increase supply.
My government’s approach will be to provide more stock. We will address the impediments to development. We will support the building of 2000 new rental dwellings during our first term, aimed at apprentices, nurses, teachers and other key workers and families in most need.
This will start to address the problem of the high cost of living in the Territory and, in particular, the high rental cost and increasing housing prices.
The great Australian dream of home ownership is currently out of reach of low- and middle-income workers, key workers, often resulting in them leaving the Northern Territory.
Obviously, businesses need staff to be successful because without them they cannot expand and contribute to the growth of the local economy. We need to stop this population drain. The planning framework should be facilitating development and growth for business, jobs, services for the community, but it is not.
We are establishing a planning commission to address the lack of an effective policy framework. Land release has been too slow with the previous government caught like rabbits in the headlights. This has caused inflated land prices for homeowners and supply has not kept up with demand by a long shot. This has, effectively, put home ownership out of the reach of many, especially young people starting out.
The new approach to land release and development will help address this imbalance between demand and supply of housing. We are also looking at infill and renewal in all urban centres, not only Darwin. One of the key Country Liberals policy platforms is to create a three-hub economy consisting of a mining and energy hub, tourism and international education hub, and a food and export hub into Asia.
This strategy highlights the lack of investment by the previous government in the wealth generating areas of the economy. We must develop long-term, well-paying jobs for our young people. The government’s three-hub economy will have as its focus a strategy to ensure jobs are created in the Northern Territory. There will be jobs in the growth industries of tomorrow.
As part of this task, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, with his department, will set about repairing relationships with Indonesia following the live cattle export ban imposed in 2011 which has significantly affected Territory pastoral industries, particularly in the north. This will not be an easy task; however, my government will work with our Indonesian neighbours to try to prevent such an incident occurring again.
There are major opportunities in growing our key horticultural industries, like mangoes and bananas, and building on the live cattle export trade. We should be starting to develop the enormous opportunities available from the Northern Territory side of the border with Western Australia to expand the Ord River Irrigation Scheme and develop new trading partnerships with our Southeast Asian neighbours. We are working on that now.
The Northern Territory government is committed to the development of a Territory-wide fishery resource developing Indigenous fishing enterprises, but we will ensure all decisions take into account the interests of commercial and recreational fishermen.
Much of the Territory is still under-explored and there are continually new minerals and gas deposits being discovered. Reducing red tape, balanced with sound environmental outcomes, will facilitate a number of new mines that are on track to be opened in the foreseeable future. When a new mine is opened, there are major flow-on effects for the whole of the Northern Territory economy. The government will also be constantly on the alert for opportunities for downstream processing of our resources, for it is here we will discover the greatest long-term employment opportunities for Territorians.
In tourism and education, the government is supporting Charles Darwin University’s plan to establish a campus in the Darwin central business district which will have direct benefits for the tourism industry, overseas students, and local businesses.
Moving Tourism NT to Central Australia signals how serious this government is about supporting and growing the tourism sector at its heart and our support for strengthening our regions. It also demonstrates, in a very practical sense, how serious my government is about supporting our fellow Territorians throughout Central Australia and all those areas outside and beyond the Berrimah Line. These other areas were too long ignored by the previous government. Central Australia seemed to be effectively cut adrift from government’s consideration. It was left to morph into a welfare centre rife with social problems. The previous government did not support business development in the town. Relocating Tourism NT and the Parks and Wildlife Commission to Alice Springs will help redress this. The government believes these decisions will once again focus commercial interest on these areas where the Territory has a strong comparative advantage; that is, product to offer but where investment is needed to make that product accessible.
Alice Springs needs to be supported as a significant regional hub and also needs to be a safe place to visit, live, and work. Like all other Australians, Indigenous people should be able to live on their own country and have access to necessary services without having to drift into town and be exposed to alcohol and possible harm and, perhaps, cause harm to others.
There was no genuine interest in the Alice or the Centre by the previous government. It seemed happy to leave Alice to Commonwealth investment in town camps through the Alice Springs transformation plan and so on. We will have a much more attentive and cohesive approach to regional and remote areas and issues.
In my Address-in-Reply, I have outlined this government’s vision for the way forward for the Territory. Over the term of this government, it will become a better place for Territorians, visitors and those who do business with it. It will become a better place because we will work with Territorians to make it a better place. We will first and foremost get the Territory finances back in order.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I respond to the statement delivered by the Chief Minister. The key theme is about a fiscal deficit of over $900m. Sadly for him, he provides no facts to back up this assertion. His Treasurer tried to explain it this week but stumbled through a train wreck of a media conference - which is the talk of the town - to end up telling the media everyone has to wait for the mini-budget in December for details. Be accountable - is that the case, Chief Minister? We all knew this was coming. It comes straight out of the incoming Liberal government play book: be a small target, make as many promises as you need to be elected, then discover the budget was in worse shape than you thought and blame the previous government for all the cuts you are inevitably going to make.
The Chief Minister started by handpicking three members of his Renewal Management Board, one of whom, through the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Assembly, was found to have cooked the books in the last CLP budget of 2000-01. How can we believe a hand-picked political team, one of whom has form on cooking the books, against the independent Treasury of the Northern Territory, the hard-working professional public servants?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to urge the Leader of the Opposition to be careful in those allegations. They are unnecessary, and the person she is speaking of has no voice to protect himself in this House. What she is doing is, again, using this House as a coward’s castle ...
Ms Lawrie: You can protect him.
Mr ELFERINK: ... to attack people who have no capacity to defend themselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Please be careful with your comments, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely. The member for Port Darwin, the Chief Minister, and the Treasurer, are more than able to read the Public Accounts Committee report which showed the health budget was altered for presentation purposes only. It was the then Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke. In colloquial terms it is described as cooking the books. I understand you have an issue with that. We had a significant issue with that because we introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act to ensure it could never happen again.
As a result of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, to ensure presentation purposes only adjustment in budget papers could never happen again, we have the pre-election fiscal outlook compiled entirely by Treasury without consultation with the Treasurer prior to the general Territory election as required under the FITA. The Treasurer is required to advise Treasury of any funding commitments which could have a material fiscal or economic implication. These are contained in a letter from me to the Under Treasurer within the PEFO.
Two commitments were outlined: a $16m contribution to six key bush roads contained within the election commitments; and a $33m commitment for the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive, also contained within the election commitments submitted to Treasury. Those election commitments were signed off by the Under Treasurer as being within the forward estimates of the budget capacity. So, no impost - no increase of deficit as a result of those commitments.
This update occurred in August. It was released two weeks prior to the election to provide all political parties with the latest budget figures. The update comes with the Under Treasurer’s certification. It was signed and dated by the Under Treasurer on 15 August. Very clearly, on page 3 of the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook, the underlying cash outcome of the Territory budget - the true test of our fiscal position - is an estimated deficit in 2012-13 of $509m in the general government sector, not the $900m you claim is the deficit. It also shows an estimated improvement in the 2011-12 outcomes.
By the way, where is the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement Report, the TAFR, the audited accounts of the 2011-12 financial year which is always tabled in the October sittings of parliament? Why are you hiding the expected improvement in the Territory’s 2011-12 financial outcome? You have been banging on about the budget. Where is the TAFR, where is the expected improvement in 2011-12? That does not fit your narrative, does it? It does not fit the spin you are involved in.
The PEFO shows an estimated deficit of $254m in the out years of 2015-16 - hardly the crisis the CLP would wish us to believe we were in. You must be honest with Territorians. The deficit is there, but it is manageable and can be paid back with your inevitable slash and burn. Pathetic attempts to justify a political slash through the public service aimed at sacking anyone considered Labor is just that, pathetic and vindictive. Yes, we have heard Col Fuller has a hit list of 200 in the effort to hide your abysmal actions of paying your old boy mates ridiculous salaries, not just Julian Swinstead on his fat cat contract, but all the others who have come from interstate and out of retirement to join the old boys club.
Each year the forward estimates show a reduction in deficit, a result of strong financial management using staffing caps, efficiency dividends, and running counter-cyclical to the capital works spend to peg back deficit and head towards a return to surplus.
Labor delivered eight budget surpluses in a row and retired $582m in debt. We did this while at the same time growing critical services by boosting the budgets across education, health, police and child protection. Health went from $432m back in 2001 to $1.2bn in 2012, delivering 294 more doctors, 855 more nurses, 127 more hospital beds, opened the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and Barbara James House, delivered a super clinic in Palmerston, opened the first NT medical school with CDU and Flinders University, and led the nation in the e-Health initiative which is making a positive impact on remote Indigenous Territorians.
Education went from $335m in 2001 to $950m in 2012, delivering 495 more teachers into our schools and opening new secondary schools across remote Northern Territory - we know the CLP had a policy of no secondary schooling in the bush.
We opened new schools: Arlparra High School, Baniyala Garrangali School, Bonya School, Manyalluluk School and Emu Point. We have also built new schools in Darwin and Palmerston to meet the growth in population, including Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools, as well as investing in upgrades across all our existing schools. We built a new special school for Nemarluk students and committed a $30m upgrade and new construction programs for our special schools. I hope the new government does not walk away from this important investment.
Some of the highlights of huge school upgrade investments were Centralian Middle School, Ross Park Primary School and Barkly College. Our investment in school programs, with a strong focus on literacy and numeracy, was progressing in the right direction. NAPLAN results - we were starting to make progress in the direction we needed to see, and our rate of improvement in the majority of the testing domains was outstripping the national rate.
We delivered 400 more police and implemented the Banned Drinker Register, stopping 2500 drunks at point of sale at takeaway outlets across the Territory.
We boosted child protection with a budget from the paltry $8m in 2000-01 to $135m in 2011-12, creating a new department to shine a light on this issue, one you have already scrapped.
Where does the Chief Minister’s deficit figure come from? It appears on page 21 of the PEFO and refers to the non-financial public sector estimated outcomes. That is the combined outcomes of those semi-autonomous authorities such as the Power and Water Corporation and the Darwin Port Corporation. The PEFO identifies the underlying fiscal balance in 2012-13 as a deficit of $867m. You are apples and oranges in your comparisons. You are pretending it is a deficit when it is the underlying fiscal balance across the financial public sector. You are not using the test every jurisdiction in our nation uses, with the exception of Victoria - using the operating balance we would be in surplus. You are fudging and choosing what figures you want to use to trick Territorians. You are incredibly wrong in doing this because the media is not that stupid. They can read these budget papers, they can read the PEFO.
You are ignoring the role of the Power and Water Corporation Board. Have you met with them, Chief Minister? You are ignoring the need of Power and Water to invest significantly in infrastructure to literally rebuild the power generation and add capacity to meet growth in demand. You are ignoring the Merv Davies report after the catastrophic Casuarina Zone Substation failure which identified significant repairs and maintenance required across the zone substations and transmission and generation networks.
You are ignoring the required closure of the Larrakeyah sewage outfall and the increase in the height of the Darwin River Dam wall to ensure our future water supply. Does reality become an inconvenient fact?
Does the Chief Minister ignore the Reeves report into the financial sustainability of Power and Water which also recognised the significant capital and repairs and maintenance program investment required to rebuild and build a power, water and sewerage system to cater for the Territory’s needs? The then Utilities Commissioner, Andrew Reeves, who has gone on to become our national regulator, explained that the Territory was similar to all Australian jurisdictions requiring a 20-year investment into infrastructure because systems were so run down and demand was outstripping capacity.
While that goes to the Power and Water financial investment, let us go back to the incredible comment by the Chief Minister in his statement to the House today claiming:
- We are now well beyond the global financial crisis ...
Unbelievable! You might possibly be the only leader in the world who would believe that. Chief Minister, you clearly have no idea. The nation’s financial institutions, and therefore the flow of credit to the private sector, are still grappling with the global financial crisis.
Government revenues are still being significantly detrimentally impacted by the global financial crisis. The Territory is directly affected with massive reductions in GST revenue in the order of $700m and counting. The global financial crisis is still having an effect and the world and our nation are doing everything they can to ward off another wave of crisis - look at the European sovereign debt crisis.
How can you make the statement that the global financial crisis is over? It is extraordinary. You would be the only leader in the world, I believe, to say that.
The question of debt and sustainability is one you will continue to beat the drum on. You do not want anyone to know the facts.
The Territory’s debt is about 11% of GDP whereas the debt of Greece is at 165%. Our debt is manageable and a prudent government would have a deficit reduction strategy, which we clearly had, and would then move to retire debt through surplus, which we did with eight budget surpluses in a row.
Why did we go into deficit? The Treasurer embarrassed herself today by referring to a 2008 media release before the global financial crisis - just missed that reality out, Treasurer. Why did we go into deficit? The effect of the global financial crisis was that credit markets froze. The private sector investment almost dried up and to prevent an economic decline, public sector spending through infrastructure was required to prop up the economy.
The 2010-11 actuals show the decision to spend on infrastructure, to double the infrastructure budget, kept us in positive growth of 1.6%. Strip out the public spend that year and our economy would have flatlined.
We made a deliberate decision to put $4.6bn - all the deficit plus some - into infrastructure over three financial years prior to the private sector investment which will flow from the Ichthys project the Labor government landed to keep our construction sector alive, our businesses open and 13 000 jobs created.
The effect of this is we have the second fastest growing economy in the nation according to the commentary from the latest CommSec report handed down this week. Deloitte Access Economics describes us as the fastest growing economy in the nation for the next five years, even out-stripping Western Australia.
That is coming on the back of over a decade ago where we inherited a flatlined, 0% economy under the Country Liberal Party. In just a decade we turned it around to being the fastest growing economy in the nation while we built services, while we retired debt, and while we sustained economic growth through the darkest days of the global financial crisis.
We kept improving services, literally building the Territory. We have secured the nation’s second largest major project, a $34bn investment, when our southern counterparts were struggling and also in deficit. Labor made it clear that as the GST revenue began to recover we would put that against deficit and return to surplus as soon as it was possible.
This would be done by running counter-cyclical in the capital spend coming off the record highs required to ride us through the global financial crisis. With strong employment, strong economic growth, a return to population growth and strong retail growth, we are the envy of our neighbours. We kept our operational spends but no revenue.
I will repeat that because one of the three stooges on the review committee hand-picked by the Chief Minister stated publicly that our operating payments were above our revenue. He is wrong. The operating payments in the Territory budget are below revenue. That means we were keeping a tight rein on public sector spending without axing programs, without sacking public servants, and by recognising the Territory is a growing jurisdiction which requires improved, not diminished, services.
Along comes the CLP. It adds 10 new departments on top of the 23 existing departments. That is not prudent financial management; it is ridiculous and provides a duplication of the frontline services the CLP rail against. By all means, any government will look for efficiencies as it should, and as we did. We had tough efficiency dividends in place across government agencies yielding savings in the order of $150m a year. At the same time, we overhauled procurement and were cutting red tape to improve productivity and provide a greater opportunity for Territory businesses to benefit from the economic prosperity we had secured.
The Chief Minister spoke about the growth in executive numbers then appointed an extra 10 CEOs for his new agencies and the executives who will work under them. What a hypocrite!
The Chief Minister spoke about the need for more housing stock, yet he axed the My New Home scheme, an innovative housing finance scheme designed to stimulate new stock and lauded by the Urban Developers Institute of Australia, the Master Builders Australia, the developers of our land release sites, the Real Estate Institute ...
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if I could interrupt to welcome some visitors to our parliament.
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Sanderson Middle School students, accompanied by Miss Kaylee Dickinson and Mrs Laura Stephenson. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your tour and time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms LAWRIE: A great school servicing the needs of my electorate of Karama and Malak suburbs. I visit Sanderson quite often; it is a great school.
Not only was the My New Home scheme lauded by everyone across all the sectors of industry who understand the residential housing market - every property council, Real Estate Institute, Master Builders, Urban Developers Institute, the developers themselves - but there were also 1000 Territorians waiting to buy their own home and get off the rental roundabout when Terry Mills scrapped the scheme.
Chief Minister, where are these 2000 new rentals you talked about before the election? Rentals are not home ownership, they are rentals; people are still stuck on the rental roundabout. By all means, tell us exactly where unless, of course, you propose to claim federal Labor’s NRAS as your own as the new Minister for Housing unashamedly claimed Labor’s innovative village at the Parap housing project when just into his new ministry.
As for land release, exactly where are you releasing this new land? Are you claiming Muirhead, the CIC/CDU land at Palmerston, Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli and Mitchell for which Labor planned and invested in the headworks? Or, wait! Will you claim the new city of Weddell for which we had the planning in full swing?
In regard to urban renewal, you had not one clear election commitment, yet Labor had committed $10m to the redevelopment of urban public housing sites across some of the oldest public housing estates, which included Tomaris Court in the Darwin CBD, Kurringal Flats in Fannie Bay, Shiers Street in The Narrows, and the infill side of Stuart Park by relocating the Darwin Bus Service and NT Fleet. Will you be claiming those as yours?
What about the ludicrous relocation of Tourism, Parks and Wildlife to Alice Springs, and the destruction you are wreaking on our commercial fishing industry? You have proven, through your actions in the first 100 days, you are taking the Territory back to the 1990s and coasting off the success of Labor delivering a major project while keeping the Territory economy in growth during the darkest days of the global financial crisis.
Your old boys are not in here to prop you up, and their corporate knowledge and abilities are yesterday’s not tomorrow’s.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this is my first statement as Treasurer and I am very happy to be talking on such an important issue for all Northern Territorians.
That was a remarkable speech from the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, she was working very hard to conceal the significant fiscal imbalance we inherited from her and her team of fairly ordinary operators when it comes to looking after the financial affairs of the Northern Territory.
It saddens me to make this statement in such straitened financial circumstances when I would have preferred to be able to tell a very positive story about the legacy the former Treasurer and the former government left behind. Unfortunately, it has not been a good legacy, which is still coming to light through the marvellous work of the Renewal Management Board. It has been quite a scary and daunting legacy we have found upon taking office.
As the Chief Minister said, the financial position of the Northern Territory is not sustainable on its current trajectory. Urgent action is required to bring spending under control and more closely aligned with our revenues and what we can afford. ‘Afford’ is probably where the former government went terribly wrong. It took on projects and various expenditures which, very simply, it could not afford.
The debt has grown significantly over time and while some debt is good, this much debt is bad. The irony is all the economic indicators show the Territory is booming. CommSec, earlier this week, ranked the Territory as the second strongest economy in Australia, and all the while the public sector is straining under the weight of huge debt levels. It is a dichotomy. It is probably difficult for Territorians to understand the mixed messages they are getting. On one hand, through private sector investment mainly because of INPEX, you have a strong booming economy, but the other side of the picture is a government weighted under huge levels of debt. The government simply cannot continue like this.
In normal times, the state of the budget can be assessed by reference to what is known as the general government sector. This is what we hear the former government, the Leader of the Opposition, talking about when she plucks figures about the level of fiscal deficit. She chooses to use the general government sector as her reference. This sector is generally reliant on untied revenue such as taxes and goods and services tax revenue. It includes agencies such as health, education, police and so on.
The non-financial public sector is a broader sector as it includes both general government and the public non-financial corporations. Non-financial public corporations, which in the Territory include the Power and Water Corporation and the Darwin Port Corporation, are meant to fully rely on their own revenue sources to operate. In the Territory’s case, however, the Power and Water Corporation, the most significant entity in the non-financial public corporation sector, relies heavily on taxpayer support. For this reason, the government’s finances have to be assessed by reference to the non-financial public sector. That is, by examining the broader scope due to the financial situation of the component parts. The focus can return to the general government sector only when the Power and Water Corporation is truly a self-supporting business and not diverting resources that would otherwise fund general government operation.
It is complicated; it is difficult to understand on the surface. However, the former Treasurer should know very well this is the case when it comes to the Northern Territory and not hide behind the more convenient and advantageous figures found in the general government sector.
There are three key fiscal indicators for the non-financial public sector. The first indicator is the nett operating balance - the difference between operating revenue and operating expenses. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook – PEFO - projections prepared by Treasury, the government has inherited a nett operating deficit of $185m in 2012-13. Without any policy change that deficit is set to grow to $231m in 2015-16. An operating deficit indicates operating revenue is insufficient to fund current operations - very simple. In the five years before the global financial crisis the non-financial public sector ran an operating surplus averaging around $175m.
The second indicator is the overall fiscal balance, or the difference between total revenue operating and capital and total expenditure operating and capital. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook, the government has inherited an overall fiscal imbalance - a deficit of $867m in 2012-13. Without any policy change, a deficit of $475m will remain in 2015-16.
In the five years before the global financial crisis the non-financial public sector ran an overall fiscal deficit, on average, of $26m. An overall fiscal deficit increases nett debt.
That brings us to the third key fiscal indicator, the debt. According to the pre-election fiscal outlook, the government has inherited nett debt of $3471m in 2012-13. This is equal to 66% of the Territory’s annual revenue. Without policy change, this will climb to $5540m in 2015-16 or close to 100% of annual revenue. This is where the former government was taking us - where our nett debt is close to or 100% of annual revenue.
If you believe what you hear from the Leader of the Opposition there is no problem. That is not the case. We are in dire straits. Things are very serious and very bad.
There is no doubt that on many levels the Territory economy is doing well. The CommSec State of the States publication for October 2012 was released on Monday this week. In overall performance, CommSec ranked the Territory the second strongest of the jurisdictions, behind Western Australia.
- The Territory’s ranking was underpinned by strong ‘economic growth,’ driven by new resource projects including the INPEX liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, as well as a low unemployment rate, firm retail spending and strong growth in dwelling commencements.
The Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned this.
Similarly, Deloitte Access Economics released its Business Outlook for the September 2012 quarter on Monday. Deloitte revised its forecast for state final demand in the Territory for 2012-13 from 8.7% to 22.3%, primarily due to a significant upward revision in its forecast level of private construction investment in the year from $4.2bn to $6.2bn. This large revision, however, reflects Deloitte’s assessment of the construction profile of one big project, and that is INPEX. Thank goodness for private sector investment in the Northern Territory.
Despite this large upward revision, the impact on overall economic growth is expected to be minimal because much of the construction components, machinery and equipment acquired by INPEX will be imported from outside the Territory. In other words, on the face of it the economy is doing well; however, this view rests on one major project, INPEX, while other sectors of the economy and business are weaker than the high-level numbers suggest.
Factors include the lack of affordable housing for key workers, making attracting and retaining workers difficult for business and other sectors, slowing population growth and increasing nett interstate migration outflows from the Territory. This is what we have inherited from the former government.
The Territory’s economic growth prospects do not ensure the government’s finances are necessarily in order. The Territory government’s revenue is linked, in the main, to the national economy and growth in goods and services tax collections - in GST. As Australians increase their propensity to save and spend more of their money on GST-free items such as health services, food and basic necessities, growth in GST collections has slowed right down.
Debate suspended.
PETITION
O’Ferrals Rock Declared as a Conservation Zone with Heritage Listing
O’Ferrals Rock Declared as a Conservation Zone with Heritage Listing
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 3630 petitioners praying that O’Ferrals Rock be declared a conservation zone and have heritage listing. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we request that O'Ferrals Rock, a very small rounded hill near Sadgroves Creek and the Bayview estate, receive formal Northern Territory government recognition for conservation and preservation. This natural landmark has featured on official maps since about 1940. It is recognised by the NT Place Names Committee. The hill, on Crown land, though small, has a distinctive natural ecology and Aboriginal archaeological significance and is an attractive landmark feature with an interesting World War I history.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government formally declares O’Ferrals Rock as a conservation zone and includes it in the new park adjoining it in O’Ferrals Road. Further, we ask that the Northern Territory government support its immediate heritage listing.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MOTION
Note Statement –
Economic Status of the Territory
Note Statement –
Economic Status of the Territory
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I resume my speech in response to the ministerial statement on the Northern Territory budget presented earlier today by the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Earlier today we heard the Leader of the Opposition respond to this statement giving us some incorrect information. She finally conceded she had not been providing the full picture to the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the fiscal imbalance - the budget deficit. She conceded it is appropriate to refer to the non-financial public sector when quoting figures and she gave us the figure, which she quoted as coming from the pre-election fiscal outlook report, of $767m being the fiscal deficit or imbalance. That is incorrect. The figure from the pre-election fiscal outlook was $867m, so it is really difficult to understand where the former Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, is coming from when she contradicts herself. She is working very hard to get out of what must be an incredibly embarrassing position. Taking ownership of the damage that has been done by the former government must be painful and cause a normal person to lose sleep at night. It must be very difficult to walk down the streets of Darwin looking people in the face.
However, she has thick skin - we have all seen that over the last 24 hours - and is capable of bearing the weight of the legacy she has handed over to us as the new government.
I will outline to you the position of the Territory budget at this point in time. The Territory government’s revenue is linked, in the main, to the national economy and growth in goods and services tax collection, or GST. As Australians increase their propensity to save and spend more of their money on GST-free items such as health services, food and basic necessities, growth in GST collections has slowed right down. This has undermined the Territory’s revenue base; however, all the while spending has continued without adjusting to the shrinking revenue flows in the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Chief Minister for not being aware of the global financial crisis. It seems to me, particularly when I look at this graph provided by the Renewal Management Board, that the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, did not realise that in 2008 the global financial crisis commenced. We know that because revenue started to decline.
The former Treasurer must not have understood it had commenced, despite much media coverage, much speculation and financial commentary. She did not realise it had happened because she did not curtail her expenditure at all. Revenue declined and expenditure increased. Perhaps she did not understand, an allegation we heard across the Chamber many times from the former government, ‘The opposition just does not understand’. Well, all that time there was one person in the Chamber who did not understand - the former Treasurer. If she understood, she would have recognised the global financial crisis started in 2008 and would have curtailed her expenditure. She would have made a significant correction in line with the decreasing revenue from GST and we would not be in the major pickle we are now, compliments of the former Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition.
It is important the Territory’s budget moves to a surplus position so the government has the capacity to respond to areas of greatest need as they arise. Unless its finances are in order, the government cannot ensure the social infrastructure to facilitate and service major developments undertaken by the private sector is in place when needed.
In the climate of slowing GST growth, which the former Treasurer failed to recognise, the previous government kept up its high levels of ongoing recurrent spending without adjusting to meet the challenges of lower revenues. This began at the time of the global financial crisis when governments ramped up spending. The economic maxim of ‘spend your way out of a recession’ was the modus operandi of the former government. Territory government spending has not come down from that high. It has continued unabated while revenue growth has not kept pace. Big capital programs, mainly supported by Commonwealth funding agreements along with more and more services and programs, staff, and managers, has led to a situation of more government without the money to pay for it or the commensurate outcomes we might expect.
The story about declining GST growth is particularly pertinent for the Territory because the Territory relies heavily on the Commonwealth for revenue, as the former Treasurer well knows. GST revenue constitutes around 60% of the Territory’s income, with a further 20% comprised of tied Commonwealth grants. Only 20% of the Territory’s revenue is derived from its own sources. It is quite staggering, really. Those revenues include payroll tax, stamp duties, mineral royalty fees and charges.
To put this in perspective, other jurisdictions depend far less on the Commonwealth, receiving an average of around 25% of other states’ budgets from GST revenue. Own source revenue, particularly taxes, are relatively stable at the moment. However, the high Australian dollar and the uncertainty around commodity prices could affect future mining royalties. The effects are less significant as a 1% drop in our own source revenue equates to around $5m, whereas a 1% drop in GST revenue equates to almost $28m.
Also, supporting an unprofitable Power and Water Corporation has put a significant strain on the budget and the Territory’s debt position. In its credit analysis of the Northern Territory of Australia released in January of this year, Moody’s commented the deterioration in the Territory’s debt burden in 2009-10 reflected the financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation. When the Leader of the Opposition likes to gloat about figures which do not pertain to Power and Water in relation to the budget deficit, it is a clear indicator of what she is trying to hide. Moody’s identified Power and Water as having to be in the mix when talking about the financial performance of the Northern Territory. This had resulted in the need for operational support from the Territory budget and Moody’s urged that the planned improvements to the Power and Water Corporation’s financial performance be implemented.
The previous government had the opportunity to do this with advice from the Reeves report in 2009. However the previous government did not act on Reeves’ recommendations in full, as it implemented far lower tariff increases for users than he urged. We now find Power and Water’s financial situation in a far worse state than in 2009. It is a very simple equation - revenue and expenditure.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Araluen, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I turn to the Territory’s debt. Asset replacement is being funded increasingly by borrowings rather than as should be the case, by operating services. Government debt should only be used to finance the expansion and extension of public infrastructure. However, the situation we have today is a level of nett debt set to double between 2011-12 and 2015-16. In the space of five years, nett debt is set to double in both the general government sector and the broader non-financial public sector. Territory taxpayers are already paying $750 000 per day, every day, in interest on that debt.
Let us turn it around and look at it from another angle. Territorians are forgoing $750 000 per day in services and infrastructure in order to pay interest on this debt. Think of all the footpaths, hospitals, parks, cycling paths and street lights we are going without because we have to service this debt the former government placed us in. That is $750 000 a day - equivalent to quite a luxurious home in the Northern Territory.
Granted, government would normally have some level of debt. Nonetheless, an interest bill of $750 000 a day is equivalent to seven extra teachers for a year, three police officers, a significant piece of equipment for a health clinic, sealing a stretch of dirt road, or developing public housing for the ageing. The economic cost is considerable. However, it gets worse. The interest bill is set to rise to $1.2m a day by 2015-16, or $425m in that year. The outlook is bleak if we keep going along the trajectories set by the former government.
Imagine how we could use that money in other ways to build economic infrastructure, grow our families to be healthy and educated, house key workers, and invest in wealth-creating industries which benefit the whole community rather than it leaving the Territory in the form of interest payments. The size of the debt is a big worry as it becomes the responsibility of future generations to pay off.
It also has the potential to affect the Territory’s credit rating depending on how Moody’s perceive our resolve and ability to manage our finances prudently. Three recent examples of downgrades are: Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. It will be very important to clearly articulate this government’s fiscal strategy in the mini-budget and bring the Territory’s financial position to safer and firmer ground.
Power and Water Corporation: the legacy we have adopted from the previous government is a corporation in deep financial mire. In fact, the severity of the situation is so entrenched the corporation alone is responsible for around 40% of the Territory’s fiscal problem. How the corporation has ended up in this position is something our government needs to fully understand, and we intend to get to the heart of the issue.
There is no doubt the Territory needs highly competent experts in our public service, implementing programs of the government of the day and providing much-needed services to Territorians. Necessarily, the government needs to be competitive with other jurisdictions and the private and community sectors for the services of these talented people and to invest in growing our own. However, the numbers have blown out, particularly in the executive levels, and there is not enough justification for this. In the past five years, the number of executive contract officers has grown by 50% from 342 to 515 compared with the sector as a whole, which grew by 24% over the same period from 16 170 to 20 000.
With so many executives it can be easy for no one person to take responsibility for action or non-action; easy to deflect to another manager or another area or agency. How would you know who is meant to be responsible with so many managers and executives? We need thinner senior management layers with each individual executive having greater accountability for their actions. We will achieve this with smaller agencies as chief executives will be more in touch with what is happening on the ground, closer to their management teams, better able to monitor performance and demand accountability.
The exception is the Department of Education and Children’s Services, which I have deliberately brought together so children can benefit from a greater network of professional staff and facilities all concerned with the growth, development and safety of children.
In conclusion, there is much work to be done. It will not be done in a day or a single financial year. In Territory terms, this is the Titanic of all budget deficits and will take a firm and careful fiscal strategy over the next three years to turn around. However, it will be turned around. We will bring government spending to live within our means. We will enable and facilitate economic growth beyond INPEX and big projects. We will invest in the Territory for the benefit of future generations of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I join this debate starting with a story for our new Treasurer of the Northern Territory. I was thrilled, honoured, surprised, and elated when I was elected to this parliament in 2008. I thought it was too good to be true, and it was. It was not long after the whole world fell over with the global financial crisis. I took that on board thinking it would definitely need a clever fiscal management plan.
I was invited to a meeting the Treasurer had set up as chair of the public accounts with high-level banking officials from throughout the nation. I listened at the meeting. The officials basically told the Treasurer, who conducted a number of very high-level agenda items, that a fiscal stimulus plan was where the rest of the western world was going, the global super powers were going, the federal government was going, and the Territory should follow, and we did.
The new Treasurer is saying the fiscal stimulation kept us in the game. If we had taken our foot of the accelerator we would have lost jobs. The member for Sanderson is in Hansard day in, day out telling us about the people who leave the Northern Territory, and when a person leaves the Northern Territory, they leave the Northern Territory. They do not just move to another job, they do not sit on the sideline, they leave the Territory and take their family with them. Day after day, I remember it well. It sounded as if everyone in Sanderson had left. There must have been a few who stuck around to vote for you.
That was the story. If you lose people from the Territory, lose jobs in the Territory, it is way more serious than in New South Wales, Queensland or other big jurisdictions. So, the fiscal stimulus plan was put in place.
We will not talk about the legacy of public infrastructure in our schools that the opposition opposed. The CLP, in opposition, opposed it every step of the way. Minister Burns reminded them of all the glossy photos of themselves at the opening of BER projects in schools in their electorates. It was an example of fiscal stimulus which kept jobs, kept the economy moving, kept the Territory going and left an incredible legacy of public infrastructure we celebrate and use today.
However, one element of that plan was to carefully guide the fiscal strategy to where the private sector starts to kick in, take over, and increase the Territory’s own source revenue. It was a very calculated plan, a very careful plan.
One of the things the CLP promised when in opposition was the end of spin. We are hearing no more about grog or crime, we are hearing about budget figures, frightening the community, and telling everyone the credit card debt is going up. We are trying to balance that debate. There are some very clear warnings for the fiscal strategy the CLP is entering into.
In relation to the strategy of keeping the Territory kicking over, keeping it alive, keeping jobs, keeping people here, and that wonderful legacy of public infrastructure in roads, schools, power generation and transmission, our hospitals and community safety, there was a defined strategy to let that public sector wind back its investment and the private sector wind in. I will quote an example of that for the new Treasurer of the Northern Territory:
- The latest figure shows that the value of building work in the Territory rose by almost 20% in the year to June 2012. Nationally, the figure dropped by 3%; non-residential work rose by 52% in the year, and residential work rose by 2%.
However, we are on a new path because we have a new manager, the member for Araluen. The new manager is going to take us down a new fiscal strategy road. The opposition is saying, ‘be careful, beware’.
I will go to some portfolio interests I have. The first one relates to lands and planning. I will make some comments on things the Chief Minister said. In his Address-in-Reply he said his government will be accountable to Territorians and it is all about service delivery. The Chief Minister said the new planning commission would develop guidelines to work with developers to unlock land, to reduce red tape, reduce time delays, reduce those running costs and to speed up the development approval process. That is the interesting one.
I also took great delight in listening to the maiden speeches. It was not that long ago I gave my own. I still consider myself a new person to this job, but I had to crash through this early in the piece. I had four years and I had to learn quickly on my feet.
Of all the maiden speeches, which I will comment on over time because I took great delight in learning about the new members, I will talk about the member for Drysdale’s maiden speech. She made a statement about her desire and passion to champion the environment and the obligation of government to champion those very important principles of environment and preserving the Territory’s environment.
Let me talk about developers, the environment, the challenges you have as a local member, and those the minister and the Country Liberal Party now have because you guys are running the show.
The developer community is hell-bent on developing the Territory, as it should, but we need some checks and balances. I encourage the member for Drysdale to take a great interest in the development of this new planning commission, to look at the clarity and accountability, and ask in your Cabinet room how the Environmental Protection Agency and the new planning commission suddenly get a little murky and possibly tied up together. Watch those old heads in the Country Liberal Party because these guys have been doing it for a long time and you need to ask the questions.
The member for Drysdale made this good and honest statement. I challenge her to keep tabs on those old boys. Watch what is happening in development of the new planning commission with an agenda to make it faster, cut red tape, and get those approvals through.
I will give you an example. I worked with the Landcare group in Palmerston called Friends of Mitchell Creek. I walked the creek with that group and met with them a number of times. I corresponded with them. I had to try to achieve a balance between the conservation zone and the development of what represents the two new suburbs in Palmerston - Johnston Stage 1 and Stage 2 - and now Zuccoli, followed by Mitchell, near the mouth of Mitchell Creek, which is pristine country. I made it nearly to the mouth but did not progress. I was not dressed for bush walking at the time.
Mr Wood: Sandflies carried you away.
Mr McCARTHY: No, I was prepared to stoush with the sandflies. That area is pristine country. In estuarine country it is the runoff; it is what we do upstream that affects the estuaries. Then we talk about the beautiful Darwin Harbour. The Friends of Mitchell Creek taught me that we need to achieve this balance. So, under the Territory Labor government we rezoned conservation areas to support Mitchell Creek.
The developers, on the other hand, have an agenda of making money. Let us be brutal - let us talk about being profit driven. The member for Port Darwin raised his head, he understands that language. It means you must have a yield. If you are going to cut up and sell off land you have to make money; it is called the yield. At the same time you have to preserve the Territory, as the member for Drysdale mentioned. You have to preserve the environment, public open space, and those elements for future generations. I support the statement in her maiden speech and am asking for her support to ask questions in Caucus, of her Cabinet ministers, and the old boys who have come roaring back across the border from wherever they have been for a decade, to come back to how we do business in the Territory. It is that type of example. It is not just Palmerston; it is about Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs - it is about the Territory.
This planning commission is an unknown for us at the moment. Whether you guys believe it or not, we had a very effective planning process and still have. It is operating now and the developers are even more stepped-up with opportunities. They have money now. The money is starting to flow and they have great ideas. They want to cut up land. I will be working closely with the member for Nelson, as I did as the Minister for Lands and Planning, because he knows the agenda is coming for the rural area. We had to work with those developers to get the mix right, to try to balance it out and say, ‘Hey, this ain’t the 1980s anymore, mate. This ain’t the 1990s. You do not cut up land into small blocks, no bitumen roads, no social amenity, no community amenity, no open space for the public and walk away. You are responsible to deliver community amenity for the future of Territorians’. We will be back there again I can assure you, because the planning commission is where the developers will be and your government will be faced with the challenges of the balance - what is right and what is fair.
The question is: what is the future for the Greater Darwin region? I will expand it right across the Territory because in our growth towns policy we had area plans and town plans and were doing this right across the Northern Territory. I was honoured because we were talking about growth towns and remote areas and were even communicating the need for ceremonial areas. I understood it. I have been on ceremonial grounds. That was being communicated to the bureaucracy and it needed to be heard by government and needed to be balanced. That is just a micro-example.
Member for Drysdale, that was a great statement and you are the one to do it. I was very interested to hear of your legal background. Take an interest in those developments around Palmerston and Darwin Harbour and challenge the old guard. Do not let them get too far ahead of the game because if we use the colloquialism from the CLP - they taught me this when I sat over there - they have form. It is a classic. They used it all the time. ‘They have form.’ I arrived in the Territory in 1980 and lived under the CLP for over two decades. I will tell you now, they have form.
By the way, they are all back. They are charging back across the borders. God love them all because we will take them on as we did when we were starved for 10 years with Maggie Hickey as the member for Barkly. We will take them on now as we took them on then.
The Chief Minister said in his Address-in-Reply that it is about motivating a regional focus in the Northern Territory. That was in relation to the move of tourism to Alice Springs, a motivation to focus …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I raise the issue of relevance. I notice he is responding to the Address-in-Reply. We are on the statement. Nothing he has said so far has had anything to do with the finances of the Northern Territory. His speech fits the Address-in-Reply response and perhaps he is reading from the wrong set of notes.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I will deal with the member for Port Darwin’s reading comprehension later. I am using quotes from the Chief Minister, as I am using quotes from maiden speeches, as I will use quotes from you, member for Port Darwin. You are next!
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: It is different being on this side, isn’t it Dave? This side has a different dynamic that I have to get used to.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to refer to my colleagues by their electorate rather than their first name.
Madam SPEAKER: Please, member for Barkly, refer to members by their electorates.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I take the honourable member’s advice and withdraw that, member for Fong Lim.
I would like to talk about transport in relation to the Chief Minister’s statement. I will quote him again because it was an interesting comment and something I relish - motivating a regional focus on the Northern Territory. Well, guess what guys - all the honourable members from the bush - the Labor government put $3.1m into an Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. It had a two-year trial and is now running. It involves, for the first time in the Northern Territory, public transport services for the bush.
You should keep a close eye on that because the operators who have been working with government - now working with your government - are going to open the books. In an environment of fiscal restraint and cut, cut, cut - be careful what is cut. The champions of the bush will need to take that to Caucus and their Cabinet colleagues to ensure they get their fair share. The first time the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy happened in the bush was under a Labor government.
We can talk about those operators; however, I want to talk about something dear to my heart because I live in Tennant Creek and represent the people of the Barkly. Because of the fiscal stimulus strategy and the work happening in the regions, I place on the public record my thanks and appreciation to Hardy Aviation for its Fly Tiwi service. This service started operating on a Monday and a Friday from Darwin to Tennant Creek. It leaves Darwin at 7 am, you land at Tennant Creek at 9 am, you can get on the plane at 3 pm and be in Darwin at 5 pm, or you can catch it on the Friday. It then became popular, started making money, and they added a Wednesday to the service.
Under the Labor government’s fiscal strategy, where the work in the regions stepped up - Tennant Creek was having a serious infrastructure boom under the Territory Labor government - public servants and private sector workers needed to get to Tennant, needed to operate in that corporate business sector and they started using this aircraft, as did the government with smart thinking around patient travel and associated public services which needed to be conducted between Tennant Creek and Darwin. Fly Tiwi is a fantastic service which operates three days a week. The people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly support it. It also opened many other opportunities in regional economic development.
If you say, ‘We need fiscal restraint. We have to go in hard, we have to make the tough decisions’, as the Chief Minister has been saying, and one of those issues is to freeze the travel budget - being an ex-public servant I have lived through a couple of CLP travel budget freezes. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it definitely freezes. It freezes the economy and I ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension be given to the member to complete his address, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, honourable members. I am really concerned about a freeze in the public sector travel budget because we will see public servants and those services delivered into Tennant Creek and the Barkly not being able to catch Fly Tiwi. The Fly Tiwi service will drop off. It will be cancelled, which will reduce the private sector opportunities in that corporate world in Tennant Creek on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Therefore, you have an economic downturn.
The Treasurer needs to take that on board because it is all about cuts and fiscal restraint. Members on the other side should be asking questions of the Treasurer: how is this going to relate to the regional areas; what are the bigger impacts; what is the domino affect down the line? One will be the loss of Fly Tiwi and Hardy Aviation, which have been sensational in putting that service on.
What does that mean for Tennant Creek? I will give you an example with regard to the budget statement on the Territory’s financial affairs of a caf owner coming to me in Tennant Creek, when I was hosting the Leader of the Opposition, saying, ‘I want to raise one important point: all these changes in the public sector, the cancellation of contracts, the sackings, the freezing of travel budgets, has created much fear in the public sector. In a little town like Tennant Creek, public servants have stopped coming into my caf to buy lunch.’
That is the impact you have with an economic rationalist liberalist approach to budgets. Be careful of what is happening and ask the questions. I am being rational. I am putting this out for members of the CLP Caucus to ask the questions. Like me - poor bugger me, the member for Braitling, I ruined his Sunday morning. I saw him on the news and saw his glowing face in the paper. He has given me the perfect subject for an adjournment because it was not really about a democratic Territory election; it was about getting the member for Barkly. ‘I did not get you, but we will get you one day’. Bring it on, sunshine. You did not get me because the people spoke, not me or you. I will talk about how you tried to get me. That is coming down the line.
Let us go back to the caf owner who is not selling as many sandwiches. Where did that situation come from? A lovely family, living in Tennant Creek, putting their heart and soul into a business - where did it come from? It came from a domino effect going right up the line to a Treasurer who says, ‘Let us freeze the travel budget. We will hold them all down’.
I have not gone anywhere near the school teachers in the bush who are asking, ‘Where is that IT advisor?’ The story around IT is a very good one. I am a dinosaur. I come from the days of HF radios and still celebrate them. I know the phonetic alphabet to operate an HF radio; however, the IT gurus say, ‘The IT consultant did not come out’. If you let information communication technology run down, and on average in any classroom in the Northern Territory there is, conservatively, $150 000 of information communication technology in the bush - not our big schools - or if you let the professional knowledge of the operators run down, you devalue the equipment and processors and it becomes worthless. If you try to replace it or pick it up you create unforeseen problems down the line. The question needs to be asked of economic rationalist thinking. It is not as simple as it seems, ladies and gentlemen ...
Mr Giles: What about IT services for the School of the Air under your government?
Mr McCARTHY: Time for an interjection and I had a glass of water. Thank you very much, member for Braitling. Let us move on because the risk is real.
The Chief Minister, in his statement, failed to deliver the promises. The promises were not funded before the election. The promises were not put into that very strict independent analysis the Labor government set up. The promises were like the member for Braitling - a fire sale barnstorming exercise trying to cut the legs from under the member for Barkly, reduce his credibility and run him out of town. It really comes back to the honesty factor of delivery.
I was at Lajamanu the other day with the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, and a number of other people. I said, ‘Give me a story about a promise that was made’. A gentleman said, ‘Well, it was a pretty basic promise. It was about a two-lane bitumen road from Lajamanu to the Buntine Highway’. I said, ‘Fair enough. Guess what, I was in the business of building roads’. I said to this gentleman, ‘With what there is - a form of gravel road - what you have, and how to turn that into a bitumen two-lane for 112 km, you are looking at about $1m a kilometre’. So, that is $112m promised by the Chief Minister, who at that time was Leader of the Opposition - just one promise in Lajamanu.
We looked at the road and I said to this gentleman, ‘I was in the business of building roads and really enjoyed the job. We look at flood immunity and strategic sections on the road, raise, do culvert work, try to take out the spots causing the big problems over a longer period’ - you do not have $112m to spend on a two-lane bitumen road at Lajamanu now. The 10-year story I told in the Barkly of infrastructure development for the bush was - the story the member for Braitling tried to discredit - we would get there, but at the moment you have to look at strategic bites of the road project. This guy understood that.
Then I challenged him with one better. I said, ‘Imagine I was the CLP and walked in here with a cheque for $112m tomorrow. Would you spend that on the road from Lajamanu to the Buntine Highway?’ He said, ‘Absolutely not! Of course I would not.’ I said, ‘You are dead right. What would you spend it on?’ Then we talked about the realities of that expenditure.
This gets back to the statement presented to this House - the delivery end. The government is talking about cuts, savings, the future, and how we are all doomed.
The ex-Treasurer outlined very clearly the real story because it is in the budget books. When the member for Araluen loads in the non-public expenditure, like the Power and Water Corporation, and starts to ramp those numbers up to scare mum and dad in the suburbs - as the member for Barkly I will be watching the $22m allocated to upgrade Tennant Creek power transmission and delivery. Why? To keep the lights on in Tennant Creek! If the power goes out we cannot keep the ice creams cold and cannot sell sandwiches to public servants who have stopped going to our local cafes because they are worried about their jobs. We cannot develop business. We cannot fire power down the line to the community of Ali Curung.
I am very privileged in this job. I sat with government and learnt quickly. I was part of Cabinet when the Reeves analysis of Power and Water was conducted. He told the truth. He said all governments in Australia are faced with this. He also said, ‘Fess up. Who is going to take the blame?’ The Labor government took one third of the blame because the other two-thirds was the Country Liberal Party. That is when we share the blame. What did the Labor Party do in 10 years? It started to load major investment into power generation and transmission.
I will be watching the $22m for Tennant Creek. I will be telling the people of the Barkly, Ali Curung and Mungkarta, which I will talk about tonight - the outstation sitting on that line south of Tennant Creek. The member for Braitling will be very interested to hear the other side of the story about Mungkarta and why he did not get the member for Barkly.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): In a celebration of the member for Barkly’s ego we will put that one to rest.
The member for Barkly said this was an economic rationalist argument. Of course, but the counterpoint to an economic rationalist argument is we should, by argument, be economically irrational in our approach to government. That is what the member opposite is arguing for. This is why Labor parties around the world, including democrats and those people with a pinkish tinge, continually leave conservative governments in a position of having to fix up the mess.
We have seen that around this country. They love to rack stuff up on the credit card; however, it is like a partnership, a marriage - one partner likes to spend on the credit card and the other tries to be frugal. Small wonder there is friction in that environment. Sitting down at lunch I saw the front cover of The Australian: ‘Swan struggles to save slim surplus’.
This is interesting because the comment I made about Labor governments not being particularly good savers is general and, like any general comment, there are exceptions.
I draw members’ attention to page five of The Australian of Tuesday, 23 October. There is a little picture at the top, and I point out the Hawke government started off way back in 1989-90 with a small surplus, then slipped into deficit, then into more deficit. As things progressed, the Keating government had more and more deficit, and we are talking about billions and billions of dollars.
Then, along comes the rapacious fiscal conservative, John Howard, and Costello. He starts off with a deficit but it reduces. If you go through this chart it is surplus, surplus, surplus, small deficit, surplus, surplus, surplus, surplus, break even, and massive surplus.
In that period, the $90bn credit card bill left by Keating was paid off by the conservatives. Along comes the Rudd government and it is deficit, deficit - look at those red lines. I am surprised they did not have to print on the other side of the page to get those red lines down, but it is deficit, deficit, deficit and deficit. Then, all of a sudden, there is a change to the Gillard government, which runs a massive deficit in the first year, but somewhere an alarm bell is ringing amongst the Laborites in Canberra. It is the same alarm bell which rang for the Gallop government - also a Labor government - in Western Australia. The alarm bell is you cannot continue to live on the credit card indefinitely. It cannot be done. It has to be repaid at some point.
I hear the doom and gloom from the members opposite; however, at some time the credit card has to be repaid. People like Gallop - a good Laborite - knew this and, in the early part of the GST, when the GST produced more income than ever imagined by any of the forecasters, Gallop did the sensible thing and reduced debt to zero in Western Australia. None of the other Labor states did it. Gallop did, and good luck to him.
In that period the Labor government in the Northern Territory reduced debt slightly despite the fact income was spiralling. If you look at the graphs which track this, expenditure chased income, which means every time the government thought it was going to get a pay rise it spent it. It paid a very small amount off the credit card but nothing substantial.
In my household, if I have a credit card debt and get an increase in income I pay off the bankcard because that is prudent fiscal management. In fact, I do not carry a credit card debt. The only debt I have is on my house. No, that is not true, my wife has a car repayment she is paying off quickly. You pay off debt when income goes up, that is the idea.
This government chose not to do that. Every time it received an increase beyond what it expected to get - it projected it would receive X amount and received Y amount, do you think it thought, ‘We will squirrel the difference away to reduce debt?’ Not a chance! ‘Wow, we have some more money. It’s Friday night, let’s go to the pub and whack it on the credit card.’ That was the approach the previous government took to fiscal management in the Northern Territory. In 2008, the government realised it had not substantially curtailed debt in the Northern Territory; it was still tracking at over $1bn. What was the response? ‘Oh sugar! We better keep spending in the way we have been over the past few years.’
We heard it from the Treasurer today and you read it in the budget books, ‘When we return to normality’. This is the essence of the debate we are now having in this House, ‘when we return to normality’. I have argued many times in this House that what was abnormal was the period after the introduction of the GST; it was abnormally good. Yet, the presumption we have heard from the former Treasurer and other members opposite today is that it was normal and you still read it in the budget books, ‘When we get back to pre-GFC income, we will be able to pay off the debt’.
This is the new normal and that is the problem. Your fiscal thinking is wrong. You argue we are going to expect increases year in, year out irrespective of what happens - that is the benchmark and we can borrow until that happens. When there is no suggestion that is going to occur, you are being fiscally irresponsible!
The member for Barkly said he is keeping an eye on the $22m for power generation and network facilities in Tennant Creek. It is interesting that $22m - I am doing a quick calculation in my head - would probably be paid off in about 35 days worth of interest repayments in the current environment. If we had zero debt, if we did what Gallop did in Western Australia during the halcyon days of the GST, that extra $750 000 per day would pay for the $22m worth of infrastructure in about 35 to 40 days.
We are in some way heinous villains for arguing we should be trying to claw that back and live within our means. Could you imagine being able to collect $22m in 40-odd days and do something useful with it other than pay somebody? We are committed to spending about $200m a year - probably a fraction less - on interest repayments as well as a similar amount on - it is more than that from memory, it is some time since I have read the books - on superannuation repayments we are duty bound to pay.
In the order of $400m or $500m is spent every year in the Northern Territory before we pay one public servant, before we pay one brick or before we put one power line in place. Yet, we are being described as being hard, flint-edged economic rationalists. The economic performance of the former government has put us into a position where we have to show restraint and lose $750 000 a day. They say they are better economic managers. I do not get that.
I will go a little further with this. The economic management they claim has served the Territory so well means we are paying interest of $750 000 a day. I remember estimates after the government brought down the budget where I asked John Montague from Treasury, ‘Do you calculate the interest payment on the current repayment?’ The answer was, ‘Yes, that is how we know and project how much we have to repay’. I asked: ‘Is there a band? Do you calculate in case interest rates move?’ ‘Yes, we do that’. I asked what the band was, it was 2%. The calculation was: if interest rates go up by 2% a calculation is done; if interest rates go down by 2% a calculation is done. They are able to calculate what happens to our interest repayments if they go up or down by 2%. It sounds like a small number.
However, when I asked Mr Montague what the top end of that band was, and what happened if interest rates increase by 2%, the former Treasurer stopped the conversation and said, ‘You are not to answer that question, Mr Montague. Mr Elferink, you are going to use that figure for scaremongering.’
My question is, if the figure was so bland and so inoffensive, how could I have used it for scaremongering? The truth is the figure was going to be very high. That was revealed later when I asked a similar line of questions of the Power and Water Corporation, which described what a 2% shift on its loans would do. They were stunning figures.
For the former government to bleat that the current government is trying to restrain its expenditure is what you would typically expect. It spent with an attitude of all care and no responsibility. Now, when someone tries to be responsible in its presence the frothing at the mouth and the hysteria is astonishing. There was very little fiscal restraint. The underlying assumption of the former government was, at all times, it would return to the pre-global financial crisis income stream. There is no suggestion anywhere on the horizon that will occur.
The economies of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland are doing reasonably well and I am grateful for that. It has much to do with demand in other places such as China and Europe - demand flying through Europe for Chinese manufactured goods built on the resources dug from the ground in Australia. We are direct beneficiaries of that. However, overall, the global financial crisis threw up another problem for us, the Australian dollar was seen as a reasonably safe haven for investors so it shifted away from 90 US, 93 US or 94 US. In the early part of the Howard era it was as low 46 US. It is now at 103 US.
That is a problem for the Northern Territory because – and this is why you have to separate economy and fiscal position - the fiscal position talks about our budgetary position, that is, how much money we have in the bank, and the economy talks about what is happening with money throughout the whole community.
The problem is a strong Australian dollar attacks our income in one important respect. In relation to our own source revenue, a strong Australian dollar means projections on income from royalties will be excessive as the Australian dollar climbs because commodities are sold in the international marketplace in USD. As a consequence, you will see the higher the Australian dollar the smaller our income from mining royalties will become.
One issue we face as a government is that whilst we are hoping to export more while the Australian dollar remains strong, one of our main sources of own source revenue will contract. However, even if you collect all our own source revenue together you will collect around $420m to $430m - I do not remember the exact figure - which is pretty much everything we have committed to superannuation and loan repayments. Every cent we collect in tax and own source revenue will go to non-productive sources for the Northern Territory.
I would like to change a component of that. There is not much we can do about our superannuation obligation; however, something can be done about the loan repayments. It would be nice to get rid of that expenditure. If you look at what we will be paying off in loan repayments, it will exceed $400m a year in the forward projections for the non-financial public sector. That means in a few years’ time we will be paying over $1m a day in interest payments. As someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, I struggle to tolerate that. Our debt to revenue ratio is the worst in the country and this was accepted and admitted by the Under Treasurer at the last Estimates Committee. We are carrying a substantially greater debt per head of population than any other jurisdiction. We are in a difficult fiscal position and it is time we showed some responsibility.
As we proceed down the path of statehood one of the things we have to demonstrate to everyone, particularly those in federal parliament who will cast a critical eye upon our application should we reach the point of asking them to exercise their powers in section 121 of the Australian Constitution, is that we are capable of being a state. If we want to be taken seriously as a jurisdiction we must be able to answer that question in fiscal terms. Yes, we are capable of being a state, we are treated as a state fiscally, we expect that to continue and can demonstrate responsibility. That is something the former government did not do, particularly in the time it had the fiscal capacity to deal with the debt.
If we tell federal parliament we want to become a state whilst we are also, through the back door, saying we rely on the implied fiscal support of the Commonwealth as one of their self-governing territories, we are not running a reasonable and rational argument. For that reason, we need to be fiscally responsible. The former government will scream about the cuts and ask how many jobs are being slashed. It will use all the campaigns it can to engender and perpetuate the fear it was trying to generate during the election.
We are committed to returning the budget to surplus by the end of this parliamentary term. It will be a massive challenge. The non-financial public sector - I saw this in the PEFO. I did not read the document before I came into this House and it has been some time since I saw it - in the non-financial public sector we are heading towards a deficit in the next financial year of $1bn. That is one year in the red - a single year. If that does not send alarm bells through anyone in this House nothing will. As much as we would like to do all the feel good stuff and pave everybody’s roads in gold, the fiscal reality of the world will not allow that to occur.
Madam Speaker, I am supportive of the Chief Minister’s statement. I accept the numbers and assertions because I have watched the budgetary position deteriorate over time. The fiscal future of the Northern Territory is in a parlous position. However, this government will do what is necessary to bring us back from the brink and return us to a sound, sensible footing so we can proceed into the future and to statehood without relying on any implied immunities from the Commonwealth.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Port Darwin; he delivers a very good, well-constructed speech and uses facts and figures. The only problem is when you scratch the surface the facts and figures come undone.
He waved The Australian today pointing out the difference between Labor and Liberal governments. Yes, the Hawke and Keating governments had deficits. Yes, the Liberal government had a surplus. However, he did not say how this surplus was achieved. I will remind him of some facts. There was a surplus but, at the same time, the Liberal government and Tony Abbott, the then minister for Health, took $2bn from the Health budget of all states.
During the Hawke and Keating time the Commonwealth, and states and territories, were sharing the cost of health 50/50. During the Abbott era, it went down to 40/60 - 40% the Commonwealth and 60% the states and territories. That put enormous strain on territory and state budgets and the Territory suffered because of it.
The liberal government achieved surpluses by cutting services because it was more important to have a balanced budget than provide services to the population.
One of the other things you will never hear the other side talking about is the debt the Territory had in August 2001 when there was a change of government from the Country Liberal Party to the Labor government. The debt of the Territory at that time was $1.4bn, and our revenue-raising capacity was much more limited and our population much less.
Another thing you will not hear from the other side is the Labor government, from 2001 onwards, had surplus budgets year after year after year. The then Treasurer, Syd Stirling, was one of the first in the Territory to start paying back some of the debt of the Territory. You will not hear that because it is not a good argument; it is a better argument to say the Territory government today has a large deficit than to state the truth. I have been in parliament 12 years and have a long memory, similar to an elephant.
Yes, we have a deficit; yes, we have a debt. However, the money from the GST was invested not wasted. Paying money to employ nurses is not waste, it is an investment. Paying money to employ doctors is an investment, not waste. Having teachers in remote community schools at Tiwi, Yuendumu, Borroloola and other smaller communities is an investment in the Territory’s future not a waste of money.
Let me remind parliament there were many coronial inquiries involving child protection and the health system stating there were not enough nurses or doctors. The previous government employed more than 200 extra doctors and 900 extra nurses from 2001. Our ratio of nurses per patient is now one of the best in the country. I have not seen a report on a coronial inquiry on the front page of the NT News for the past few years because the previous government addressed the needs of the system.
Let me remind this House a Country Liberal Party minister for Health said Indigenous people could die in their communities if they did not want to go to the cities for treatment for renal problems. The Labor government invested $40m in clinics, in renal dialysis in remote communities, and at places outside Darwin and Katherine. I have a long memory and am not afraid to speak the truth in this House.
Let me remind you that the Labor government brought an oncology centre to the Territory the then member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, could not deliver despite the fact it was his own party in government.
Let me remind you that the Labor government delivered the first ever medical school in the Northern Territory and, in three years time, we will have a significant number of Indigenous doctors in the Territory.
Let me remind you that the Labor government brought the super clinic to Palmerston. The Minister for Health admitted a few days ago in the media that we have some of the sickest people in Australia. We have the smallest number of doctors per hundred population than anywhere else in Australia.
He admitted RDH is stressed because of the number of people presenting there who could have been treated by a general practitioner. That is a surprise because this is what I was saying when we were in government and the opposition was attacking me. Now he has become minister he sees the real situation with the health sector in the Territory and says the same things.
The Country Liberal Party has been in government for two months now. The Country Liberal Party made many promises and I wish them luck. They will not be able to fulfil some of them or provide for the people who voted for them.
The CLP has been in government for two months and has already started changing its tune. It promised not to cut public service numbers. Today the member for Barkly asked the minister about a possible loss of positions in the Departments of Infrastructure and Transport. The minister did not answer, either because he did not know or did not want to say they would cut the budget and the positions.
We heard the Treasurer admit on television she does not know things; she has to do some homework and does not know much about Darwin because she lives in Alice Springs. God help the Territory economy if this is the calibre of the ministers we have! We have a minister who cannot even read the budget. She tried to put everything together - the government deficit and the non-government sector deficit - to present the picture she would like to, a deficit of $900m, when everybody who can read the budget knows the real deficit is $445m.
Let me remind the government in 2001, when we took government, the then Under Treasurer admitted he fudged the books to make the Territory economy look better. As a result, we found a $121m deficit. He fudged the books and admitted that publicly to the committee.
Yes, there is a debt. Yes, in his admission to the committee - I dare you to look at the Hansard and you will find the then Under Treasurer said that when questioned by the committee. The member for Nelson will remember that because he was part of the committee at the time. If you do not believe me, ask the member for Nelson if that was the answer from the then Under Treasurer.
We have a child protection minister who goes against her policy. When it was presented to the House a couple of years ago, her policy clearly specified a stand-alone department of Child Protection. I seek leave to table the CLP policy.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The front page in the black box under the heading ‘Taking responsibility’:
Care of children responsibility to return to the Minister
Six monthly public reporting on departmental and Ministerial performance against benchmarks and statutory obligations ...
- ...
Separate department and separate minister for children matters.
That was the then CLP policy. Today we have seen a backflip and the child protection department shoved into the Education department. I do not know the reason for that but I hope the minister will give us an explanation.
The new government talked much about the three-hub economy. Now, two months in, the three-hub economy has only two hubs because one has been destroyed. I am talking about the closing of significant sea areas to commercial barramundi fisheries in order to provide for amateur fishermen because that was an election commitment.
This government has taken the tourism department away from tourists. I wonder, when the majority of tourists are in the Top End - without denying Alice Springs and Central Australia have a significant number of tourists - why take the department from the Top End to Central Australia? Will it be more efficient, or is it because the minister did not want to relocate to Darwin or spend more time in Darwin?
This government took the airline policy group away from the international airport at Darwin. That raised a number of questions.
I was surprised to hear the Treasurer talk about a significant increase in executives. I strongly recommend you talk to your Minister for Health because a number of experienced doctors and surgeons employed by the Health Department are termed ‘executives’. When you are going to cut the executives, does it mean people in Darwin are not going to have the specialists or surgeons they have today because these are executives in the Department of Health?
The Treasurer was the shadow minister for Child Protection and we had many arguments in this House. I will come back to the deficit and the money the former CLP government wasted because when we came to power in 2001, the Department of Child Protection had a budget of $7m and just over 100 people working for it. Last year we had a budget of $145m and, following the board of inquiry recommendations, we put an extra $130m over five years to address the needs of the department. I am still shocked by the findings of the review - State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory of 2001. This report was about neglect by the then CLP government of Indigenous children living outside the urban areas. It withdrew its services because it could not meet the demand. I was absolutely shocked.
Yes, child protection has problems. I recall many debates with many members. The member for Namatjira raised issues about child protection many times and asked me about the policy of putting kids in Aboriginal families only. I said many times the child’s safety came first over anything else. This is where the money went. I call on anyone to tell me this money was wasted. I am prepared to stand up and be counted. This money was invested in the future of Territorians to protect children, Indigenous children, or any child in the Territory. It was not a waste of money. I hear their plans and, hopefully, some of the plans will come to fruition.
Much of what the Labor government did was not done because it felt like it or felt like spending money. The money provided to us by the Commonwealth was invested in health, child protection, and many other worthwhile purposes to benefit Territorians.
I go back to the Department of Resources. A minute ago I mentioned the closure of areas to commercial barramundi fishing. I feel strongly about it because as minister for Fisheries I always took action, against the wishes of the commercial industry in some cases, when I believed closure was necessary but only on scientific grounds, not at the whim of the minister or as a political favour. I did not hesitate to close Fog Bay when we had the incident with the shoal of sharks. That decision drew criticism from the now minister for resources - should it have been done because it harmed the commercial fishing industry?
I notice the closure of the northern waters of the Tiwi Islands and the argument by AFANT. It is going to be a very interesting argument because the Tiwi Islands have every right to close their waters. They have every right to rent their waters and exclude anyone from their areas. It was interesting that the fiery member for Katherine, who previously asked parliament to pass legislation to overturn the Blue Mud Bay decision, was very quiet this time. He no longer has the fire in his belly and advised AFANT to see what would happen. I am really concerned about it.
I also notice the government did not do the same thing with the closure of Finke Bay and Chambers Bay. He talked about consulting with the industry. Well, he did not, because the industry advised that no one has spoken to them. He did not consult with the commercial retail and wholesale sector in Darwin, and the Chief Minister was challenged in public about that during a debate in the Mall - an ABC program. They still cannot show any benefits to the commercial sector or even the amateur sector. The member for Nelson has a motion for GBD and I will be happy to contribute to that.
The minister for resources challenged me about new mines opening in the Territory. Let me remind the minister for resources that when we came to government in 2001, the then minister for mines, who was the member for Wanguri, found on his desk 700 pending exploration licences. The previous minister refused to grant the exploration licences because he had a fundamental opposition to the right of Indigenous people to object or agree to the granting of licences in their areas. These licences were fundamental to the development of mines. A mine takes seven to 10 years to develop from the time of exploration to getting it off the ground.
I would like to remind the member opposite that Bootu Creek opened under a Labor government. At the same time, there was a huge expansion at McArthur River, a huge expansion of Groote Eylandt - nearly $0.25bn worth - and, of course, Sherwin Iron and Western Desert Resources mines are about to open. There is also a significant increase in exploration for oil and gas in other areas in the Territory.
I listened to the minister for resources make the bold statement that he attended the Mining the Territory Conference and the place was buzzing; the industry was so good because there was a change of government; three weeks into a change of government and the industry was buzzing. It was really interesting, especially when I received a copy of the Australian Mining article from 18 October 2012 with the heading ‘Northern Territory to streamline mining projects’. The first paragraph in Australian Mining, an authoritative magazine for the mining industry, stated:
- The Northern Territory’s new government has promised to fast-track mining in the region.
The fourth paragraph says:
- The Northern Territory was recently highlighted as the nation’s new hotspot for mining.
From there on the Australian Mining article quotes the previous minister for Mines, Kon Vatskalis, with a series of statements over four or five paragraphs about what the Labor government did for mining, how it declared the Territory open for business, how it put $25.8m into bringing forward discovery, and how it developed the China and Japan Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy - a very good strategy. I believe the minister is going to China and taking a booklet to promote the Territory in China. Well done! I am prepared to support him because this is not about CLP or Labor policy; this is for the benefit of all Territorians.
There was a glitch. The books had been printed to take to China and someone flicked through the pages and discovered my photograph and message. They had to pulp them and start producing new ones with a photograph of the new minister.
I am quite happy to work with the minister for resources to promote the Territory in China, Korea, Japan, India, anywhere, because this is not about politics, it is about jobs for Territorians, in particular, Indigenous Territorians. I have said repeatedly that mining develops in areas where nothing much else will happen - in very remote areas - and there is an opportunity to give people jobs in Bigrlyi, Yuendumu or Borroloola. We have many examples of Indigenous people being employed in these mines.
We heard how bad the Labor government was. I must not forget the Ord area to be developed. It is a fantastic opportunity for the Territory, Western Australia and the federal government. When we came to government we found not much had happened with the Ord. The then government decided to speak to the people and, unfortunately, spoke to the wrong traditional owners. Things then became quiet. I became quiet because neither the Western Australian nor federal governments were interested until a new government in Western Australia put money from royalties into the Ord - $400m - and the Commonwealth came to the party. They had an agreement with the traditional owners and compensation for things which had happened before. The Territory government wanted to be part of that and we had an agreement ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for Barkly.
We know the Ord is significant, but at the same time the Ord is not the only area in the Territory to be developed. In the past 10 years we proceeded to develop and support the agricultural and horticultural industries and, as a result, today the Territory is the biggest producer and supplier of mangoes in Australia. There are other things to follow - grapes from Ti Tree, onions and potatoes from Katherine. Many other areas can be developed without having to negotiate with traditional owners because it will take time, effort and money to negotiate the Ord agreement, and we cannot do it without the federal government.
Once again, this side of the House is prepared to work with the government to develop the Ord because this is not about politics; it is about development of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I object when the government criticises the opposition for wasting money provided to it by the resources sector or the Commonwealth when we were in government. We had a right to the money we received - taxpayers’ money, our money - but we also had an obligation to look after people in the Territory, Indigenous people, who are the sickest population in the country. The money we received was invested not wasted because money spent on health, education and child protection is money well spent.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we are having a debate today about numbers. Often, when you debate numbers, you lose sight of people. Behind all these numbers are people. There are very professional public servants behind the numbers we are debating in the Chamber today. We are losing people from a professional public service which helped secure INPEX, and a professional public service which will help us secure the ongoing benefits and opportunities from INPEX. Professional public servants help us negotiate participation plans for local businesses, and a professional public service helps us secure training opportunities for local Territorians - jobs with projects such as INPEX.
I am worried that as we lose professional public servants we will lose the ability to grasp the economic opportunities which are coming. You cannot take for granted that the Territory is going to boom. We are in a very good position at the moment economically, but we cannot take for granted reaping the benefits of economic opportunities which will flow from projects like INPEX. If you cut into the public service and lose professional public servants, those are some of the things you put at risk. We on this side are worried looking forward. You have to look to the future and we can see economic opportunities on the horizon but you cannot take them for granted. You do not do it alone, you do not do it as a minister solo, you have professional public servants to help put together what you need to get the economic opportunities and make them work for the Territory.
Jobs for Territorians and business opportunities are waiting to be got, but you have to get them. It takes a very professional public service to get them. At the moment, parts of the public service are paralysed. We have people in the public service who are extremely worried.
There is an acknowledgment in the Chief Minister’s speech, but no true appreciation of what is happening in the public service at the moment. The Chief Minister said, ‘I acknowledge there is anxiety in the public sector’, which is possibly the mildest way you could put it.
I am unsure if the CLP is hearing the same reports as we are from the public sector. If not, that concerns me. It needs to build relationships with the public sector. I have heard stories of people crying in their office, crying in corridors, stressed in the workplace and unsure of what is happening in the workplace. The funereal atmosphere in different departments, different offices - I heard stories that after Richard Galton was dismissed there was complete shock in the department. No one saw that coming; I did not see that coming. We have lost professional public servants who did a great job for the Territory and would have done a great job going forward. They are no longer there. We do not have their skills and experience. Much corporate knowledge has been lost and time built in the job lost when you lose someone like Richard Galton.
For days afterwards there was a funereal atmosphere in the department. People were in shock that someone could be dismissed. We have teams in the public service - people in units where there may have been four, eight or 12 people working as part of a team who have slowly seen people go. Now there are one, two or three - a few people doing the work of many. That worries us. There is more and more stress on fewer people to deliver the outcomes we want to achieve as a Territory, as an opposition, or as a government. We want to grasp the opportunities and we are seeing a few people do the work of many. That is not good enough.
As stressed as those people are, it probably does not compare to what has happened in Tourism. I hope all of us have had feedback from people in the Tourism area about the stress they have gone through, discovering through the media their department is to be relocated to Alice Springs. I love Alice. I have no problems with Alice, but this has not been handled in a professional way. There was no consultation, no work with industry and people in the department found out through the media. That is not good enough. There is much stress in that area of the public sector at the moment.
I am hearing about this not only from public servants, but from people involved in the tourist sector and the private sector - what they are hearing and the debacle of a meeting the minister had with public servants to talk about the decision after he had told the media and after they had found out through other sources. These things concern us on this side of the House. These are the people behind the numbers. These are the people who have been doing a service to the public and Territorians and we just talk about numbers. It is easy to anesthetise yourself to the pain happening to people.
There is unnecessary pain happening in the public service at the moment. We are losing very professional public servants who were delivering for the Territory. There is a culture of fear at the moment. People are seeing colleagues called into the CEO’s office and do not see them come back again. We are losing very professional public servants.
I thank the member for Fong Lim for rescuing Jennifer Prince. It would have been a tragedy to lose her. He rescued her - one good outcome. However, we are losing professional public servants. The Territory Growth Planning Unit has gone. The paper today said two people - there are at least four in that area - gone. Student Services has been split in half and has lost people into schools. The Coordinator-General has gone and the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee has gone.
I know of people who are leaving the public sector of their own volition. They see what is happening around them and have sourced private sector jobs. Those are people with 10, 12, 14 years experience in the public sector delivering for Territorians, delivering positive public services. They have said, ‘We do not like what the Country Liberal Party is doing and we are out of here’.
We cannot afford to lose these people. We cannot afford to lose professional public servants and harm a professional public service which exists to grasp the opportunities which come to the Territory, and that is what is happening at the moment. It is not good enough and this debate about numbers really cloaks the effect on people in the public service and the pain they are feeling. We cannot afford to lose professional public servants and that is what is happening. It is unfortunate it is almost dismissed in this ministerial statement with one line, ‘I acknowledge that there is anxiety in the public sector’. That does not go anywhere near grasping the pain of what is happening. The consequences of this will be felt like ripples for years to come. The consequence of losing professional public servants and their corporate knowledge will be felt for years to come.
We will talk about numbers today and probably talk numbers next sittings. We will talk about services that have been lost, but the effect of losing this experience in the public sector will be felt for years and years to come. It is not good enough. Today’s debate about numbers has hidden the real debate about people and consequences.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak but I support every word the member for Fannie Bay said. In my job I deal with quite a number of public servants. Many would be conservative voters, but most are scared or unsure of what their future is. The member for Fannie Bay summed it up perfectly.
We now have the economic rationalist in charge. I have seen this in other governments, and always feel it becomes an excuse for hiding the fact we are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with people who have families and mortgages, who may have lived in the Northern Territory for many years and, all of a sudden, their jobs are gone or at risk, or they think they are at risk. There is a profound loss of morale simply because people do not know what is going on.
I heard the Chief Minister answer a question from the member for Casuarina today about Ms Jennifer Prince. I intended to ask the same question. People like the Under Treasurer deserve better. They deserve more than that they lost their job because the government wanted change. Their loyalty to the public service of the Northern Territory - not the Labor Party, the government of the day - was rewarded by being sacked. It happened with other CEOs as well. It is unfortunate we have the number crunchers, the economic rationalists. We can argue there needs to be change; I have no doubt new governments want change. However, we must remember we are dealing with people who have lives, families and expectations. It comes across as a non-compassionate government saying, ‘Oh dear, how sad, we need change’.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke on a forgotten area. Several members in this debate spoke of the five hubs - the changes this government wants to bring to turn the deficit around, to make a difference in a range of areas. However, perhaps what has been forgotten is the effect on humanity those changes may bring.
Yes, the number crunchers might be happy in the end, the budget might be closer to surplus, but what is the human cost? I do not know. I speak to public servants in my electorate and none have told me they are full of excitement about the future. They are concerned about what is happening, about their jobs and their families. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for raising an area which has, unfortunately, not been debated in this House so far - putting a human element to what until now has been a budgetary discussion. It is fine for those who believe in budgets as the be-all and end-all, but not necessarily fine for the people affected by the changes.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 (Serial 1) passing through all stages on Thursday, 1 November 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a concern about the requirement to have a suspension of standing orders based on a need for urgency. It concerns me, and does not necessarily relate to this bill only.
The member for Greatorex mentioned a bill coming through on urgency. I have also been notified by the member for Araluen it would be beneficial if her bill could be done on urgency. I am not necessarily against a slight shortening of the time between the introduction of the bill and its debate in the next sittings of parliament if it needs to be brought forward a little. However, I have not been given any evidence that we need to debate this in this present sittings of parliament.
The member for Port Darwin mentioned practical commonsense approaches. We have a process which is important in a unicameral parliament. We do not have another layer of government as in most other jurisdictions - an upper house to scrutinise legislation. We only have this House to do that.
One of the reasons we allow legislation to sit on the floor until the next sittings of parliament is to allow for scrutiny. Some pieces of legislation are small; however, the principle is important. Once we move away from that we break down some of the checks and balances we require in a unicameral system.
Some of this legislation was introduced by the previous government, and fair enough; however, if the government wants to bring it on urgency, it allows it to be debated earlier in the next session of parliament and allows it to sit on the table until that sitting occurs.
I can see the common sense in trying to move some of the legislation away from the last Thursday of the next sittings, as the member for Araluen suggested, but the principle of allowing legislation that is not - I have not been given any reason why it is urgent. We had a debate on urgency in relation to water discharge licences for Darwin Harbour and the member for Port Darwin scolded the then minister for the Environment for not explaining clearly why that legislation should go through on urgency.
I understand this legislation, along with the legislation the member for Araluen is putting forward, needs to be in place by 1 January; however, we have another sittings of parliament before then. I am yet to be convinced this legislation, if held off until the next sittings of parliament, will cause the world to disappear. I prefer in matters of urgency, if we are to have them, that urgency is shown to be required, required not just a convenience.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support the urgency if it means we can debate this early in the next sittings so we are not working on the standard distance between when it is presented and when it has to be debated. However, I do not support it being debated in the present sittings of parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson is right to call on me to explain this. I explained it to the opposition; however, the member for Nelson was not in the loop.
This bill remains unchanged from the one sitting on the Notice Paper for months under the former administration. It is to enable the national uniform evidence legislation to be passed into law, which was a law we passed in this House in October 2011. The former government was tardy in bringing forward the enabling legislation, which is what I am bringing in here.
Since becoming Attorney-General I have been anxious to restart a number of things which dropped off the radar under the former government. It seemed the Attorney’s-General had not been paying attention to these things, even things on the Notice Paper. I have indicated to the profession as a whole in the Northern Territory that I intend to have national uniform legislation operating by 1 January.
The reason I bring this on urgency and want to have it passed is it has been in the pipeline for three or four months. That is this bill alone, the enabling legislation. There is nothing different from the legislation brought in by the former Attorney-General. It hardly qualifies as having not sat on the Notice Paper in any practical sense. For that reason, and knowing the legislative agenda of the next parliamentary sittings, I advised the shadow minister early on that I intended to go down this path. She indicated there was no issue with that. I made certain a briefing was extended to her so she could raise whatever issues she wanted to.
If the member for Nelson feels he has been left out of the loop, my apologies. Next time I will remember his independence. I am not used to your independence, member for Nelson.
For that reason, I want to bring this legislation forward and have it out of the way so we do not clog up the second set of sittings, where there will also be a mini-budget. There are no surprises, there are no traps; there is nothing of that nature in this mix. The reason I am seeking urgency on this matter is to get this up and running for the profession in the Northern Territory. Thus, the good administration of justice can be supported by good evidence legislation.
Motion agreed to.
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION)
(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 1)
Bill presented and read a first time
Mr ELFERINK: (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Most honourable members will be familiar with this bill, which is consequential to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011, which I will call the uniform act.
The reforms contained in the uniform act bring the Northern Territory into line with the uniform evidence law adopted by the Commonwealth, the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Norfolk Island. Those reforms were supported by the government when in opposition.
The content of this bill is identical to the lapsed bill of a similar name introduced by the then government into this Assembly in March 2012. While the government of the day announced the bill would be debated to enable passage prior to a proposed commencement date of 1 September 2012, it was unable to include the third reading of this bill in its legislative program prior to the dissolution of the Assembly.
The incoming government has determined its position on the lapsed bill and, as my remarks indicate, we are happy to adopt this measure and ensure its enactment to enable the uniform act to commence.
The government proposes the uniform legislation will commence on 1 January 2013 and, to ensure this is so, proposes the bill be passed on urgency at these sittings. The bill contains no policy amendment beyond those contained in the uniform act. The bill has been public policy and publicly available since March 2012. Additionally, as a matter of courtesy, I have written to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson to inform them of the government’s intention in this regard.
I turn now to the main provisions of the bill. The transitional provisions are contained in Part 2 of the bill and add a new Chapter 6 to the uniform act. Subject to the most minor drafting differences, these provisions are uniform across the jurisdictions which have adopted the uniform evidence law. The transitional provisions will provide that the uniform evidence act applies to any proceedings commenced after the commencement day. In the case of a proceeding which began before the commencement day, the uniform act applies to that part of the proceeding which takes place after the commencement day, other than any hearing that began before the commencement date. For these hearings, the old Evidence Act continues to apply to the hearing until it is completed.
Part 3 of the bill makes the necessary repeals and consequential amendments to the current Evidence Act. The explanatory statement explains in considerable detail which sections of the current act have been repealed and which sections of the uniform act replace them.
Part 4 of the bill moves section 39 of the current Evidence Act to the Administration and Probate Act where it better belongs. That section goes beyond the general law of evidence and provides that once a court has granted probate or letters of administration, the fact of grant is evidence of the due execution of the will itself.
Part 5 deals with technical amendments to various Northern Territory acts. The then minister for Justice, in introducing the lapsed bill, drew attention to one particular matter. In this regard, I also propose to mention this area - the law concerning sexual offences - as it is important that this matter, which is not directly touched on by the bill, should be noted on the public record.
All states and territories have laws which deal with evidence in criminal proceedings where someone is charged with a sexual offence. These laws regulate the examination of witnesses and the admission of their evidence of their sexual history. In the Northern Territory the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act
(a) prohibits the admission of evidence of a complainant’s sexual reputation, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied the evidence has substantial relevance to the fact in issue;
(b) prevents the use of sexual history evidence to establish the complainant is the ‘type’ of person who is more likely to consent to sexual activity, except with the leave of the court, if the court is satisfied that the evidence has substantial relevance to the facts in issue; and
(c) excludes the use of a complainant’s sexual history as an indicator of the complainant’s truthfulness.
I, too, wish to emphasise the uniform evidence law does not affect the operation of sexual offences law. This is the effect of section 8 of the uniform act which simply states:
- This act does not affect the operation of provisions of any other act.
The uniform act does not make admissible evidence that is inadmissible because of Northern Territory sexual offences law. Previously, even if evidence was permitted under the sexual offences law, it may still have been inadmissible under the common law. Now, such evidence may be inadmissible under the common law or under the uniform act, or its admission may be regulated by the uniform act. It is still possible to find common law rules excluding evidence because the uniform act is not a code.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
Continued from 23 October 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward this debate. It is important to understand the government program for the next four years, and I welcome many of the issues raised in his Address-in-Reply. He has also raised those in the Northern Territory budget position statement as well.
I agree with quite a number of areas, there are some where I disagree, and some I will meet halfway. I would like to go through some of those issues because they are really important. Some are Territory-wide and some are local, especially when talking about the rural area of Darwin.
I will give you examples of where I agree with the government. The Chief Minister spoke about the importance of primary industry. I have been saying for many years the department of Primary Industry has always been the poor cousin of government. When you look at how much emphasis the previous government placed on private industry in recent times, you will understand why I believe the previous government did not do as well as it should have.
I remember debating the issue of GM cotton. I raise this issue now because it relates to whether the government wishes to expand into Ord Stage 3. The previous government conducted experiments for seven years with GM cotton and found it to be environmentally okay. It proved it would not pollute the water in Katherine River. It used just as much water as peanuts and mangoes, and there was hardly any requirement to spray, which has been one of the big issues with cotton.
The government has said it is looking forward to developing Ord River Stage 3, if one followed this debate in the last sittings of parliament one would understand one of our big agricultural companies has been interested in growing cotton in the Ord River area. However, a Chinese company wants to grow sugar in the same area. You have two competing interests. One of those interests will more than likely be given Stage 2, and it is possibly going to be the Chinese company developing a sugar industry. There is no Stage 3 because we have not developed it in the Northern Territory.
I would like to know where the Northern Territory government is at in the process of developing Ord Stage 3. What level of negotiation has occurred with traditional owners? That has been one of the issues for a long time.
If anyone has followed the debate over the Keep River National Park - Keep River is not part of the previous government’s management plan. The traditional owners did not want to be part of that debate. Where are we with that matter? Where are we with ensuring the correct soil types have been mapped? Where are we with general plans of what channels would be required to deliver the water? Where would we get the money from? Once we sort out those problems, would the new government support the growing of GM cotton?
I have visited Narrabri, travelled to parts of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, also southern New South Wales looking at cotton. It is a crop where people say, ‘Oh, terrible. It uses lots of water, kills all the fish, and does all types of things’. That is the thinking of 15 to 20 years ago. Anyone who wants to be educated in where cotton is today should look at the changes in the way cotton is managed in Australia. The cotton industry knew it was on the outer and has turned things around remarkably from an environmental and commercial point of view.
The government needs to answer the question: would it accept the growing of GM cotton? This was not approved by the old government. Where would it stand if ACO, the company wanting to grow cotton, said it wanted to turn Stage 3 into a cotton development?
It is good the minister has been to Kununurra and visited the Ord River. I did the same thing myself several years ago. However, we need to look at other areas of the Northern Territory. There are areas in the Sturt Plateau, in the Ali Curung area, in Ti Tree, in Central Australia, and other areas. I understand a plan was proposed for a banana plantation at Ngukurr. I do not know what has happened to that, but we have to look at those things.
One of the reasons we want to look at spreading development is for employment. We have a long way to go. Some of the new members mentioned the scourge of welfare. I drove back from the Masters on the weekend and went past the Ali Curung turnoff. I stopped, turned around and took a photo. There is a sign for the Ali Curung melon farm saying, ‘Workers Wanted’. It is next door to Ali Curung. Why do we have a sign on the highway asking people to work at Ali Curung? Why are the locals not working at Ali Curung?
We have to develop a bigger economy in the Northern Territory. We also have to ensure people in the Northern Territory are part of that economic growth. The welfare people spoke about yesterday is holding back benefits to Territorians when it comes to economic growth and employment.
I applaud the government for its emphasis on primary industry, although one exception is fishing. Chief Minister, none of the documents I saw on primary industry mentioned fishing. The member for Katherine mentioned seafood briefly yesterday, but it is not in document we are reading from today.
It worries me that we think commercial fishing is bad. We have the idea that people who make their living out of fishing should be looked at with scorn. Much of it is because the Amateur Fishermens’ Association believes only it has the right to fish in the Northern Territory. It is sad because fishing is one of the basic human occupations covering all groups of people.
When I was reading through this I thought, ‘Well, Jesus did not do a bad job. He picked Peter, who had a commercial fishing fleet in the Sea of Galilee’. I am glad the amateur fishing people were not there because they would have been told to nick off, probably to the Dead Sea, where they would not have caught anything. I digress.
We should be supporting amateur and commercial fishing. The previous government was trying to put forward a shared resource network. We talk about the resource, and how people who want to fish can share that resource. We will have more of that debate, hopefully, next week when the minister returns.
Another important issue is for rural people. The minister talks about a planning commission. I have concerns about a planning commission because it is another layer of bureaucracy. I have never supported the planning commission. When that was announced I thought, ‘another layer of democracy’. We already have a Development Consent Authority and a department of Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Unfortunately, people like the member for Greatorex who have not been in the Territory for long, would probably not recognise this document. This is the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan Structure 1990. Were you in the Territory then, member for Greatorex? Probably not, probably out the back of Queensland. You probably do not know the history. This was done by the department, by Mr Bailey, who was the strategic planner for the Northern Territory. He is still around. In fact, he had much to do with the next document - the member for Greatorex might know - a plan the CLP put together which I praised. He also had a great deal to do with this one.
My argument is, why do you not employ a top-grade strategic planner to do the work you are trying to do through a planning commission? The proof is in the pudding; this was done by the department. Why would you want to make another layer of bureaucracy? Employ the right people! That is what this department is for. Why create another department on another department? You have proved you can do it; this is a good document. I was on Litchfield Council for many years. We used this as a basis for good planning ...
Mr Conlan: This is what irrelevance does to a man, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: It is the basis for this document, the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. If you know anything about the history of this document, it comes ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Perhaps shock jocks do not know anything more than shocking.
This document comes with individual booklets on a range of areas within Litchfield Shire - Murrumujuk, Gunn Point Peninsula - areas important today for industrial development …
Mr Conlan: The only shocking thing is your sexual harassment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, stop interrupting.
Mr WOOD: I wish I was John Laws, I could turn him off.
The minister said they will be developing firm guidelines for all zoning categories. Sure, the member for Greatorex has read this book; he has it sitting on his table. He probably does not even know what it is. It is the Northern Territory Planning Scheme which has building envelopes, heights, car parking - we already have that. Why set up a planning commission to develop firm guidelines for all zoning categories? Here are categories - light industry - pages of it. It tells you what you can and cannot do. It has been developed over years, not just by this government; it was developed by you people because this planning document has evolved.
The previous government brought out some plans which were not as good as the CLP’s plans. They did not cover enough of the details needed in a strategic plan. It also brought out a rural village plan, which the member for Goyder and I thought was overdevelopment of the rural area. It would concern both of us if the government of the day decided to cut up large areas of the rural area into small blocks and that was, or became, the policy of the planning commission.
It concerns me because the chairman of the planning commission, Mr Gary Nairn, was a resident of the Northern Territory for a long time. He was involved with Earl James & Associates for some time. If anyone has seen applications at Development Consent Authority meetings for developments in the Northern Territory, they will know Earl James & Associates have been promoting lot sizes in Litchfield smaller than the minimum lot size of 1 ha. That is why the member for Goyder and I compiled this document. We wanted our rural area to stay rural and development to be controlled within the rural centres.
I have concerns, as I believe the member for Goyder would, that Earl James & Associates, who work for developers, would have much influence in convincing the planning commission that 4000 people signed a petition for development of the rural area to be changed to allow hundreds or thousands of small blocks to be approved. That would be the death of the rural lifestyle as we know it. I query whether we need a planning commission.
Mr Conlan: No, we do.
Mr WOOD: That is another opinion and you are entitled to it. I am giving you an opinion, and if you cannot listen to my opinion that is your problem. The planning commission is an overlay we do not need. If you employed the right people in the department, as you have done previously, you would get an answer because you want planners. You do not want people who might be seen to have interests elsewhere. The planners plan and the developers develop. The developers are not necessarily planners. Developers want to make a buck. There is nothing wrong with that; however, many times the buck is at the risk of poor planning where there is a push for development in inappropriate areas. Government gives in saying, ‘Oh well, we need affordable housing. Let us open up that parcel of land’. In 10 years time you realise it was a silly idea. We did not build new roads and half goes under water. You need a neutral person or department whose sole job is a strategic plan for the Northern Territory.
We are not asking for something that has not been done before. Already, we have two documents for the Darwin regional area. Most growth towns have town plans completed or on the way to being completed. There is much work. You do not have to start from a new base; develop what is already there.
The minister mentioned road corridors and strategic corridors. Any of these maps - Labor or CLP - will show in the Darwin region those corridors already exist. They are not going to change. If there is only one way to Gunn Point it will not change. These things have already been done. I would hate to see the wheel being reinvented just to make it look like we are doing something.
The other issue of interest, which is a great thing the government is trying to do, is affordable housing. I worry about what you mean by affordable housing because it really is affordable land. You can build a little house on a block of land but, if the block of land is so expensive, you will not have money to build the house. The question is, where is the affordable land to develop? There is very little detail except that there will be 2000 affordable houses for workers, nurses, etcetera. The detail is unknown. Where will those blocks of land be developed? There is no mention of Weddell, and there has been a great deal of planning.
Again, you are talking about a planning commission. A whole week was spent at the Darwin Convention Centre with a group of planners from interstate, and locally, plus developers and other people, who did a great deal of design work on Weddell. What stage is the development of Weddell at? Are we going to say, ‘That was Labor Party stuff. We will bring in the planning commission and do something new’? I would hate to see all that hard work and planning go down the drain because you have a new body looking at it.
I would love to see the detail of cheaper land. We have land in the rural area, most of which is private and can be developed. No developer - even though some might say it - releases affordable land. They land bank; they sell a small amount of land every year and maintain high prices. Governments of both persuasions are too scared to release land in case the price drops. On one hand, you are saying rents are high, land is too expensive; however, you will not allow, as a private enterprise government, competition. The reason prices are so high is because we do not have real competition in land. There is not enough land so prices are high and the market rate stays at that level making it difficult for young people to afford it.
There is land in the rural area. I would be happy to show the Chief Minister where it is. Some of the infrastructure to the prison, such as water and power - we know from Power and Water there is sufficient water and power to develop rural subdivisions. There are issues about suitability of the soil in relation to septics; however, that can be sorted. That land could be turned off much cheaper than suburban land because it does not have the requirements of suburban development such as kerbing and storm water drainage. There was an opportunity, which I tried to push with the previous government, but got nowhere.
I am putting the case to you ...
Mr Conlan: You should become a minister - all care and no responsibility.
Mr WOOD: If you do not believe this debate is serious, fine. Have a giggle ...
Mr Conlan: It is hard to take seriously, Gerry. Anyone who supports a $12m ...
Mr WOOD: You have been in government two months and you are as cocky as a bird in a tree ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WOOD: Such is life. I would be happy to work with the Chief Minister, at least from the rural perspective, to look at developing land in that area to help give young people an opportunity to own some rural land.
Madam Speaker, you and I have supported development of district centres. A classic example is the one at Coolalinga which is being sold for housing - medium density, multiple dwelling and single dwellings. We will have Kmart, Coles and, believe it or not, Maccas. We are supporting development but with controls, and that is where good planning comes. That is why you need a good strategic planner. That is the way the government should go ...
Mr Conlan: That is why we have a planning commission.
Mr WOOD: The planning commission is a layer of bureaucracy we do not need ...
Mr Conlan: In your opinion.
Mr WOOD: Member for Greatorex, the reason I am standing is to give my opinion. Even blind Freddy could see that.
Mr Conlan interjecting
Mr WOOD: Well, that is okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, stop interrupting!
Mr WOOD: The other area which has been spoken about is the Banned Drinker Register and mandatory rehabilitation. I support mandatory rehabilitation. The difference I have with the government is not supporting people going to prison. That is, basically, locking up people for being drunk. The people most affected by this will be Aboriginal people because the issue for many people has been - from the Darwin perspective and probably Palmerston - they are sick of people sitting on roadways, pathways, or in parks drinking and causing noise, defecating, etcetera, and becoming a nuisance. That has been a problem.
There are two issues with mandatory rehabilitation. One is the right of people who live in the suburbs to live in peace.
The other is where people have been given the opportunity many times to turn their lives around and away from the scourge of alcohol. We need to say, ‘Enough is enough. We have to take you off the street. We are going to try to do something.’
We already have something similar. We have the secure care centres in Holtze and Central Australia where you place people under very careful guidelines. You have a magistrate, certain people in the secure care centre who are skilled in cognitive issues, where people with brain problems who may be a risk to themselves, or others, are placed. They are modern, well-equipped, and have been built specifically for the purpose. Those people are cared for. Their rights are protected because they can appeal and their situation can be looked at on a regular basis. We do it to try to help them get over the issues of alcohol. It may not work. You may fix one person in 100; however, you give them an opportunity to dry out and get a better chance for an education. You would need medical assistance there. You need compassion, but you also need some force applied in the sense of, ‘It is time to get off the street because you are driving people mad. At the same time, we want to help you turn your life around’. It is only done in certain cases under strict control.
My problem with what the government is putting forward is - the member for Port Darwin will tell me if I am wrong - you will be told to go to the tribunal or undertake rehabilitation, and if you do not go a number of times that will be an offence and you can be arrested and gaoled. That, to me, ...
Mr Elferink: No, that is an oversimplification.
Mr WOOD: The point is you end up in prison.
Mr Conlan: No, you do not.
Mr WOOD: How do you end up in the prison farm at Katherine?
Mr Conlan: You go to a rehabilitation centre.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you have to go through the criminal process to get there. I am saying do not go down that path. Use a path similar to helping people with cognitive disabilities.
Mr Elferink: Are you suggesting that apprehending people and placing them in custody is judicial oversight?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: If you read the guidelines for putting people in the secure care centres they will understand where I am coming from. It is not simple. It is not easy and there are many requirements before you can do it. That is the way it should be done. I am giving you another opinion.
I said during the debate on the Banned Drinker Register that I did not believe it would work because secondary supply would be a problem; however, the government should be allowed to give it a go. This government pulled the pin on this too early. It claimed it did not work, but only thought that when it received the crime statistics about umpteen weeks after it made the announcement.
I have met many people who cannot believe the government did it so quickly. They had become used to it and thought the commonsense approach to removing the Banned Drinker Register would have been to leave it for two years, have an independent assessment, and see if it had made an effect.
Mr Conlan: More reports.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, stop interjecting!
Mr WOOD: The member for Greatorex talks about puff pieces, these are puff interjections.
We are talking about something serious. What annoys me in this House at the moment is one is trying to give an alternative opinion, constructive criticism, trying not to knock the government for six on everything it does, and we cannot work together as a group on issues which should not be political. Grog is a scourge on both black and white people. I have just come back from the Masters. I know how many white people drink; however, you do not see them rolling around on the streets. We have a pretty large consumption of alcohol. Have we taken some of the hard decisions as well? Have we looked at the effect of advertising alcohol in the Northern Territory? Have we wondered why the alcohol companies are so connected with sport? VB sits on the shirts of our cricketers. Many sporting groups in Australia said they would not advertise alcohol. Which one said they would not? Rugby League, Rugby Union and cricket. The ones that get the most money and publicity will not because they need sponsorship.
What does so well at the football at Marrara or Traeger Park? I am not sure whether they only sell light at Traeger Park. They still supply grog because they see it is a great place to sell alcohol. I do not have a problem with selling alcohol per se; however, there is a perception that alcohol is part of sport - without it, we cannot exist. It is sad because the classic case is the Katherine football association which banned alcohol from football matches some years ago. The crowds went ‘kathump’ and their money went ‘kathump’. Families still went but they did not make money. We rely on alcohol in all our clubs. The member for Sanderson will know about cricket; any cricket club will rely on the bar.
Alcohol is a great influence through our society. Governments are scared to change that. They took up the battle with tobacco; however, when did you last see a person booked for smoking while driving? It is not a real problem but drinking when you are driving is ...
Mr Conlan: God! Really drawing a parallel.
Mr WOOD: Well, it is right because one has a bigger effect on the community and governments have not bothered to take that up.
Madam Speaker, I am sure we will debate that issue more. There are other things about law and order. There are some good things about youth camps. I do not agree with boot camps so much. We should have youth camps, perhaps working on cattle stations like Wildman River once was. That is a good idea. There is talk of a police youth club in Alice Springs. That is a great idea. I was pushing the other government to do something, especially in Darwin because, except for the Berrimah club, there is only one club at Casuarina.
There are already four clubs in Alice Springs: Tangentyere, Anzac Hill, The Gap...
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member for Nelson be given a 10 minute extension.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Conlan: The Sermon on the Mount continues.
Mr WOOD: It concerns me a minister does not realise he is a minister; he thinks he is still on the backbench of the opposition.
There are already four clubs in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister said, ‘We will have a police youth club in Alice’. I do not have anything against that. It is good the Chief Minister is thinking that way but there needs to be some rationalisation. I read in a recent report from the Coordinator-General that in some communities there are about 38 different government agencies. She is saying there are so many agencies trying to provide help to these communities it is a waste of money. If you already have four recreation centres in Alice Springs and want a fifth one, should there be some rationalisation? That is all I am asking. You want to ensure you get the best value for your money if you put money into those areas, and that is good. I welcome that from the government.
Mining is the biggest industry in the Northern Territory, no doubt about it. I was concerned when I saw the EPA’s report on the iron ore mine near the Limmen National Park. That report was not up to the standard of previous EPA reports. The EPA has to look at these in detail and not give approval subject to certain things; it has to check whether things have been done before it gives approval. That last EPA report on that mine was not quite up to the standard of previous ones.
The Chief Minister says in his document the mining industry is the cornerstone of the Northern Territory’s growth and future prospects. I looked up the Angela Pamela website and the company is still interested in exploring that area. Would the government, and the member for Greatorex, support Angela Pamela going ahead, or at least conduct exploration in that area ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Mr WOOD: It was in the paper recently and the Chief Minister said it is the cornerstone of the Northern Territory’s growth and future prospects.
One other thing I have not heard in all the debates - Madam Speaker, you would be interested in this - is the word ‘statehood’, except in your name when reading your CV. I …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I did not see it in here. I am talking about the Chief Minister’s …
Mr Elferink: Sorry. You said in debate.
Mr WOOD: I am talking about this debate. I did not see it mentioned in the statement. I do not get too excited about statehood because we have so many important issues which need to be fixed that statehood is still a luxury item. The member for Goyder may not agree with me; however, until we get some of the areas most needed to be fixed - literacy, numeracy, jobs, some control over alcohol and other drugs, an expanding economy - we need to focus on those rather than statehood.
When we have some of those under control and some achievements where we can say we are moving in the right direction, then I will be happy to support the statehood move. At the present time it has not come up.
In previous sittings the idea of a statehood convention was changed because some of us believed it was too close to the local government and Territory elections. However, I was surprised it was not mentioned by the Chief Minister in his Address-in-Reply.
Again, the Chief Minister spoke about many good things. I have not spoken about tourism; however, I am interested in where tourism is going in the Northern Territory, especially as there is a move to take it to Alice Springs. I do not have a problem with that concept. I would like to see costings for the move to Alice Springs, especially when we are told we need fiscal discipline. I understand Central Australia was the headquarters of the Tourist Commission some years ago. However, considering the government has concerns about costs, I am interested to see the cost of shifting staff and the availability of housing. You will have some staff there and some in Darwin. It is good if we can develop tourism, especially into remote areas, although we do not have good roads there. Once you put good roads to those communities they are not remote any longer; they have lost their appeal. It is like: Do I want to drive on a corrugated dusty road to some remote community because I need the experience, or do I go on a nice bitumen road and get there in half the time thinking it was not too hard after all? It is like the four-wheel-drive experience versus getting there quickly.
There are many good things in the statement although I do not agree with them all. Some need improvement or change; however, I welcome the Chief Minister putting this paper forward. We need to understand the policies of this government going forward. As a member on the crossbench, I will be looking to see whether the government achieves what it is trying to, and whether it sticks to what it is trying to do. That is part of the role of a crossbencher. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr CHANDLER (Business): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a sincere honour to again represent the good people of my electorate of Brennan in the Twelfth Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to a number of people, including my opponent, Mr Russell Jeffery, for the way he campaigned. I have a very high regard for him.
To the Country Liberals, thank you for the faith you have in me. To the Calder Branch who provide ongoing support, and to the many people who gave up their time freely, your support means so much to me. You are my true friends. You know who you are. To my family, to my beautiful wife and children, thank you for your love, understanding and unwavering support. I love you all so much. It would be remiss of me not to thank my new ministerial office team who have all done a remarkable job providing a sound foundation to our office. Your support and hard work does not go unnoticed. Thank you very much.
Tonight I would like to focus on the portfolios I have been given by the good Chief Minister. It would be very easy to spend this time attacking the opposition for the fiscal mess we were left in and now have to make some pretty tough choices - choices not one of us wants to make, but choices necessary because you cannot continue to live above your means.
I have heard it said quite a few times - I heard the member for Nelson say it recently - there is a human impact when staff decide to move on or decisions are made where positions are no longer required because there is a change of government. You are right. However, what is not being acknowledged at the moment is the reason behind these decisions. That, frankly, is the fiscal position.
My portfolio responsibilities include Housing, Business, Trade, Economic Development and Employment and Training. I will start with Housing because it is on everyone’s lips. It has caused so many frustrations for so many people in the Northern Territory.
On Thursday, the Chief Minister will speak of the true value of housing. He will describe the critical importance of housing for our social and economic wellbeing. The Chief Minister will illustrate how housing provides the foundation on which individuals and families build stable, healthy, productive relationships with their communities and links to employment. Of course, that includes education, health and other services. Housing, therefore, has strong links to employment, education, health and so many other things.
Housing is one of the principal goals of the aspirational Australian family which seeks to buy its own home and raise a family on its own property. This is part of the Australian dream, and there is no reason this dream cannot be realised in the Northern Territory, whether you live in a rural, remote or urban area.
However, housing ownership is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a strong and expensive housing market is one measure of a booming economy and consequential strong employment. The downside is, as housing prices rise the community finds it increasingly difficult to afford home ownership. This is the dilemma we face in the Northern Territory. It is true proper planning several years ago might have, should have, or would have erased the pain of the current high prices we face today.
This government has inherited a legacy where home ownership rates are falling as housing prices are beyond the reach of many low- and middle-income families. Local businesses are struggling to attract and retain staff because it costs too much to rent and live in the Northern Territory. I am sure you could all tell stories where people, especially young families, have left the Territory, not because they wanted to, but because they could not afford to keep a roof over their heads.
Just last week I was made aware of a young family at Palmerston being told their rent was going up by $200 a week to $800. These people are not high wage earners, and they are now seriously considering leaving the Northern Territory. That is tragic. Does anyone here believe $800 a week is reasonable to pay for a standard three-bedroom home? Of course, the answer is no. That is why this government is committed to taking action to address the high cost of living. We cannot afford to keep losing our young Territorians and we need to stem the population drain.
However, it would be misleading to say this problem can be fixed overnight. It will take time and a focused plan by a good government that plans. Those detailed plans will help Territorians stay and not be squeezed out by high housing and living costs. We must create conditions which support local economic growth and remove barriers which prevent local businesses from employing staff. We also need to get the Territory building, and new reasonably-priced homes on the market.
Today I will outline the commonsense measures we are putting in place to promote new home building and support locally led economic growth.
We will take steps to reduce the cost of housing through a balanced and timely release of land - something the last government failed miserably at. That means releasing land faster and reducing the burden of compliance costs for industry. We will streamline planning processes and provide transparent approvals. We will put in place a planning commission to develop firm guidelines for all zoning categories that will include, but not be limited to, maximum building heights, maximum size footprints, minimum boundary setbacks and, of course, car parking.
We will free up more brownfield land for development and regeneration and will accelerate the release of surplus public sector land. We will work with developers to unlock land to progress development. We will support up to an additional 2000 affordable homes through the Real Housing for Growth scheme. The Real Housing for Growth scheme will make public subsidy go further while enabling developers to target support where it is most needed. Our government’s Real Housing for Growth scheme will see the construction of 2000 affordable homes across the Northern Territory over the next four years. It will enable developers and investors to build, own and manage new housing by the government’s guarantee to head lease properties for up to 15 years. It will include potential for government land contribution. It will be targeted at essential workers to keep them in the Territory by providing a 30% discount on the median area market rent.
Essential workers include the caring nurses at our hospitals, the apprentice mechanics repairing our cars, the young teachers educating our children, the person making our morning coffee, and those serving us a cold beverage at the end of the day. It is young families, and others, who are currently being squeezed out of the rental market, but who all contribute to a growing local economy.
We are not stopping there. We are currently reviewing the previous government’s home assistance packages. These schemes were aimed at increasing access and affordability of home ownership to low- and middle-income families. It provided a choice of tenure and aimed to encourage a more settled population. They were all very commendable aims. However, the schemes have had an adverse impact on affordability, particularly at the lower end of the market. This is because the schemes increased the pool of prospective buyers and their purchasing power. Consequently, this drove house prices up. Furthermore, as the prices went up, the scheme parameters had to be expanded in order to achieve scheme take up. This meant the government had to invest more and homebuyers had higher mortgages to pay off.
If there is any one indicator of a failed scheme it is when an affordability scheme needs to have the parameters shifted upwards. That is the most poignant, perhaps stark, reality we are faced with when a government has to increase the parameters of an affordability scheme it created. Basically, the scheme had failed miserably.
The interesting aspect of the scheme is it did not result in the construction of new properties and growing the housing supply. This is a very important point. In fact, 93% of buyers used the shared equity schemes to buy existing rather than new properties. This meant there was a churn of existing properties with ever-increasing prices with little spent on new properties.
I would like to table this graph, and I will hold it up, which clearly indicates the red line showing purchase of new dwellings, the blue line construction of dwellings, and the green line purchase of established dwellings. Basically, the scheme was not contributing to building new homes - adding stock. It was only contributing to forcing prices up.
That demonstrates how the previous government’s programs did not increase the supply of housing. The previous schemes have not improved new housing supply and have forced lower end housing up. This reduces affordability.
I would also like to table two graphs, the first, quarterly medium price for units and, of course, houses. Both quite clearly indicate where we have gone seriously wrong in the Northern Territory when it comes to rents and mortgages. This data has been provided by REINT. The quarterly median house prices data provides a visible demonstration of how prices have escalated in recent times and young families are being forced to leave the Northern Territory.
We will turn this around and increase the affordable housing supply. In the coming weeks we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy which will support a thriving, active, stable housing market. The programs we will put in place will increase housing supply. Most people understand the social role of housing, whether owned or rented, private or public. However, increasing the housing supply, especially of affordable homes, also has an important economic purpose. Building affordable homes, when you look at the bare statistics, is a great economic multiplier and buying power can help sustain local businesses. It will also provide jobs. Many young people have benefitted from apprenticeships with construction companies. I would like to see this increase with a greater number of affordable housing projects under way.
Public housing assists Territorians on low incomes to reach their potential, make a contribution, and share the benefits of our community. Tomorrow, the Chief Minister will speak on the need to provide public housing to the most vulnerable in our society and the challenges this brings to any government. Public housing tenants are subject to a number of criteria when determining eligibility including: homelessness; medical issues; disability; women and children escaping domestic violence; Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people facing complex issues and private rental market discrimination or exclusion; and children at risk, including their parents and carers.
The most direct measure of current demand for public housing by eligible households on the waiting list comes from a recent review of the urban public housing waiting list which found general waiting list applications had declined and priority housing applications have increased significantly. This has contributed to a 12% overall increase in waiting lists from 2009-10 to 2011-12. It is estimated the demand for public housing will continue to grow with the strongest growth in single person households, couples, and families without children. Recent data shows 69% of applicants seek two or less bedrooms, with 27% seeking three bedrooms and 4% seeking four bedrooms.
The growth in demand for smaller properties reflects the growth in the number of older people requiring public housing and an increase in the number of single parents and families, and single person households. These social policy aspects of public housing present challenges for strategic asset management within the public housing portfolio. The contemporary and responsive asset base is necessary to ensure the best social inclusion outcomes are achieved for public housing tenants.
It is unfortunate we have not inherited a contemporary public housing portfolio which meets the needs of a changing demographic in the Northern Territory. That said, our public housing stock is still a valuable asset. It provides homes at below market rent for more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in more than 5000 dwellings, and more than 40 000 living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings.
The urban public housing stock is ageing, with the average age at 28 years. Fifty percent of the stock is between 20 and 29 years of age, 21% of the stock is 30 to 39 years of age, and 12% is more than 40 years old. The old and inappropriate properties no longer suit the contemporary public housing requirements and are costly to maintain, creating an even greater drain on the Territory budget. The program of modifying dwellings to suit the needs of tenants as they grow older is also a costly one.
I have requested all new dwellings be constructed in such a way as to maximise liveability and adaptability for existing and future tenants. Common features include: wider doorways and corridors, hobbler showers, and no steps into dwellings. In addition to meeting the needs of tenants who require specific accommodation, it improves the flexibility of the housing portfolio to respond to changing demographics, often saving tens of thousands in the long run.
In the past weeks, I have worked with the Chief Executive Officer of the department who has provided me with a draft asset management strategy. The development of a public housing asset management strategy cannot be considered in isolation. It must be seen in a context of development of a broader strategy for the expansion of social housing which improves the range of housing choices available to Territory residents.
This strategy, once completed, will:
strategically manage the public housing portfolio for the Northern Territory government
reduce concentrations of disadvantage through public housing redevelopment
align the portfolio with changing social structures and tenant needs
respond to environmental standards, particularly in the areas of energy and water efficiency
protect the Territory’s investment in its public housing assets through preventative and regular maintenance
upgrade programs.
We will put in place a comprehensive set of measures to help the housing sector adapt and grow. Of course, there are significant challenges and the state of the government budget will require some innovative solutions that do not increase the size and extent of the deficit. As a government, we are determined to work to address both the short-term symptoms and the long-term causes. We are prepared to put in place the required reforms. That is why we are providing our Real Housing for Growth scheme guaranteeing to help lever in new investments, removing the planning and financial barriers holding back the housing market, and developing a clear direction to help increase the supply of all forms of housing, owned or rented, public or private.
Moving to remote housing, I acknowledge significant outcomes have been achieved to date in the delivery of a national partnership agreement on remote Indigenous housing. However, I share the concerns of my parliamentary colleagues regarding the impact of the high administrative cost of that program. While over 700 new homes and over 2490 refurbishments and rebuilds have been completed, I wonder how many more could have been delivered with better planning and delivery methodologies.
It is pleasing to note at the end of September over 3000 families were living in improved housing. The challenge is to keep the momentum going and reduce the administrative overheads to maximise the number of new builds and refurbishments in the bush.
Work is now under way to improve the delivery and management of remote housing in the Northern Territory. This government is about to commence using delivery models different to the alliance for the construction of remote housing under the program. Through the Department of Infrastructure, panels of contractors have been established across five regions of the Territory to deliver at least 60 new houses and 240 refurbishments beyond the alliance’s program to achieve targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds by June 2013.
Discussions have also commenced to ensure improved opportunities exist for local Indigenous business enterprises and the employment of Indigenous workers. We look to develop the capacity for local people in remote communities to deliver more work of the housing nature, both in construction and repairs and maintenance.
Negotiations with the Australian government have led to a commitment under the Stronger Futures national partnership agreement to a further $230m in Australian government funding to bring all remote houses in the Northern Territory to a safe and habitable standard. Discussions will continue with the Australian government to ensure the proposed next stage of works delivers a better standard of amenity and durability for remote houses than what was achieved under the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, commonly referred to as SIHIP. This will include, for many communities, painting of houses, durable floor coverings which match, and other key durability and amenity elements.
I am pleased to inform my parliamentary colleagues that work under this government will also include replacing remote housing in poor condition across the Territory, including small communities which did not see houses under SIHIP.
I have instructed the Department of Housing to resolve any outstanding issues with rent collections from remote tenants, and to consider how to simplify the existing remote rent framework. I am focused on improving all aspects of remote housing delivery, including providing local community-based solutions aimed at increasing involvement of community residents and reducing the inefficiencies in heavy bureaucracy, particularly in the administration and expensive travel costs associated with servicing our important remote communities.
Shifting to business, the economic prosperity of the Northern Territory is one of its greatest assets, built not only on its natural resources but also on the belief an individual can prosper through personal determination and perseverance.
Our government supports private enterprise which is integral to continued economic growth, and acknowledges and applauds the vision of companies and businesses which have worked to build the Northern Territory into one of Australia’s successful economies.
This government recognises that those with the greatest understanding of the many challenges faced by industry and commerce are business people, not politicians, and certainly not bureaucrats. Red tape and unnecessary restrictions on business have held the Territory back. We are actively looking to see how we can reduce that burden. Often, the best thing governments can do for business is get out of the way and allow businesses to grow and develop. I have been meeting with business people and industry representatives seeking information on what they need to be successful and grow the local economy. We want to engage with business and facilitate expansion, not impose ourselves on businesses where it is not justified.
As we enter this new phase in the Northern Territory, we will be developing a three-hub economy. The focus will be on developing our mining and energy sector, reinvigorating and expanding our tourism and international education services sector, and establishing greater exports of food and products into Asia.
As the Minister for Trade, my personal priorities will be to ensure we achieve our export objectives and provide some real impetus which will assist in producing real benefits to all businesses depending on export income. This government will provide a sharper, clearer focus on supporting trade and export development and their activities with the restructuring of the Department of Business to include these functions. Businesses can now look forward to a more integrated and seamless connection between business and export development. Be assured this government will do all it can to grow existing markets and open new markets to ensure the long-term future of this important avenue for industry to the Northern Territory.
As a government, it is our goal to build on the proud economic foundations of past governments. Let us not forget those achievements included, under previous CLP governments: overseeing the development of the Central Australian gas fields and the pipeline to Darwin; supporting the first oil and gas discoveries in the Timor Sea; facilitating the decision by ConocoPhillips and its partners to develop the Bayu-Undan gas field and its pipeline to Darwin; supporting the operation and development of the world-class mineral deposits in Gove, Groote Eylandt, the Gulf and Tanami regions for over 20 years; and establishing backbone infrastructure such as power stations, roads and regional airstrips, and a couple of pretty impressive specific infrastructure projects in the Darwin port, and the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. In doing so, we seek to diversify our economic base for the benefit of all Territorians, creating jobs and wealth across the Territory.
The government has heard the concerns of local businesses - that many of the contracts associated with projects in the Territory are going to overseas and interstate companies. Territory businesses are capable of more and we want them to have access to more complex, higher-skilled work which will deliver long-term job opportunities for current and future generations.
From my conversations with business and industry the key challenges in growing our three-hub economy will be addressing issues such as affordable housing, availability of a skilled workforce, restoring the social fabric of our communities and making the Northern Territory an even more attractive location for investment.
It is no surprise housing affordability and the cost of living is at the top of their list. The Territory’s best days are ahead. Our government has the plan, vision, and the political will to work with local business and make it happen. Overcoming the problems before us will not be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour to deliver my Address-in-Reply speech. It is a wonderful experience to be in the ninth week of holding government in the Northern Territory. We had a wonderful time during the election and are now settling into our new jobs with our many new colleagues. We have 15, not including the Speaker. Five members are new and we have six women on board. It is a really exciting time for us all. The amount of information we have had to absorb has been quite daunting and, given it is our first parliamentary sittings of the Twelfth Assembly, the pressure has been on us to perform and ensure our level of understanding of our portfolio areas is adequate enough to get us through.
With that in mind, it will be a fascinating four years. It has probably been more challenging for me given I have not been a member of parliament for a particularly long time. Only two years ago I was elected as the member for Araluen in a by-election after the sudden resignation of the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney.
I would once again like to thank the people of Araluen for putting their trust in me and re-electing me as their representative in parliament. One of my greatest joys as a local member is talking to local people and hearing their stories, understanding their concerns, understanding their families, their needs, and what they see and hear. One of the joyful parts of the election campaign was placing myself around the community at different times of the day just chatting to people. After some time people were stopping, finding me at my different locations, really opening up and giving me great insight into how their part of the community, their part of Alice Springs, works and functions.
I remember one morning during the election campaign, minus five degrees, sitting beside the road where not many people stopped because they could hardly move - they were wrapped up in scarves and beanies sitting in heated cars whizzing past me. I received much feedback after that morning along the lines of, ‘What on earth were you thinking of, Robyn, sitting there beside the road?’ I have great memories of the election campaign. It was a fun time for me, hard work, and I have many people to thank. I will do so later in my speech.
I look forward to making a difference to the lives of Central Australian people, indeed, all Territorians. These are exciting times and I embrace this wonderful opportunity to inject life and energy back into Alice Springs particularly. Alice Springs will always remain my centre, politically and philosophically. I am in this position because of the people of Araluen. They put me here, and I can assure the people of Araluen despite the honour my colleagues have bestowed upon me as Deputy Leader of the government and Treasurer and the demands that will make on my time, I will continue to represent their needs and expectations. Alice Springs is number one. It is my home; it is where my heart is and where my family is as we speak. Alice Springs is the centre of the universe, for all of you who were not aware. It is the centre of Australia, the centre of the Northern Territory, a place where many wonderful things happen, and where many wonderful things have started.
I was interested to hear the member for Greatorex yesterday talking about how tourism in Australia started in Central Australia. That says it all. It is not just our imagination; it is a fact that Alice Springs is the birthplace of so many things and great people. We are the heart and soul of the outback; we are the central point to every beach and natural wonder in Australia. We are incredibly lucky to have such a beautiful place to live with great diversity and richness in culture and lifestyle. Of course, the most amazing thing about Alice is the people. We are tough, resilient and very giving and caring.
Alice has provided my family and I with a life and future we could have only dreamed of. We are blessed, fortunate and extremely thankful. My vision is for more people to embrace the opportunities of Alice Springs, of Central Australia, and the whole of the Northern Territory. More people should be sharing the fruits and opportunities of this vast, largely unspoilt, magnificent Territory. I want more people to discover how much better their life could be by living, working and committing to being a part of the Northern Territory. It is a secret. Most people from interstate do not understand how lucky we are and how wonderful their lives could be if they spent time in the Territory. Even if they gave up a small part of their life to live here and experience it, it would be enriching. It is a secret and it should not be; it needs to get out there that the Territory is the place to be. It is great to be a Territorian and I will continue to represent the people of Central Australia with honesty and sincerity.
I am proud to be a member of a Country Liberals government and serve as Deputy Leader with my colleague, Chief Minister Terry Mills. The new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is an outstanding human being, an outstanding leader, and Territorians need to understand how lucky they are to have a man of such decency, substance and integrity at the helm.
Terry Mills is well-educated, a Christian man, a husband to Ros, father to Mathew and Kristen, and grandfather to Alexander. Terry has given the last 13 years of his life to serving the people of the Northern Territory and Terry Mills, our Chief Minister, is a great bloke, well-mannered, respectful and caring, well-considered and measured. As my colleague, the member for Brennan said, he is a good singer and a fairly good guitar player too. Territorians are very fortunate to have Terry Mills as their Chief Minister. As the new Cabinet, we are fortunate to have Terry Mills as the leader of the government and the Northern Territory.
I have been allocated an exciting and challenging range of portfolios: Treasurer, Minister for Education, Minister for Children and Families, Minister for Central Australia, Minister for Corporate and Information Services and Minister for Women’s Policy. As time goes on, and in our ninth week of government, the enormity of my responsibilities becomes less daunting. I am rising to the challenge and love every moment of it. I truly love my work. I love the Territory and will work as hard as I can to make a difference. On top of my portfolios, I have been honoured by my colleagues and appointed as Deputy Chief Minister. I take this role very seriously. Being Deputy Chief Minister is about representing the interests of all Territorians and supporting the Chief Minister in all areas of responsibility. This is a huge challenge which I embrace and will execute with conviction and tenacity.
The Mills government has made strong commitments to the people of the Northern Territory. There is only one way those commitments can be delivered: if the Territory’s financial position is strong and growing. Our five-point plan will build a safer, connected and more cohesive community by properly planning for the future. My desire is to see the Northern Territory compete successfully with other Australian states and territories in many fields. I dream of a time when our education standards and achievements are equal, if not better, than other states.
The health of Territorians, in particular Aboriginal Territorians, must improve dramatically. One significant contributing factor to a community’s health is education. I am determined to see attendance rates at schools improve. If need be, this may mean incentives for parents to ensure their children go to school every day. Where have we gone wrong in society when attendance rates in some of our schools have never been so low? Where has the message that education is the key to a good life and future gone? I heard my colleagues yesterday, including my Aboriginal colleagues, talk about this. Why do people think it is okay not to send their kids to school? It does not make sense.
This is an exciting time for Territorians. I see the potential for great economic growth ahead and the benefits that will flow to the community as a result. However, we must ensure our finances are sound and we invest wisely for the future. I aim to have the most transparent and well-managed economy in Australia. That is possible, despite what we have seen in recent years. I have discovered many unfunded promises from the previous government worth millions of dollars which threaten the Northern Territory’s fiscal position.
While it may take some time, the Mills government will ensure all promises are properly costed and funded and we are accountable and honest with the community. Ultimately, we must ensure our communities are safe, our children are provided with the best possible education, and we do everything we can to lower the unacceptably high cost of housing.
Turning to the crucial role of Treasurer, the size and extent of the fiscal imbalance in the Territory’s budget and the enormity of the debt is a very poor indictment on the financial management capability of the previous government’s leadership team. By budget imbalance, I mean expenditure exceeding revenue; spending well beyond our means, spending more than we earn and going further and further into debt.
The former government allowed the Northern Territory to drift into greater debt year after year. The impact of this large debt on the Northern Territory is that we must pay back huge amounts of interest. Every day Territorians are paying back around $750 000 in interest. That is money we should be spending on roads, parks, hospitals and schools. Let us make no mistake: the task ahead is huge. To unravel the mess and restore order and accountability across the government’s books is a huge task.
Together with my colleagues, my job is to put the government’s finances back onto a sustainable footing. We need to instil the discipline of spending within our means, not racking up more and more debt. We must manage the Territory’s finances carefully and responsibly over the coming years to ensure future generations of Territorians are not burdened with an unsustainable level of debt.
On my watch, the budget will move to balance by 2015-16. We will be a financially responsible government and be accountable and transparent in planning, managing and reporting our finances. We have nothing to hide. I will begin with a mini-budget on 4 December this year. The mini-budget will articulate our fiscal strategy and outline our approach to financial and economic management over this term of government. The mini-budget will start the journey along the long road to getting the Territory’s budget back on track and will lay the groundwork on which we can build the 2013-14 budget next year.
I am enjoying the Treasury and finance portfolio, its diversity and breadth, and the opportunity it provides me to really make a difference to the Territory, particularly in regional areas.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say earlier today the Treasurer needs help. She does indeed. We are going to work as a team. There is a huge job ahead of us, thanks to the former government, and we need all the help we can get to put us back on track. There is no doubt about it.
The international ratings agency Moody’s is due to review the Territory’s fiscal position before Christmas. That organisation recently downgraded Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, and will be examining the Northern Territory closely. Moody’s will see this government is determined to reduce the unsustainable debt which is accumulating, and this government has a plan for exercising restraint and behaving in a financially responsible manner for the benefit of future generations of Territorians.
As Minister for Education, the future generations excite me. This is where the real future of the Northern Territory begins. One of the wonderful parts of yesterday’s celebrations was seeing all our children together. We had grandchildren, and most of us had our children ranging from babies to teenagers to adults. We have many children to lay claim to on this side of the House, and they are the important people when we consider the future of the Northern Territory. It was lovely to see them all mixing together, checking each other out, and seeing who is who in the zoo when it comes to the next generation of possible politicians. Who knows?
Education will, ultimately, help our health authorities and my colleague, the Health Minister, to reduce the incidence of disease, especially in the remote and Aboriginal communities. I dream of a Territory education system which will have more of our children competing with Australia’s best for jobs and opportunities. If we can give our children the life experiences of this great and harsh land, and mix that with an excellent education, then they will be able to take their place with the best in the world.
Yesterday, in parliament we celebrated the swearing-in of all members with our children and grandchildren present. It was a wonderful occasion.
I want to see our Aboriginal school attendance rates climbing upwards and Aboriginal children eagerly lining up for school every day. When I assumed office, I found we had about 2130 active classroom teachers employed by the Department of Education. Around 600, or 28%, were on temporary contracts. This was a concern to me as it was grossly unfair to impose such uncertainty on these teachers and their families. It restricted their ability to commit to the Northern Territory and really become part of the Territory’s future. These temporary contracts resulted from cumbersome administrative arrangements.
As Minister for Education, I moved decisively to fix this unacceptable situation. We are now providing secure employment for all teachers across the Northern Territory. Under new arrangements, the Education department is offering permanent contracts to all teachers recruited to remote schools and to vacancies in urban, middle, and senior secondary schools. These arrangements will apply from 2013 onwards. Obviously, if a teacher wishes to stay on a temporary contract, they can. Ultimately, I am proud to say the Mills government will be able to reduce by up to half the number of teachers on temporary contracts.
It is all very well to have plenty of teachers, but it is equally important to have transparent teacher appraisal processes to ensure our children receive the best possible education outcomes. I am delighted the Education department has immediately begun work to develop effective and transparent teacher appraisal processes. This process is underpinned by the National Professional Standards for Teachers. The National Partnership Agreement on Rewards for Great Teachers includes funding for the development and implementation of a nationally endorsed Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework from 2013.
One thing I have discovered in the last eight weeks is that Education wins the award when it comes to the number of acronyms, followed closely by Treasury. This framework outlines four key elements for effective performance and development, including documented and regularly reviewed goals, access to quality professional learning, evidence from a range of sources used to reflect on and evaluate performance, and provision of regular formal and informal feedback, including annual review.
A consultation process has been undertaken with a significant number of teachers and school leaders to determine what is in place and working well, areas for future development, and resources and support required for further development. Teachers and school leaders were also asked to comment on the potential to use these elements as the basis for the revised Department of Education and Children’s Services Teacher Performance Development Framework. To date, the feedback gained indicates overwhelming support for this approach. A reference group has been established to inform the review of the current teacher performance management system, and the Australian Education Union has been invited to participate.
The department of Education performance appraisal process requires teachers to demonstrate proficiency against national professional standards for teachers in order to progress from classroom teacher level 5 to classroom teacher level 6. We want our children to compete on the world stage so we must encourage good teachers to stay in the Territory. To retain the best teachers in the Territory we must provide ongoing training.
I am confident we will give our children the best possible chance in life through investment in education. There is no doubt English is the language of business across the world and the accepted first language of Australia. However, if we want Aboriginal children to become proficient in English we should also understand in many instances English will, of necessity and common sense, be an additional language. Therefore, we have updated the framework for learning English as an additional language policy. This policy update will assist students in remote and urban schools who speak an Aboriginal language, newly arrived students from overseas, and other students learning English as an additional language in mainstream classrooms across the Northern Territory.
This new framework helps schools plan and deliver English as an additional language in line with student need, family and community expectations, and available resources. It is important all Territorians have a choice when it comes to this initiative. The key to the change within this policy is that we recognise English as an additional language program may be inclusive of a student’s home or local language and culture, as agreed with parents and communities.
The new unit will work with schools, communities, regions and other business areas within the Department of Education and Children’s Services to implement quality English as an additional language teaching and learning program.
I have two wonderful children and know being a parent can be rewarding and enjoyable, but it is certainly not easy. It can be frustrating and exhausting at times. As Minister for Children and Families, I have the challenging job of ensuring Territory families receive the support they need in raising the next generation of Territorians.
Most of us will need help at some point in time and, for the vast majority, assistance through mainstream services like childcare centres, schools, community health centres and local GPs is what is required. Some families will need specialist advice or intensive support targeted to the issues they are facing. A smaller number of families will experience even more significant difficulties.
I am troubled to say notifications of child abuse and neglect continue to increase in the Northern Territory. This is, undeniably, one of the most pressing and grave social problems we have to tackle. For families facing these issues, high quality support and services can help resolve the crisis and, in many cases, enable children to stay safely in the family home.
Of course, even with the best support it is not always possible to ensure children are safe at home. When children need to live out of home or in care it is our job to ensure there are a range of care options to meet their needs. Sadly, the number of children needing to live out of home in the Northern Territory continues to grow.
In October 2010, almost two years to the day, the Growing them strong, together report of the Board of Inquiry into Child Protection in the Northern Territory made 147 recommendations. These recommendations focused on program development, policy enhancements, and system improvements. A number of successful reforms have been progressed over the past two years, and now it is time to take the next step in the reform process. This is about making real change for children and families, about families getting the right help at the right time, and about focusing on improving our child protection practice.
I have created a new Office of Children and Families within the Department of Education and Children’s Services. This decision has been made for one reason: to strengthen services to children and families.
This change will result in new integrated services, consolidated infrastructure and strengthened leadership in areas fundamental to the future of the Territory. The integration of Education and Children and Families will mean better, seamless services, particularly for children and families in remote locations which are very hard to service because of their geographical peculiarities.
It is anticipated the integration with early childhood services will improve prevention and early intervention strategies which will reduce the need for statutory child protection intervention. There will be one strategic plan across the Office of Children and Families and the Department of Education and Children’s Services. The plan will provide a clear new direction, new priorities and new ways of working in multidisciplinary teams to ensure better outcomes for children and families. We are very excited about this change.
Two outcomes I am focusing on, in particular, are improving school attendance and improving educational outcomes for children in care. In addition, I have made a commitment to frontline child protection services. In order to improve practice, it is essential we have sufficient frontline staff to deliver timely high quality services. It is also essential that child protection staff carry appropriate caseloads and have access to training and supervision. The government is not the only provider of frontline services; non-government organisations play a vital role in keeping children safe by ensuring families get the right help at the right time.
Another priority will be to increase the range of placement options to meet the needs of children and young people in out of home care. These options need to provide better outcomes, be better planned, and be more cost-effective than those delivered under the previous government.
I am also honoured to be Minister for Central Australia, including the electorate of Araluen. Central Australia is almost achingly beautiful with its deserts and natural beauty. It takes your breath away; are we not lucky? It is also the land forgotten by the previous government, there is no doubt about that. It suffered under the neglectful reign of the previous government. The economy has languished through the lack of attention to land release and failure to attract and retain business interests to the town.
On top of this, our social problems were inadequately addressed for many years. This government will not stop until the local economy in Alice Springs, in Central Australia, is back on track and law and order is under control. We are already listening to the views of key leaders in the Central Australian community, particularly in the business and social services sectors. Central Australia will not be forgotten by the Mills government.
We are committed to helping Centralians improve the quality of their lives through their children’s education and employment prospects. Our nighttime youth policy includes basing an assistant commissioner of police in the Alice. This will be implemented in the very near future. I believe having a very senior police officer on the ground in the community will help build insights and relationships which could not be gained from far away in Darwin. There will be more police on the streets of the town and night patrols will be of the highest priority. I have high aspirations to improve services and facilities in Central Australia. Many of these were outlined in the election campaign. These commitments will be addressed as part of the mini-budget process which I will consider incorporating into the budget and forward estimates over the term of this government.
We are committed to fostering economic development and growth through the Territory, including Central Australia, including Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and all those other small communities in and around Central Australia. The tourist commission will be based in Alice Springs, thereby, starting the process of rebuilding a regional hub for tourism-related businesses and mining. We believe this is a great idea; we believe in regionalisation. The Todd Mall is tired and needs upgrading, and we will fast-track that development. The Alice Springs court rooms are in need of improvement and we will give priority to this issue. We will complete the sealing of the Red Centre Way and ensure the excellent Discovering Alice tourist guide is completed.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member for Araluen.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Central Australia is bigger than Alice Springs. We will not forget the other regional centres - all those Aboriginal communities; we will not forget anyone. This new government is not in the business of excluding anyone from any place. We are inclusive and have a very strong commitment to the regions.
The Chief Minister has promised to visit the major Aboriginal centres so he can gain firsthand knowledge of issues affecting people where they live.
If youth are bored, trouble inevitably follows. This is not simply a problem unique to Aboriginal communities; it is true everywhere regardless of race or colour. If you want to give youth an alternative to boredom and drugs, you concentrate on sporting and social opportunities. The government will emphasise the value of all sports for the development of youth in our communities. Sports such as tennis, basketball, swimming and track and field will be supported. We will work with sporting authorities to ensure youth have access to these sports.
On the other end of the age scale, one of the ways we can lure highly mobile tourists from all over Australia is to review the legislative requirements for fossicking. The Mills government will strive to attract this important tourist sector while ensuring the interests of landholders are protected.
I am honoured to be appointed Minister for Women’s Policy. As Minister, my aim will be to build an equitable, inclusive and safe society where women are valued and respected. I hope to see more women providing leadership, decision-making responsibilities and influence across all policy areas in the Northern Territory government and the private sector.
Whether contributing to the economy, the business community, in the traditional areas of health and education or in the mining industry, equal participation in all facets of society by women is critical to the Northern Territory’s future.
I would like to believe, as a community, we are listening and more conscious, more aware and more understanding of issues which affect both men and women’s lives. It is essential that differences between women’s and men’s experiences of combining work with family, participating in social and personal activities, or fulfilling community roles are equally recognised and supported.
We must strive to remove the gender pay gap. It is also essential that unpaid work is not taken for granted but appropriately recognised. Removing obstacles which restrict women’s financial independence and ensuring women’s longer-term economic security is a part of the Mills government’s commitment to shaping and holding our community together in times of change and challenge.
Women can and will take their place at the head of business and government based on their skills, ability and knowledge. In the coming months, a new women’s policy will be developed to set this government’s strategic direction for Territory women.
As Minister for Corporate and Information Services, I will be seeking greater efficiencies across government. There are more than 600 Internet and Intranet websites across the Northern Territory Public Service. Many of these websites are unnecessary and others are complementary. Our websites must be able to complement the new touch phone technology as that is what our young people use.
The Territory is a special place from the thunder of Top End storms to the brilliant sands of the Centre. Our Territory has the ability to leave you breathless and our future is bright and, potentially, equally as exciting. I am looking forward to working with you all from both sides of the Chamber. It is indeed an exciting time.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my husband Craig Lambley, and my children Alice and Harry Lambley who were here yesterday. They had a fantastic time; it was wonderful. It was fantastic to have them sitting behind me on such a memorable day to celebrate the opening of the first session of the Twelfth Northern Territory Assembly.
I also thank my campaign manager throughout the election, the vibrant, vivacious, never silent Kate Coffey, who was a source of great inspiration and loads of fun during my election campaign. I thank my electorate officer, Carley Plume, who also helped at different times in an entirely appropriate way. Carley is not a political animal like some of us; however, she was always there and has been a wonderful support to me over the last two years since I became a member of parliament.
I thank my parents, Max and Pam Priestly, in Grafton. Mum has just gone into a nursing home, and dad is fighting off cancer. They are both still alive and kicking, and I know they are very proud of me. I also acknowledge my in-laws, Norelle and Dennis Lambley, who live in Caboolture. They too, are very proud of me and give their support in very unobtrusive, but lovely ways.
I thank Terry Mills, the leader of the Country Liberals and our Chief Minster, for being the rock he is. He is entirely consistent and someone I admire immensely. I thank my colleagues, new and old, who formed the new government. It is a delight to look around the room and see such a brilliant group of people. I am so excited. The talent, enthusiasm and potential within our team are truly exciting. We have some great leaders amongst us; people who will be shining lights in the future - watch this space. It is wonderful.
I acknowledge the Country Liberal Party. An enormous effort - a very professional effort was put in to win the election on 25 August - how the campaign was managed, and the people who gave tirelessly. It was an outstanding effort, and you should all be extremely proud of yourselves.
I acknowledge my new ministerial team. I do not know how it happened, but I have managed to attract some great people. They are all extraordinary, and through the period of the last eight weeks we have formed a great little unit. They have worked tirelessly for me, particularly over the last few weeks, in preparation for parliament. I highly respect each and every one of you and I cannot wait to continue the journey with you.
I congratulate the new members of parliament who have formed our team. It is fantastic to have you all with us. As a born and bred conservative person, I thank the Northern Territory for having faith in the Country Liberal Party and putting us in government. We will not let you down. It is a great honour and we will be working hard every day for the next four years to not disappoint you.
Mr GILES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been much commentary over how the election was won. One name which does not come up often is Senator Nigel Scullion, the CLP senator for the Northern Territory. I pass my congratulations and thanks on to Nigel, as he put an enormous effort into this over many a long year. You know Nigel very well, Mr Deputy Speaker, so do I and a few of the core group. I put on the record Nigel Scullion’s efforts in this.
I congratulate the member for Blain for his leadership over the last four years, the recent election success achieved by the Country Liberals’ team in forming government, and his election to Chief Minister.
The election showed how concerned people were with Territory-specific issues, especially in the bush, and the need to stabilise the finances and balance the budget.
I welcome and congratulate all new members and re-elected members of the Legislative Assembly. Also, the people of the Northern Territory who have chosen us to act on their behalf. I send a warm special thank you to my wife, Tamara, and my daughter, Tahlia. I also thank my electorate officer, Tanya Turner and all the staff of my ministerial office.
On a personal basis, I will quickly thank Murray Stewart, Daniel Davis, our branch chair, and the Country Liberal Party. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to those colleagues not in this Chamber - the losing candidates - Kim Loveday, Jane Johnson, Allen Fanning, Tony Clementson, Rohan Kelly, Jo Sangster, Rhianna Harker and Rebecca Healy from Barkly, someone who would have made a very good member for Barkly. Unfortunately, we have the cat back.
Our success in the August election would not have been possible without the tireless and unselfish commitment of Country Liberal Party members and supporters. The commitment of the Country Liberals to listen to, to work with, and support all Territorians regardless of where they may live was not just at election time. A commitment was made by the Country Liberals to demonstrate we are a party for Territorians, and we have quietly and diligently gone out to all regions to listen, to engage and, ultimately, develop the policies which encourage the support and aspirations of all people.
I am proud to be a member of a political party which truly believes in and is dedicated to supporting Territorians. I would like to formally thank the members and supporters.
I thank the people of my electorate of Braitling for returning me for a second time to represent them in this House. They also supported me earlier in Alice Springs when I ran for Lingiari. The people of Braitling have been very honest, extremely supportive, and thankful for the role I play in their electorate.
We have a former candidate for the seat of Greatorex in the crowd, Mr Phil Walcott. Thank you for participating in elections in Alice Springs, Phil. I am glad my colleague, the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan won, but I appreciate the efforts you put in.
It is a privilege and honour to represent the interest of the Braitling electorate and to have a direct impact on shaping a better future for generations to come. I believe inland Australia has never been developed. About 70% of Australia is an arid zone and has been underdeveloped. If we want to build the Territory, we have to build the infrastructure and start with our inland routes of transport. That has not happened. We see the national reform going on and everyone is talking about developing the Territory, but if you do not build the economic infrastructure you will not build the Territory.
We keep having debates about Aboriginal affairs, but it is about the economy. Economic development is underpinned by four principles: economy, culture, social and environment. We do a fair bit around social - we look at education and sometimes we have really good measures or interventions; sometimes we just mess around the edges. We talk a little about the environment. Culture is sometimes there, sometimes forgotten; however, the economic cycle is always misplaced. You cannot just build an economy; you have to invest in the infrastructure to make it happen.
On the Tiwi Islands, the member for Arafura needs a 32 km road built to help him and his people get the woodchip from the plantation to the port. That will build about 106 jobs immediately in forestry. Correct me if I am wrong on the jobs.
The member for Arnhem needs bridges around Ngukurr. Ngukurr is quickly progressing as an economic hub in her region. If you do not get the roads and bridges fixed, you cannot support the economic growth, tourism will not happen, and the motel will not be realised to its full potential.
It is the same with the member for Stuart. Work on the Tanami must be accelerated. We are prepared to make that financial investment in partnership with the federal government. We are not going to be a mendicant state. We will not keep bagging out the federal Infrastructure and Transport minister. We will enter into a partnership arrangement to try to put economic enabling infrastructure on the ground.
The member for Namatjira is in the same position. A few years ago it was scheduled to cost $522m to two-lane seal the Outback Way. That is a lot of money; however, over the last 11 years of the failed Labor government there was a good opportunity for a national partnership approach to put in place enabling infrastructure. I understand the economic arguments many people will make - it is not a viable transport route, the trucks do not go that way, there will only be a few caravans. However, that is the infrastructure required to open the country up - the Tanami, the Sandover and the Central Arnhem will open our economy and the Territory and give the arid zone an opportunity to compete. If we keep focusing on urban areas of the country we forget the people in the middle and lower end who live in geographic middle Australia. That is how you fix things.
I will continue my hard work each and every day for all my constituents, for all Central Australians, all Territorians, including the people who live in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, member for Daly. The people who want the Port Keats road sealed - we have already spoken about what we can do in the future on that. There are a number of issues, particularly in my Braitling electorate I will continue to focus on: law and order, assaults and break-ins. Under the Banned Drinker Register, sure, there might not have been as many people going into the bottle shops, but there was secondary supply or they were breaking into people’s houses.
In 2007 when I ran for Lingiari, I was going through Tennant Creek and spoke to people in the hardware store there. They told me the biggest sellers in the Tennant Creek hardware store were padlocks and six-foot high fences to keep people out of bar fridges in back yards. That has increased over the last few years in Alice Springs.
Public housing disorder: I will be talking extensively to the Housing minister about fixing up the public housing mess. The provisions of the Housing Act are not being adhered to. The repairs and maintenance budget and its application are not being carried out to the potential I would like to see. There are many areas of opportunity for reform in that process. In particular, we are looking at legislation from other jurisdictions to see how they do the jobs.
We need to look at how we move forward with town camps in Central Australia. We cannot continue having Third and Fourth World living conditions in the middle of suburbia. Something needs to change in that environment. You cannot have people drunk every night beating up women, the kids cannot sleep, they do not go to school, and the cycle perpetuates. Something is not working. Leadership needs to be happening at the administrative level of the town camps in Alice Springs and across the Territory. Some are worse than others. They are Third and Fourth World conditions.
There are a number of other election commitments and directions I want to take to the electorate of Braitling which I will continue to work towards over the next few years.
I look forward to working with the community, with government and stakeholders, to address the significant challenges and opportunities in the portfolio areas of transport, infrastructure and local government to develop and deliver a more prosperous future for the Northern Territory. I will now talk about the portfolios.
As Minister for Transport, it is important to note this is the first time the Northern Territory has had a stand-alone Department of Transport. That is important. The Department of Transport provides safe and effective transport systems and services which meet community and government needs. Work has already begun on delivery of this government’s election commitments for improving cattle roads, continuing the improvement of Tiger Brennan Drive and the Savannah Way - something the member for Arnhem would appreciate - duplicating Lee Point Road, carrying out an audit of speed limits and road conditions, and the construction and upgrade of boat ramps.
Improving cattle roads is a key priority of this government, as is reinforcing existing cattle roads such as the Carpentaria Highway and the Tanami, Buntine and Douglas Daly Roads, and extending the seal on key priority cattle roads such as Daly River, Port Keats and Oolloo. An audit of speed limits is currently taking place using an evidence-based approach of speed limits on the Stuart, Barkly, Victoria and Arnhem Highways. It would be wrong for anybody to say there will be open speed limits - open slather.
We are conducting a professional audit of our roads to provide evidence-based research on where any changes could be made. The review is being conducted by the nationally recognised Australian Road Research Board and will look at the impact of the introduction of speed limits on major highways since 2007. I anticipate that report to be delivered to Cabinet towards the end of October or early November. The Territory government is committed to working with the city of Darwin to duplicate and upgrade Lee Point Road to have capacity to accommodate recent and future development. We know this is something the previous Labor government did not look at despite the incoming residents to those areas.
Other priorities of my ministry will be the upgrading and construction of boat ramps at locations across the Territory such as Shady Camp and in suburban Darwin.
A renewed focus on transport service delivery has already begun in the Northern Territory with improvements through opening of the MVR on Goyder Road on Saturday mornings. I thank the Chief Minister for working with me on that. Initial feedback from the public has seen an overwhelmingly positive response to this initiative of the new Northern Territory government. For those who do not know, MVR customer transactions increased by around 106 000 in the three years since 2009. However, the former Labor government had not bothered with initiatives like Saturday services to reduce customer service waiting times. It took us a few days. Since Saturday services began last month, nearly 1100 front counter customer transactions and 200 vehicle inspections have been completed. It is my aim to create an environment where people do not have to be engaged as often with the MVR services, where mums and dads do not have to line up for hours at a time, and where greater engagement occurs with the public sector for services which will, in turn, support the broader economy.
Other priorities for MVR customer transactions will involve enhancing online services, encouraging people through Quick Pay, streamlining legislative requirements and expanding the Motorcyclist Education Training and Licensing Program. I will seek to drive delivery of better access to public and commercial passenger transport and school bus services through the management of over $40m per annum in transport service contracts. As Minister for Transport, I have recently approved the changes for commercial passenger vehicles to improve the services delivered to passengers in wheelchairs through offering greater financial incentives to drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis, and by providing greater accessibility to the wheelchair accessible taxi fleet through increasing the minimum dimensions of these taxis. I have also temporarily approved an increase in the number of available taxis to the general travelling public during certain hours in Alice Springs.
I will listen to industry and its concerns. I have already met with the Taxi Council of the Northern Territory. The council raised a number of matters with me and I have requested the Department of Transport to review those matters, in consultation with industry, and provide me a report by mid-2013. That review includes the full implementation of the Five Nines review conducted a few years ago. There have been many concerns raised with me about subleasing taxi plates. People have provided documentation in relation to subleasing taxi plates, something that is not permissible. I have asked the department to investigate those concerns as well.
Road safety is a particularly high priority for the Territory government as every fatality is not just a statistic; it is a sister, a brother, a mother or father and a senseless waste of life. Reducing death and serious injury will be targeted on Territory roads through a comprehensive, holistic, safe systems approach focusing on safer roads, safer vehicles and safer drivers. While undertaking an initial investigation of fatalities and serious accidents in the Northern Territory between 2001-11, I found more alarming figures than I had imagined.
In looking at the open speed limit debate, I asked the department for statistics. They provided me with a whole range of information from 2002-11 on fatalities and serious crashes. This revealed to me that it was more alarming than I had previously thought: 500 people were killed on our roads in that 10-year period! That is 50 people every year. Over that same 10-year period, 5000 were injured seriously enough to require admission to hospital. That is 500 each year. Twenty times the number of members in this Assembly are hospitalised each year. I am trying to determine what is killing people on our roads when it comes to open speed limits, or a change in the speed limits. Of those 500 fatalities, 234, or 47%, were alcohol-related! For fatigue-related, it was 26 people. Not to say that is not important; it is very important to those people and those families. A total of 181 of the 500 were not wearing a seat belt. When growing up I was told, ‘Get in the car, put your seat belt on’. I have friends who jump into a car and do not put a seat belt on. I kick them in the backside and abuse them.
We all know people who drink and drive. I encourage everyone in this Chamber to kick them in the backside. Do not let people drink and drive; it is killing people!
Of those 500 people who died on our roads in those years, 20% - does not sound much, but look at it this way - 100 of those 500 people who died were pedestrians. We have the pedestrian council talking about open speed limits, ‘You are crazy, you are mad, I am going to complain, I am going to write to everyone’. What does that say about the pedestrians? One hundred people out of 500 died. It is absolutely crazy!
Seventy-one percent who died were men, 33% were under 25 years, and 50% were Indigenous despite only making up 30% of the population. I receive a phone call saying someone has died on a bush road, 10 people in a car rolled, drunk, no seat belts.
I will endeavour, whether in this portfolio or not, to continue the fight to stop people drink-driving. Drink-driving is the killer - and no seat belts. I implore people not to drink-drive. We all know people who will drink-drive or do something stupid. Kick them in the backside, kick them in the backside again, and then kick them in the backside. It does not matter if it is your closest loved one, kick them in the backside.
Our election commitment was to expand the current anti-hooning vehicle confiscation and forfeiture provisions for offenders to include repeat drink-drivers and unregistered driving offences. Unregistered and unlicensed also proves statistically significant in the research I have done. The number of accidents where people have been unlicensed or unregistered is enormous, way beyond what you would think it should be statistically.
I put or moved many legislative reforms previously about vehicle confiscation or forfeiture provisions. They were not supported by the previous government. I will now be taking that option up to send a clear message to not drink-drive.
Improving driving behaviour is also being addressed through a suite of programs such as DriveSafe driver education and licensing programs in urban and remote areas. I congratulate the previous government for its role in the DriveSafe program. I understand it is a fantastic program, and we will continue to support that and all road safety measures.
Road safety school-based education programs involving road safety officers, a new middle school road safety resource, heavy vehicle road safety awareness programs, child restraint, drink-driver awareness campaigns, and Indigenous road safety issues will all continue and be bolstered.
Another major transport initiative being implemented is the Territory participating in national reform in areas of marine and rail operations. Those who are paying attention would acknowledge I gave notice today of the intent to introduce legislation tomorrow around national rail reform.
Much of our infrastructure in the Northern Territory has a tarnished image. The port has a tarnished image, the roads and rail have a tarnished image, although Genesee & Wyoming have done a pretty good job improving the status of the rail. The construction division has a poor image. These are all areas in my portfolio.
There is no bigger tarnished brand in the Northern Territory than the shires. We have to work to improve the reputation of infrastructure in that area. Labor did not do the right thing.
The port is a good example. The port has fantastic people working for it. However, because of a series of poor decisions by the previous government, including inadequate infrastructure, a lack of investment in efficient systems combined with the unwillingness of previous Labor ministers to back the port and make progressive reforms, the Darwin port brand is tainted with negative perceptions. It is my job to rebuild that.
The port will be a key focus of mine throughout this term of government as we seek to rebuild its reputation, improve its competiveness, and put in place necessary private sector reforms and standards in an effort to better compete on the world stage.
Darwin Harbour should not be home to a bulk port. In future, I want to see Darwin Harbour as a clean harbour. I have already tasked the Department of Transport to identify potential suitable sites for alternate bulk loading facilities so we can maintain our harbour for clean industries and recreation. This will not happen overnight; it will be a long process but is the direction I am taking things.
Some of the areas I will be seeking efficiencies in are pilotage, maintenance of navigational aids, repairs and maintenance of wharf infrastructure, along with moving our city wharves to at least a break-even financial position rather than the heavy loss situation it is currently in, subsidised by the commercial operations of the port.
Darwin’s port reputation as an export gateway to Asia was further enhanced only this week when the first train carrying nearly 9000 tonnes of iron ore arrived at East Arm port for export to China from South Australia’s Peculiar Knob mine.
The viability of establishing a South Australia/Northern Territory logistical chain for new and existing mining projects offers significant savings in reducing shipping costs for exporters. For the next three months, two trains a week will each deliver 160 wagons of iron ore equating to 18 000 tonnes per week to East Arm Wharf. The train will make a 2200 km journey by rail along the Adelaide to Darwin rail link. This new operation reinforces Darwin’s position as an export gateway to China with a combination of bulk ore handling facilities at East Arm Wharf and the north/south rail link for new and existing mining projects.
I welcome this new short-term project and am confident further similar-type mining projects will assist in building the port’s viability.
The Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure plays a lead role in planning, construction and maintaining government infrastructure across the Territory. With regard to infrastructure development, the department provides strategic advice on policy on a whole-of-government basis for infrastructure planning, building sustainability issues, energy management and capital works project definition to ensure built assets are fit for purpose and consider life cycles.
Within the department, the construction division provides project management services for the design, procurement and supervision of the NT government’s infrastructure program and works closely with clients from across government.
The Department of Infrastructure replaces the former Department of Construction and Infrastructure. The change heralds a new opportunity to send a message that the Department of Infrastructure will improve its image, engage with the community, and build confidence in the timely delivery of infrastructure vital to the development of the Territory.
As we seek to improve our performance and image there will be hiccups along the way, there will be setbacks, but we are moving forward in this direction.
I will be especially diligent in my role as Minister for Infrastructure to ensure all contracts and tenders awarded on behalf of this government through the Department of Infrastructure will be transparent and will adhere to proper probity guidelines.
We want to ensure a level playing field for procurement of contracts, keep tendering procedures as simple as possible, and remove once and for all allegations or inferences of potential corruption.
This government aims to have all public servants accountable for decisions made, to act with the highest professional standards, and ensure transparency and fairness in all procurement activities.
I have asked the Department of Infrastructure to deliver high quality, fit for purpose capital projects and repairs and maintenance programs which support the government’s priorities and commitments.
Many people would not be aware that a large component of the very poorly administrated SIHIP program regarding repairs and maintenance has been allocated to the Department of Infrastructure to project manage. The Department of Infrastructure will deliver $22m in upgrade and refurbishment work, and $35m in new housing with delivery costs only expected to be around 8% of the total project cost. This is a very good opportunity for the Department of Infrastructure to improve its community engagement, to work with people on the ground in the design and construct of the procurement process - the tender documentation and the project to be delivered - and to send a message to the Department of Housing that we are a viable alternative to the much maligned current delivery processes. There is no doubt the government is committed to achieving better value for money in project delivery costs.
The Department of Infrastructure will have a renewed focus on working with the Department of Business to assist Indigenous organisations win government contracts for housing and other works in remote areas. Indigenous employment will especially be boosted by holding contractors accountable for achieving good outcomes, especially when these works are in remote areas where a ready-made workforce might be readily available.
It is my intention to oversee the necessary change and improvements to ensure the public service has a system which gives the construction industry confidence in its dealings with government.
I now move to local government, not just the shires, but local government including the municipalities of Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Litchfield, and Coomalie and Wagait shires. It is important to talk about the elephant in the room - the shires.
In 2008, the then minister for Local Government oversaw a series of local government reforms to create better opportunities in the regions and ensure service delivery standards were maintained and money spent with greater accountability. The former government went too far with the process. It threw out a strong cultural model and replaced it with a financial model. It did not deliver better services. Today, we are faced with having to reform shires because the CLP was elected on a mandate of providing stability and sustainability, ensuring services are delivered to those living in the regions, and dealing with the inability of the former government to do the job it was elected to do.
Most people know the influence of the shires on the election. I stated many times the shires were toxic. I recall standing in this Chamber being abused and castigated by the former minister for Local Government for using such descriptive language. For those new to this Chamber, that minister was the former member for Arnhem, who had a 30% swing against her. I raise this because what was not acknowledged by the previous government was the fundamental flaw in the development of the shire model.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move for an extension of time for the member for Braitling.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson.
The model was implemented too fast without adequate consultation.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Mr Giles: Would we do that to you, Delia?
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr GILES: It took a model of strong cultural governance to put forward a model of strong financial governance, or the pursuit thereof. The fundamental flaw was throwing out the voice of local people. This must be returned. Yet, no matter how often this was raised, government turned a deaf ear. Many political commentators have described the result of the general election as being, in a large part, influenced by the dissatisfaction of the shires. Not by the people who work within the shires, but by the model which removed the voice of many Territorians and by the stealth with which that change was advanced. The challenge is to recognise the hard work and efforts of the majority who work in the shires and local government and to make the necessary changes to return a greater balance to cultural governance while maintaining financial security.
I can hear those voices yelling loud, calling for immediate change, but I will be working as fast as I can, going slowly in an effort to actively engage with the residents of the Northern Territory. In this respect, as Minister for Local Government I have removed the shire sustainability task force, and will shortly announce the establishment of a ministerial regional governance working group which will be tasked with the responsibility of developing an options paper of alternate models to strengthen regional governance. The timing for developing this paper will be accelerated but will not be driven by a hastily set time frame. Upon completion of the options paper, it will be distributed for community feedback. Community consultations will take place and confidential submissions will be sought from the public and organisations.
I encourage the shadow minister to meet with me at any time to discuss the progress of such measures. I look forward to working together to right the previous Labor government’s wrongs in the area of local government.
An issue I am sure Top End councils are keen to hear about is the progress of identifying a site for a new dump in the greater Darwin area. This is an important development for councils in the Top End. I am working with the Chief Minister, who is also the minister for Lands and Planning, to identify a site to get the project moving. The new dump site is a commitment to the greater Darwin area in the 100-day plan. The information will be provided to the Top End Regional Organisation of Councils in line with that commitment. I have already had preliminary discussions with several council heads on this issue. I am excited to be part of this sector as Minister for Local Government, and am determined to do my best to improve local government in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, colleagues, members of the public gallery, people who work in my office, Territorians recently voted for real and meaningful change across the Northern Territory. That is what we are going to deliver. I quickly want to focus on one important point. The seat of Lingiari comes up quite often in debate. My advice to people is if you want to build the Northern Territory you have to build roads and bridges. The person who delivers the most in the area of roads and bridges will have the best opportunity for the future. You are not going to build the social, cultural or environmental capacity to make gains in those areas unless you have the economic infrastructure and build jobs. You will change social disadvantage by building inland Australia and middle Australia.
Sir Winston Churchill poignantly noted:
- It is not enough that we do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.
I, as a new minister in this government, welcome the opportunity to be a part of a government which does what is required, listens to Territorians and delivers for all.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will raise a number of issues in my Address-in-Reply. I start by sincerely thanking the constituents of Sanderson for having the faith to return me as their representative to this House. irrespective of whether the other side raised issues during that campaign – during the last 48 hours they ran a campaign against me - all part of politics. I congratulate the Labor Party for the campaign they ran the last 48 hours, although I did not believe what they were saying was correct.
However, I move on to a brighter issue - serving the people of Sanderson. I still have my Saturday morning at the shops where I take my mobile office. I was there on the first Saturday after the election and found people were quite excited about the shift and a number of things that had transpired in the first week. I continue to be there on Saturday mornings talking to my constituents about a wide range of issues which I will cover during this presentation. The brunches I have are also proving very popular. We were at Wulagi last Sunday, and the stream of people coming through was gratifying. People are giving good feedback, mainly positive. Obviously, there are a few negative things, but we are able to address those.
It is good to stay in touch with your constituents. I have made a commitment to remain accessible on weekends, talking to people at times when otherwise they cannot get to an electorate office. I ask them to continue discussing matters important to them.
I will thank a few people before I move into another part of the Address-in-Reply. First, I thank my electorate officer, Dee Davies. As a local member, you need to move throughout your community and engage with people. It is necessary to have someone in your electorate office who is capable and able to manage a whole range of issues. My electorate officer, Dee Davies, has done a superb job looking after the electorate office and many of the people in my electorate. I commend her for the job she does.
I also thank my branch for, without them and their tireless assistance, all of this would not be possible and I may not be here. I thank the chairman of the branch, Doug Higginson, and many others too numerous to mention. I sincerely thank you very much.
A number of people are the backbone of a campaign and are there irrespective of what time or day it is. These are the people I would like to thank. First, John Moyle, who is tireless in his efforts on Saturdays and at Sunday brunch. John is 93, about to turn 94, and I constantly tell him I want to be him when I reach that age. In fact, I would just like to make it to 93 or 94. He is an inspiration to all of us in our branch because he is still maintaining a very active role.
I thank my two running mates, the candidates in the north Darwin branch team, Rhianna Harker and Rohan Kelly. It is great to see the regeneration of young people coming through our ranks. We now have what I believe to be the youngest person in the parliament, the member for Drysdale, Lia Finocchiaro. I apologise for using your name, but it should be recognised the member for Drysdale did a superb job, worked hard and was rewarded. The job in the northern suburbs is a little harder when you are up against high profile candidates. I congratulate Rhianna Harker and Rohan Kelly for their efforts and what they did to secure the swings they obtained.
I thank a good friend of mine of 25 years, Ron Baker. Ron Baker is chief of everything. He cooks the barbecues and manages transport and logistics. Without him, so many of us would not be able to our job. On behalf of the rest of the team, I thank Ron and his wife, Rosie. What many people in the real world do not realise - I am sure this applies to both sides - is that anyone who puts in as much effort as Ron Baker and campaign managers, whilst they are out doing that, their families and partners do not get to see much of them. It is also an acknowledgement of the partners of politicians and political candidates; we should acknowledge their efforts.
In doing so, I encourage the candidates who were unsuccessful - there are many on both sides of politics - to keep working hard and pursue your dream. For those who did not quite make it, I share what they are going through. I have been there and can understand how they feel. Again, I encourage candidates to continue working to ensure we have good competition. We certainly have an interesting variety of people coming into parliament. We need variety and depth in this House.
I acknowledge my family and my children, Kristy, Adam and Damien, and their partners, Marie, Cassandra and George, and my grandchildren, Taleisha, Dakota, Jemaiya, Jarman, Chloe and Madison for their untiring support over many years of campaigns starting in 1997. They were there then, they were there for the last one, and have been there all the way through. They put in a huge effort during campaigns and elections.
One person I would like to acknowledge who has put in probably the greatest effort is my wife, Linda Fazldeen. She is my rock, my guidance. I bounce everything off her and, without her, I may not be in this House. You need a partner, and many members in their maiden speeches recognise their partner as the person who made it possible. You look for people who give you the ability to fly and provide the wind beneath your wings and it is so important to have them. Without them, it is a struggle to fly. With their love, encouragement and ongoing support, you are able to fly high with ease. I acknowledge and thank Linda for her untiring support and love for me which I really needed through some pretty hectic times and campaigns.
Members of parliament need to give much to the community. Again, your partner is the one who misses out on time you could be spending with them. However, it is a great reward to see the community and I do not have a job - this is what I do. Every morning I get up and look forward to what I do, which is what makes it so easy.
I would like to move to some of the issues we face not only as a government, but as a community. We have a huge deficit to deal with and it is going to be a challenge. However, with our ministry and Terry Mills’ leadership - we have heard him talk about some of the challenges ahead. As a government, we will support our leader, our ministers, and all of us to resolve some of the major issues left as a legacy by the previous Labor government.
I would like to talk about housing. We have the most expensive rents in the country. The average cost of renting a house in Darwin is about $700 per week and the average cost of a unit about $530 per week. All this has come about through a lack of planning and timely land release. I am trying to obtain a graph from the previous government demonstrating a demand for housing blocks and showing the number released.
In about 2008-09, demand was around 2400-2500 blocks. We turned off about 1500. That was the best year. The following year, 2009-10, about the same number of house blocks were required and about 1300 were released. The following year there was about the same demand but it went down to 1100. Instead of planning which allowed for timely release of sufficient blocks of land to take the heat out of the housing market the previous government was releasing fewer, which pushed prices up. I do not know what the drivers for that were, whether the previous government was asleep at the wheel or whether it was planned. However, the government was making a killing in stamp duty on the sale of land and houses. One often wonders what the strategy was.
The cost of buying a home in the Territory is so high many people just do not do it. They look at the high cost of buying a home or the high cost of rent and they leave. Young people in the Territory, the children of those who have helped build the Territory, cannot afford to buy a home. Those on middle incomes - it is not people on low incomes, they can hardly do anything - those on middle incomes - when you talk to non-government organisations who help people you find they are struggling to give financial counselling because they look at what they are doing - two young people working, perhaps with a few kids, are struggling because of the high cost of rent. There is very little disposable income.
I recently met with the chief executive officer of one of these organisations. They are stunned that two people on middle incomes are struggling. They have looked at their books and can see, because of the high cost of living - childcare and a range of things - they struggle and cannot afford to buy a home.
Doorknocking during the election campaign I met a pilot who works for CareFlight. He said he cannot afford to live here. His wife was on maternity leave. They have another small child and she was staying home to care for the baby. He has to leave. When we reach the point of not being able to keep pilots to fly CareFlight planes you know we are struggling. We are in real difficulty and it all comes back to the high cost of rents and the fact these people do not have the income to sustain high rents or buy a house. There is no way to do what every family dreams of: buy their own home. That is a legacy from Labor governments we have to deal with.
We propose a planning commission. In opposition, we produced a document titled Planning for Greater Darwin: A dynamic harbour city. We did not see a document from the Labor party. This document was done in opposition with limited resources but with the input of some concerned citizens who had capacity and experience in putting these plans together. What we see is a very well-structured, well laid out plan for the greater Darwin area. When we released this the previous government said - I am making an assumption here - ‘Damn, the opposition put this fantastic document out, we better do something’. Several months later we saw an A4 document stapled together with a …
Mr Elferink: With a five-year-old photo on the cover, if that is the one.
Mr STYLES: We have the ordinary cover - yes we have a very old photo. It seems to have been put together in a rush. There are some good points; however, the previous government probably went through our document and took some inspiration from it. That is not for me to say.
Let us look at the cost of living. The cost of living has been pushed up, which puts pressure on wages and companies trying to employ people. It is all right if you are a wealthy company or a large company and have big dollars to spend. However, the cost of living, due to housing costs, rents etcetera, puts enormous pressure on business in the Territory finding skilled labour. People come here, try to survive and, in a very short period of time, leave.
I had a conversation one Saturday morning at a shopping centre with a guy who owns a business. As a small business owner, he is struggling to survive. He says it costs too much and he has been offered a fly-in fly-out job in Western Australia and he said, ‘I am probably going to take it. We are Territorians but we can’t afford to live here.’
Again, this is the legacy of Labor’s poor planning and untimely release of land to take the heat and pressure off housing prices.
The government is trying to help families where it can. It will be releasing, through the Minister for Housing, plans on how to tackle that. Little things, like increasing the back to school vouchers so families will receive $150 to help get their child into uniforms, books, etcetera.
We will be working to get rid of Labor’s carbon tax. I listen to the radio every day, read the newspapers, and listen to what people are saying. Sadly, we are losing our competitive advantage. I heard the other day there is a downturn in a range of mining industries. People will say that is because the price of iron ore has gone down; however, people in these companies are doing the numbers on whether it is viable. In some instances, when you start putting on mining resource rent tax, carbon tax, a range of taxes, you kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We will be working with the federal coalition to ease the pressure on families and business.
Much has been said about the public service. We need a very strong and vibrant public service. I have many public servants in my electorate and sincerely hope they become part of a stronger public sector.
I listened to the opposition speaking about jobs and the public sector. I would like to relate the story of a person who rang me saying they were sick and tired of doing the job of about two-and-a-half people. In their particular area - this has been during the last eight weeks because, if you listen to the previous government, everything has gone to pack in the last eight weeks. Labor was in government for 11 years but it is our fault now.
When we were in opposition it was all the CLP’s fault. Labor had over a decade but it was all the CLP’s fault. Now we have been in government for eight weeks it is still the CLP’s fault. I struggle to understand why the previous government did not say they had a problem.
You have to acknowledge a problem before you can fix it. Sadly, the previous government did not acknowledge it had overspending problems, employment problems, and a whole range of things. However, this person asked, ‘Can you do something about this. There’re two in our section. There were five; we need five’. They are tired of doing the job of five people. There are many people on short-term contracts.
We will look at properly resourcing the frontline services like police, teachers, nurses, healthcare workers and also support for youth. We need to build confidence in our youth and to do that we need to work smarter. In that context, we need to address an $867m deficit. I am led to believe it could be around $1bn - a 20% overspend.
I do not know where the previous government got its economic credentials from, but my mother could run the place better than that. She taught me the basics of economics: you cannot spend more than you earn, except when you put money in wealth-generating investment returns such as a home. Most people I know do not have money sitting in the bank to pay cash for a house, we have to save and borrow. However, when you borrow for the sake of borrowing and spending, it becomes a problem.
As the Treasurer pointed out in her Address-in-Reply, we are paying $750 000 a day in interest on the debt incurred by the previous Labor government. That is a legacy we have to live with; a challenge for us. We are up for the challenge. The Mills government will fix this problem and get the economics of the Northern Territory back on track.
However, we have to cut spending and reduce debt. The Renewable Management Board is currently looking at that, and I look forward to receiving its report. I am not looking forward to finding out our exact fiscal position in relation to the deficit. That is quite scary for us, and if you talk to people in the real world they would be horrified to realise the level of debt the previous government incurred. It is quite sad.
I will move to the Banned Drinker Register. The opposition says many things. It says the rivers of grog are going to flow again. The Banned Drinker Register was not working. I talk to businesses at my shops on Saturday mornings. I have seen the result of the Banned Drinker Register and have spoken to some of the people who were with them. They quite openly say, ‘Yes, he is on the Banned Drinker Register and is absolutely smashed’. This was about five or six days ago - same deal. I was told these people were on the Banned Drinker Register - I did not make an assumption - because you cannot check to see if anyone is on the Banned Drinker Register.
The government made much about secondary supply, but when you talk to police officers and prosecutors, how can you get a conviction for secondary supply when you cannot check if someone is on the Banned Drinker Register or not?
The BDR was not working. I heard the member for Karama say these people are off tap. I listened to the member for Fong Lim yesterday try to tell the member for Karama, and the member for Wanguri, that taps are in bars. Under the Banned Drinker Register, you could walk into a bar and drink until the staff decided you had enough. You go into the bar and get to the point where responsible service of alcohol takes over and people say, ‘Sorry, you cannot have any more to drink’. They go outside, get their mate to buy a bottle of rum, and away they go; they get charged up. It did not work.
On some of my trips from Darwin to Alice Springs I spoke to many people about alcohol and habitual drunk legislation. Aboriginal people want to be involved in the process and become part of the solution; they do not want to be the problem.
It is the right of all Australians to have access to alcohol. It is also our responsibility to protect the vulnerable - the women, children and men who are subject to pressure to buy alcohol for people on the Banned Drinker Register.
On this side, we are about tackling and fixing the problem not penalising the entire community for the behaviour of a minority. It is very important we do that and early intervention is the key. That is what the habitual drunk legislation is based on.
I am unsure if the opposition was listening to some of the things which occurred. Dawn House issued a statement which said domestic violence had increased 7% as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. I am trying to find that article; I remember reading it. That was based on the fact that men on the Banned Drinker Register put pressure on people to get alcohol for them. The wives or partners are threatened. When they do not or cannot, they are bashed and we have a problem.
That is not the government saying that. That is an organisation to protect women and children which keeps its own statistics and information. I applaud Dawn House, it does a fabulous job. Staff work hard with limited resources with probably an overwhelming number of people.
As the Minister for Alcohol Policy alluded to after the election, we will tackle the problem. We will have habitual drunk legislation and people who are day after day accessing alcohol, even if they were on the Banned Drinker Register prior to the election, will find themselves in a place where they will receive some real assistance and real job training. I look forward to that occurring.
Businesses are struggling and need a hand. We need to tackle crime. We need to tackle antisocial behaviour. We, on this side, believe in accountability, responsibility and consequences. I am sure everyone in this House, the staff, understands that otherwise we might not be here. We all need to be accountable for our actions, be responsible, and there needs to be consequences. We have laws in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia, in fact throughout the Westminster system and the world which do that. They are all designed to keep us safe, something we are all taught as children. However, we were all taught there would be consequences if we do not follow the rules of a community, a house, a school, or anywhere else.
Approximately 62% of police time is spent dealing with drunks. If we get habitual drunks off the street and into some meaningful rehabilitation and work training, and if we can reduce the time police spend dealing with drunks, not only do we lift ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Araluen. We need to free up police time. When I talk to police officers they, like the rest of the community, are tired of the antisocial behaviour and associated problems. We need to free police time so they can deal with real criminals, violence, domestic violence and other issues.
We will be putting in initiatives for mandatory gaol terms for repeat adult offenders. We will be sending young offenders to boot camps.
I have heard people say we cannot do that. It is time we had a little tough love. I hope most members in this House have seen shows on television about various boot camps around the world. When I was a police officer, Wildman River was a great program. I remember in 2008 or 2009 speaking about it in this House. The buildings were still there when we were talking about it. Lo and behold, the next week we said, ‘Why don’t we reopen it?’ Then, of course, the government came back the following week and said you cannot do that, there is nothing there. I heard later some of the items were apparently removed or bulldozed - I cannot remember the exact facts. When you talk to some of the young people who were at Wildman River it was a turning point in their lives.
We need to have facilities like that where young people who refuse to follow the rules designed to keep them, and everyone else in the community safe - we need to give them some tough love like you see on those programs.
When I was doorknocking I ran much of this past people and asked their views. The overwhelming support for boot camps, activities for young people, accountability, responsibility, and consequences was enormous. Probably 90% of people supported what we are advocating. When you talk about polls and focus groups, doorknocking your electorate is not a bad focus group because you get a real feel for what people want and what the community might need.
We move on to jobs for young people - the mining and energy industry. I was heartened to attend the recent mining club luncheon where the member for Katherine, and the Minister for Mines and Energy, spoke about the Northern Territory being open for business. This is great. We need to facilitate mining. I remember talking to people at the front door who would say there is no difference between the CLP and the ALP. I would say, ‘Well, I have a different view. Labor wants power’. They would say, ‘Power is good, the government is in power’. Being in power, from my perspective, when I look at Labor policies, is about telling you what is good for you. It is a little like the nanny state. ‘We know what is good for you. We will tell you; you sit back and do what you are told.’
I used to say the difference with the Country Liberal Party is our philosophical beliefs are that we are here to facilitate you, your business, create jobs, create wealth and, of course, create taxes. We need that because we need business to increase and we need receipts for the Northern Territory to increase because we have a huge debt legacy from Labor.
How do we do that? We create things. We do things. Liberals and conservatives have been very good at that over the years. In my lifetime, I have seen the cycle. I have watched Labor run up the MasterCard to extremes and when it all becomes too hard people say, ‘This is terrible’. Look at what is happening in Canberra at the moment. We have to start cutting programs - $19bn here. They are going to dip into the superannuation of seniors who worked hard to put it there; they want to tax that at a greater degree. So, they are putting their hand in people’s pockets now. Why, Madam Speaker? Because they overspent and have no restraint. They keep spending money and running up the MasterCard. Someday, someone has to pay it back, just like my mum taught me - basic economics. It is economics 101 and, sadly, the previous government had it wrong.
The federal government has it wrong at the moment as well. We are paying enormous amounts of interest which could be spent, as the Treasurer and the member for Braitling said, on roads and other things but, no, we are massively in debt.
How does this affect youth? Many small businesses in this town are struggling. If you are tied up with INPEX, great! INPEX is a great thing. We are now going to be part of the energy supply of the world. The former member for Daly would say, ‘It is great, we have INPEX and our young people can get high paying jobs’. Well, some can get higher paying jobs, but I talk to the hairdressers next to my office in Northlakes and they tell me they are struggling. I spoke to some teachers in the gallery today and asked how they are going with housing. I wish I had never asked the question because they said they are struggling to pay the rent. These are teachers. These are middle-income Territorians who cannot afford to live here. Under a Labor government, prices would have increased with the same policies and we would be in even more trouble. Fortunately, we have had a change of government. We can now start to address those issues and provide the 2000 homes the Chief Minister mentioned.
How do we keep teachers here? How do we keep mechanics here? How do we keep hairdressers, the people who work at Coles? When I walk around my shopping centre and talk to some of the people who work at Coles, the hairdressers or in the bottle shop, these people are struggling. If you look at Coles, the people at the counter are often older women married to blokes who are in the mines - fly-in fly-out - who have come back home to Darwin, or they have been here a long time, own their homes, and can survive here. If we do not do something about that we will have the same problems. We have a plan we will implement to tackle those issues.
I mention Charles Darwin University and youth. I applaud CDU, in conjunction with the oil and gas industry, for providing training to our young people. We need to provide high-quality training so our locals can get the jobs people from interstate were previously able to take from our young people. We need to keep our families together. If we do not provide for this, and if we do not do something about the housing legacy left by Labor, we will lose more young people.
In the four years prior to coming to government I listened to young people. I taught 40 000 of them in my time working in schools and still know many of them. They would say to me - they still call me Constable Styles - ‘We’ve got to leave town. We cannot afford to live here’.
When I first came to Darwin 32 years ago, parents went south and the kids stayed here. It split the family. They packed up and, in many cases, took the kids with them. What did the Country Liberal Party do? We encouraged people to stay and build their families. What has happened during 11 years of Labor? It is not the oldies who are leaving - the parents. It is the young people saying, ‘We’re going to split the family up mum and dad. You’re right, you’re here. We can’t afford to live here.’ I do not know how many people I doorknocked who had their kids living with them. In my electorate, I cannot remember how many there were, but it was heaps.
It is so important we pursue the policies we went to the election with. We had many good policies and the people decided - the people in the bush decided - they are sick of being taken for granted and want real change. Madam Speaker, I can assure you, members in this House, and the public that the Mills government is a united team. We are operating extremely well and are supporting each another. We have a huge job to fix the legacy the previous Labor government left us; however, we will continue to work hard. We will strive to fix problems we have been left with by the previous Labor government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to the Address-in-Reply. I am a little disappointed so few of the Labor members, other than new members who made their maiden speeches - and I congratulate them for their maiden speeches. I do not recall seeing any of the other Labor members speak other than a 15 or 20 minute contribution by the Leader of the Opposition. The address is given to us by the Administrator of the Northern Territory where she outlines what her government will do, obviously with the advice of government as is the standard protocol of the Westminster system. This is an opportunity for ministers of the Crown - ministers have stood and other members of parliament stand - to talk about how they will support or be critical of what the government will do under the Administrator’s guidance.
Under the Westminster system, essentially, the power of the government rests in the Administrator’s chief advisor, namely, the Chief Minister. It is an opportunity to hear a clear and articulated position from all members as to what they believe is wrong or right with the Administrator’s address, hence the reply component.
For opposition members to remain silent, with the exception of the two maiden speeches and the short contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, indicates they have not put a great deal of thought into how they will respond to the issues raised in the Administrator’s address over the next four years.
I am curious about the silence because I would like to know what members on the opposite side of the House think of the Administrator’s address. To hear their silence is to understand they have nothing to offer at this point. I am sure things will improve on the other side of the House but, currently, they clearly have nothing to offer the Administrator and, consequently, the people of the Northern Territory in where they want to take things. We have already seen there is no articulation of their belief system beyond trying to justify the decisions they made in the past and the conduct of the former government, and to attack the government of the day. This pretty much occurred before this parliament ...
Mr Tollner: Ninety percent of what they come up with is personal slander.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr ELFERINK: I am getting to that ...
Ms Walker: Never you, though, Dave.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank the member for Fong Lim. The lowest ebb of this parliament we have seen so far was demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition on Day 2. I do not want to trawl through that again ...
Mr Tollner: Day 1.
Mr ELFERINK: Day 1, yes, I apologise - the second session of Day 1. If that sets the standard and scene for the quality of opposition we are going to enjoy in the Northern Territory over the next four years, Territorians will have every right to be disappointed in their parliament. I hope it does not continue, and I urge people to oppose by all means - question, challenge, ague with; all of those things - but let us do it on the issues.
I want to comment on the maiden speeches we have heard in the last few days. I enjoy listening to maiden speeches. They are, in some respects, the most well-researched, best considered, naively honest in some ways, speeches in the parliament. I enjoy listening to them from both sides of the House because I hear hope, passion, and a desire to be involved in the community articulated in every one of them. That is true for all of the maiden speeches I heard today. I made some notes. I was impressed with every one of them.
The member for Nightcliff spoke fondly of her electorate. I was surprised to find she and I went to the same childcare centre in Rapid Creek. I suspect I was there a little earlier than her. She has clearly entered this House with passion and a desire to do something and, like me, grew up in a very political household. Discussions around the dinner table I remember in my household. I remember all those types of things and understand her pledge to dedicate her time in parliament, in part, to those people she calls the underprivileged of the community. Those are noble sentiments. Doubtlessly, I expect her to pursue those through her philosophical and political lens.
I do not agree, necessarily, with what her lens suggests, but I listen to what she has to say and understand that heartfelt desire to look after the underprivileged. I look forward to her contributions in the future as to how we protect the underprivileged and whether the philosophy simply becomes more of the same. When talking about more of the same, I am talking, essentially, about welfare and welfare responses to the underprivileged. I presume that means both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike.
I found it astonishing she, at 38 weeks pregnant, took this challenge on. Not many people can achieve that. I remember it being raised at the time she was pre-selected and reading the press on it, yet here she is. Clearly, she managed, which indicates to me we are dealing in this House with a new member who is capable and committed to what she believes in.
I also listened to the new member for Johnston, Mr Vowles. I listened carefully to his relationships and the people who had an influence on his life. I noted the comment his dad always said to him, ‘Work hard and you will achieve’. I thought, ‘Well, there is a good piece of advice’. I do not want to put a political slant on it, but I believe in hard work. People should be rewarded for their hard work. In fact, here is the difference between me and someone on the left of politics: people should be able to keep the rewards of their hard work.
I move to the new member for Arnhem. She made two points which attracted me. One: do not take the bush for granted. That has been heard loudly and clearly by this Chief Minister and is something he articulated in his victory speech. The Berrimah Line will be something of the past. I heard that and listened carefully to it. She discussed work not just as a source of income, but as a source of personal dignity. That is how a person lifts themself out of what they are and makes them better.
It is funny that when we meet a person the first thing we ask them is their name. The second question we ask is what they do. We do not ask them what their income bracket is. We do not ask, ‘Do you drive a Mercedes Benz or a Daihatsu Charade?’ There are two facets of the same thing in those questions. One is, ‘What do you call yourself?’ The other is, ‘What do you do? How do you identify yourself?’ A person without that second component is often someone who has, I suggest, an almost incomplete identity. If they do not do anything, what is the rationale for being alive? Where will the dignity come from? I understand and hear that. It caused me to go back to my maiden speech in this House 15 years ago because it struck a chord with me.
The new member for Drysdale, smart, intelligent, bright, a wonderful contribution felt from the heart and, of course, part of a great Italian family. By the time she went through the names of all her relatives and her thank you list most of her time was taken. However, I expect big things because I consider the new member for Drysdale to be a clever person who quickly will understand the environment she is in and I look forward to her contributions. I note she has committed to spending as much time in this Chamber as she possibly can without any prompting or encouragement. Clearly, she is engaged with this Chamber and understands the enormous changes she can make by using the tools available to her in this House.
The member for Arafura - this one really caught me. I listened carefully to the member for Arafura and will quote what he said:
- It is a measure of the strength of the Tiwi that they were able to cope with the change.
That is exactly right. Any people, not just Aboriginal people, living in the modern world have to cope with change like never before.
In my lifetime alone, which is just a fraction shy of 50 years, the technological changes that have occurred within those 47 years have been profound. They have changed faster than almost any other time in history. To see people, like Aboriginal people, being encouraged by their leaders to take up the cudgels of that change leaves me with the impression it is well-understood that change is inevitable; it is going to happen. It is like the tide coming in at high tide; there is nothing you can do to stop it. Change will be there and it is not just Aboriginal people; it applies to every person
I remember when I was at school, the first desks I sat in still had the holes drilled into them for ink pots, blackboards had just replaced slate in the previous five or six years. I walked around in bare feet and the teacher smoked in the classroom. They were unthinkable changes in those times. Now you go into a school and it is a technologically advanced place. My five-year-old daughter knows her way around an iPad better than I do. In fact, she says, ‘Dad, you’re doing it wrong. Do it this way’. That is the world we live in. I have to get used to change. My kids will have to get used to change and the recognition that change will happen; it is a reality we all must face. If we embrace it in the right way and use change to our advantage it will become the vehicle by which we can protect what is precious to us.
If I believe my culture from Dutch heritage is precious, the technologies available will enhance the capacity for me to protect it if I choose to do so. I do not suggest to anyone they should protect their culture; that is their job, but the technologies available are the vehicle by which they could be enhanced. I will leave the decision as to what happens to people’s cultures to those cultures.
That is the principle of liberalism to which I have dedicated my political life and philosophy. I believe in the rights of choice, as much choice as people can possibly have.
I will go back to the member for Arafura. He said one other important thing, ‘The public service cannot fix Aboriginal people’s lives’ - absolutely. I could not imagine a public servant trying to run my life; it would be a disaster. God, it is bad enough with me in charge, let alone some third party. Whilst it sounds a bit extreme, the philosophy is the same.
One of the reasons the Soviet Empire failed after 80 years of existence is that, essentially, Communism had decayed into creating a society which was one large public service department. You had a public servant for every occasion to manage every aspect of your life. You were guaranteed a job but that job was dictated to you by public servants. You were guaranteed something on the shop shelf but that was one item, there was no choice. Some third party in a remote office told you what to buy off that shop shelf. Freedom implies choice but choice implies responsibility and - I picked this up from the member for Namatjira - the responsibility must ultimately rest with the person making the choice, and I hear that.
The member for Stuart - what a life. Listening to what the member for Stuart had to say I was staggered. People say to me from time to time, ‘John, you’ve done it hard over the years’ for this reason or that. I say, ‘Yes, but other people do it hard’. When you listen to the stories from the member for Stuart you think: whatever has happened to me in life pales into insignificance. Yet, from that adversity, comes metal. From those challenges comes personal strength. From the difficulties faced in life comes a belief in self more unshakeable than anything else.
The member for Stuart does not need, and never will, need somebody to make her decisions for her. She values and understands the freedom of choice she has. Her contribution to this debate was, to my ears, a celebration of self and one she was supported in by her parents, her husband, and her husband’s family. She has embraced those choices, taken on the difficulties those choices offer up, and found it useful as a touchstone to advance herself. It is only fit and proper that she ends up here at this point in her life. Where does she go from here? I do not know, but I suspect if she brings the same sense of ‘the buck stops with me’ as what she does in this House, from here to somewhere even bigger is entirely conceivable.
I am enormously proud to be in a Chamber and number amongst one of my colleagues someone who understands so completely she is in charge of her own life, and understands that if people really want to change what is happening in the bush we have to start expecting from those people what we would any other person - a demand from them of their own personal responsibility.
I also listened to the new member for Daly and am flabbergasted at the attack on him by the Leader of the Opposition. I have known the member for Daly for some time now, and his integrity, as far as I am concerned, is beyond question. There is no evidence other than the scrap of paper tabled yesterday, unsigned, unattested to, unproven, and used only in this House to besmirch the member for Daly’s good name. It was one of the poorest efforts I have ever seen in this House, and I have witnessed a few. He is a man of broad experience from the private sector and the public sector. He comes into the House with a mountain of experience under his belt and a great belief in the future of the Northern Territory. Likewise, I will be proud to stand next to him as a member of the Mills Country Liberals’ government.
Whilst it was not a maiden speech, I listened closely to the contribution by the member for Namatjira. I do not know how many people listened to it, but all should have. It was eloquent, well-considered, well-argued, utterly consistent, and with the philosophies of personal liberties and freedoms which we on this side of the House hold so dear. I am delighted with everything I have heard in this House.
I said at the outset I was going to take a trip down memory lane. I looked at my own maiden speech which goes back to 1997. God, I feel old all of a sudden. Right or wrong, I was very critical of the CLC. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the criticism may have been valid, other components were not. I basically described the CLC as an organ too closely aligned with the Labor Party. That has changed over the last 15 years substantially. It was also an organisation which had much control over the people who lived - I was referring, essentially, to the executive arm of the CLC. If that was true then, it probably is much less true now. I have become much more sophisticated in my understanding of these issues since 1997. However, I did, amongst other things, say this, and I quote:
- Final answers to the problems of Macdonnell in the area of Aboriginal issues lie far off in the future. However, if the people maintain a constant presence in the electorate and push for the autonomy they need to govern their own destinies, they will have a hand in their own recovery and will be able to do much to bring themselves into the modern world as truly equal partners. The philosophies which accommodate this position are in accordance with the philosophical position of this government. Aboriginal people are not the problem. It is the political influences upon these people, and the extension of the Australian Labor Party ...
which I claimed at that time the land councils had become,
- ... that are the problem.
At the heart of my maiden speech 15 years ago was that Aboriginal people are not the problem; however, we have to abandon this belief that by some miraculous turn of a policy paper we turn people’s lives around. I do not accept it. I did not accept it then, I do not accept it now. Since that time I have seen billions of dollars poured into remote communities around the Northern Territory and it has not produced the results we have been seeking. I do not blame the Labor Party for trying. It is not disingenuous in its intent. However, we have to bite the bullet and start saying to people, ‘You are responsible for yourself. Pick yourself up by your own boot straps, take yourself forward and make something of yourself.’ This does not apply to just Aboriginal people, this is a human condition.
I know of two quadriplegics in the Northern Territory - both wheelchair-bound men. Both gentlemen run their own mechanical workshops, one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin. They are both employers. If there was anyone in the world with the right to give up and say it is all too hard, it is not fair, it would be those two gentlemen. However, despite that, both continue to run successful businesses and are employers of Northern Territorians. I genuinely believe the capacity to be better than you are does not come from your gender, or emanate from our race, it emanates from who you are as an individual. Whether you are a paraplegic, a quadriplegic, an Aboriginal, or a woman, it is who you are as an individual person so long as the community you live in is prepared to recognise your individuality and prepared to accept and give you the freedom implied in individuality. Then, anyone can make their way in this world.
That example can be found in 25 seats in this Chamber. The example can be found in many places all over Darwin, the Northern Territory, Australia, and the world. Wherever human freedom blossoms, people rise above their challenges - the things that would hold them back - and become better people. I believe in creating an environment in which people can become better and that means challenging them, confronting them, and holding them responsible. If you do those things and ask that of people, enormous things can be achieved.
There is singularly in the Northern Territory one corrosive element above all - it is not alcohol; alcohol is a symptom. That corrosive element is welfare and the way the welfare state sucks people’s freedom away from them by making them dependent. I have said before, of all the policies since European settlement of Australia, despite assimilation and some of the other policies in the late 1700s and early 1800s, welfare has accounted for more deaths than any other policy approach. For that reason I remain extremely critical of welfare. I do not argue for its complete removal because that would lead to massive problems, but to ask people to earn their way through life and expect they contribute to something they are given will not lead to poorer outcomes.
Yes, there will be much resistance in the short term, but in the long term if you ask people to contribute they will have a modicum of dignity. Dignity, for me, is very much like a drug - once you have some you want much more because you can do so much with it. I look forward to the next four years in this parliamentary Chamber working with every one of the 25 members, particularly with the Country Liberals team. In relation to representation in the Northern Territory, what we have is like a breath of fresh air.
The voices coming from the bush are saying to me, and the rest of the Territory and Australia, at last the answers for the Northern Territory can be found in the skills and talents of the people who live in remote areas. We have to find the mechanisms to create or enable those potentials to become actuals.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude this important commencement to the Twelfth Assembly. I foresee an Assembly from which will come significant change for the Northern Territory, and it will be change enjoyed by families wherever they live. You cannot have monumental change which erects monuments; it has to be in the lives of people. That is a substantial change, and I am determined to see results from our efforts in this Chamber.
Over the last days we have heard various members give speeches, some for the first time in parliament. It is always a special time; they look ahead to see what is to come, uncertain. Others were in reply to Her Honour the Administrator, who outlined the direction of this new government.
The speeches were a mix of aspirations and dreams. Some spoke of the nature of the work ahead, some were frank, honest and open accounts of their life’s journey to this point in time. All of them together give us a very good start.
Changes of government are rare, particularly in the Territory. The election in August was only the second time in the Territory’s history we have seen this change take place.
Territorians voted for change no matter which way you cut it, right across the Territory. Most noticeably, in the remote places there was a profound shift which cannot be ignored for a moment. However, there was an underlying frustration, disappointment and fatigue right across the Territory and the urban areas as well. They wanted change and this new government has been given the job of ensuring it happens.
I am very mindful of, and have heard in the first Question Time, some of the comments made through the course of this debate accepting there will be change. People vote for change but do not want it to happen to them. They want change to occur, but not to them.
There has to be change; there has to be an adjustment. The first adjustment will have to be to accept the fundamental that there is a money problem in the Territory which needs to be fixed. That is going to be a significant challenge for some to come to terms with because there is so much invested in maintaining a belief the previous government did a good job when the facts conflict with that perception which has been stridently adhered to. I must take away from today the observation of a stubborn resistance I fear we will meet in this parliament with the belief held by the Territory opposition that everything is okay. They hold onto a legacy. They defend and confect a story about the past when families of the Northern Territory, and those who have had the responsibility of raising their families, have high responsibility for delivering services or who work in the public service at many different levels, know there is a problem.
This government will not be distracted by the belligerent, strident, arrogant assertions of the opposition that everything is okay. The truth needs to be told and we will endeavour not to fall into the trap of conducting a political contest here. It will be a plain discussion of the reality determined by numbers which require a response. For all those hard-working Territorians who take responsibility for their own affairs - some of them take responsibility for creating economic opportunity and run businesses - you have to conduct your business well; you have to exercise fiscal discipline. Very few people have the luxury of practising ill-discipline when running a business. This is the most serious business because it affects people’s lives. At the same time, we are charged with the responsibility of building social cohesion, respecting people for who they are and believing the power is in people to deliver the change that is necessary; having trust in people. We have to keep that faith in people. At the same time, we have to do what people instinctively know is the right thing, which is ensure we run a good operation and an effective and efficient government.
People have aspirations, expectations, and I expect there will be some push back because change is required, people know that. When change begins to unfold it can be of concern and create some discomfort. I am asking for people to trust us and know we have the best interest of the Territory at heart. It will be a task we will not shy away from. For those who commentate and those who contest will find all means to, perhaps, block, challenge, diminish, distract or deter. We cannot do that because, just as our first speeches have been uttered in this parliament, there will come a day for our last speech. I ask all members to consider what their last speech will be.
We have set ourselves a task here. I have been in opposition for the greater part of my time in this parliament. I am mindful of all the things I have said. I have served a long apprenticeship. I am greatly honoured to carry the aspirations of people right across the Territory. I will carry with me the meeting at Ampilatwatja where they were quietly and graciously humble saying they were grateful I had come. That was nice. I was pleased to be received so well; however, when I learnt no chief minister had ever visited that community I found it hard to believe. This is just in case members opposite become a bit defensive - no chief minister! There have been Country Liberal Party chief ministers too. I am not being political here.
The only way forward is to recognise there are people equal to all other people living right across the Northern Territory. Once we start recognising that and make that adjustment, we have the capacity to make some real change. We need to change our focus a little; move our sense of what is right and what is valuable. It ain’t the policy, it ain’t the politics, it ain’t the money, it is people, and that will make the difference.
While we will have the contests, and we have already seen the nature in which this will be conducted by the opposition, determined in our first day, I urge honourable members to recognise what this is about. It is not about politics. It is about using this Chamber - yes, sure, the opposition; I know what your job is; I have done it for 11 years. Your job is to test the veracity and capacity of our commitments, our policy, and ensure, through that contest, we are focused correctly. You can test it all you like. Go for it! However, do not forget many people are watching this. They will know whether you are arguing in the interests of what is right and good for the Territory or if you are arguing to belittle, denigrate and bring the tone of this House down. I will do all I can, and I urge my colleagues, and all honourable members of this Chamber to rise above that wherever they can because there is much more at stake than scoring a political point. Of course, there will be some politics but, at the heart of it, we should never turn away from our real business - to consider what our last speech in this parliament will be and the story it will tell.
There are many things I could say, but before I complete these remarks, I noted today what I detect will be the battleground - the defence of the record of the previous government will require the energies, tactics and strategies of the Opposition Leader and all the support the Opposition Leader can muster to defend that position. Whatever means are made available, foul or fair, will be employed to defend the record of the former Treasurer and the assertions made again and again and the stories told. I sense the contest is right here and it is one of credibility. It is not about the former Treasurer or the record of the former government; it is about providing quality leadership for the future of the Northern Territory and telling the truth.
If you have a different version of events when the numbers say one thing and another story tells another, I am looking forward to that debate. We will continue with that debate in here and out of here and truth will win out. You can be as clever as you like and tell your story and endeavour to convince people; however, truth will win out in the end. Already, most people who have carried real responsibility in the Northern Territory through the public service know there is a problem and want someone to help lead and authorise them to fix that. If the former Treasurer is persistent in maintaining it we will have to allow some passage but we will have to move on. We will look forward to that debate. I noticed today there was some sensitivity on that front, but we are not going to back away because the story needs to be told.
We will deal with the housing issues. At the end of the day, there will be the last session of the Twelfth Assembly. We will look back, we will walk out to an election, and ask people to make a decision once again. I will remember, as all my colleagues will remember and know we said, ‘We have work to do, and if we do not live up to your expectations it is your call’.
We believe the direction we have set is one we can achieve. We want people to work with us - we can do it. We have set the agenda. It has been outlined in the Chamber and we intend to complete this course and have every confidence in the capacity of the people of the Northern Territory to work with us to achieve the objectives set.
I commend to honourable members the first Address-in-Reply setting the agenda for the Twelfth Assembly.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Removal of Banned Drinker Register
Removal of Banned Drinker Register
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this House condemns the government for removing the Banned Drinker Register with no alternative in place and calls for the government to outline their plans for the return of the rivers of grog to our bush communities.
I bring this motion to the House on behalf of the many Territorians expressing dismay and disbelief at the reckless decision to scrap the Banned Drinker Register with no credible or alternative controls on problem drinkers. Even more troubling, I call on the government to spell out its timetable for implementing the election promise made by a number of bush candidates to support the establishment of drinking clubs, and to bring back the infamous rivers of grog to our bush communities.
Let us call this for what it is. The Country Liberals’ manifesto launched as part of the 2012 election campaign alluded to the Banned Drinker Register not working and the inconvenience of providing personal identification as part of the purchase of alcohol. Chief Minister, people on the street know the Banned Drinker Register was working. Talkback radio has been flooded with grassroots criticism of the scrapping of the Banned Drinker Register and the return of drunks and the humbug to our local shopping centres and parks.
Territorians well recall the Chief Minister’s promise that, if elected, the Country Liberals would immediately remove drunks from our streets. They cannot reconcile that promise with the scrapping of the BDR. However, there is another force at work here. It is clear the CLP ploy is to quickly strike out the positive initiatives of the Henderson government in this area and to sully the real progress being made in controlling the supply of alcohol to people with a track record of problem drinking and alcohol-related offences. It is a CLP decision built on ideology, not the evidence at hand; a decision politically understandable and appealing to some of the CLP constituency, but morally wrong and another insight into the true character of the Chief Minister, a man who said in his introduction to the CLP election manifesto:
The 2012 election should be about doing what is right ahead of what is simply spin.
The issue of problem drinking and the damage wrought by alcohol abuse to individuals, families, and local communities is a core issue where a responsible Territory government has to show leadership and a concern for the voices, particularly the voices of our greatest resource, our children.
Regarding the inconvenience of the BDR, let us put that to bed. One of the heartening aspects of the BDR was the way Territorians generally accepted the small inconvenience of producing identification as part of the purchase of takeaway liquor. Territorians largely accepted that measure because they could see the BDR was working and it was central to a total package: our Enough is Enough alcohol reforms. Well-minded Territorians do not have a problem supporting measures which were clearly working - taking problem drinkers off tap and making our shopping centres and public spaces safer for all.
Police at all levels described the BDR as the best tool they have ever had in their daily battle with alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime. However, that is not good enough for the CLP. Health and community workers, frontline workers, embraced the BDR because they too could see it was working. For others, there was no more running the gauntlet on the footpath outside grog shops, and families felt safe letting the kids run down to the local shop for milk and bread.
A responsible government would have given thought to the consequences of scrapping the BDR without any credible replacement. However, now that good work - tackling the supply of grog to 2500 problem drinkers - has been swept aside. Who are these problem drinkers? Let me remind the House these are people taken into protective custody three times in three months involved in alcohol-fuelled violence and assaults, including family and domestic violence, or repeat drink-drivers who have driven under the influence at very high levels, considered at risk of placing others at risk.
The CLP says it wants to focus its work on the demand side of the alcohol equation as well as supply. Territory Labor has always argued there needs to be a complementary focus on both supply and demand as well as rehabilitation.
This is the worrying part of the CLP’s plan for alcohol management. It seems to totally discount the physical nature of alcohol dependency and believes it is okay to effectively put 2500 problem drinkers regularly coming to the attention of the police back on tap to feed their addiction and support their binge drinking and the inevitable humbug of others. The CLP says it has an alternative moral focus on the compulsory rehabilitation of problem drinkers in rehabilitation centres yet to be built. Let us call these for what they are: lockups to take problem drinkers off the street, out of sight, out of mind.
The member for Fong Lim, the Minister for Alcohol Policy says, on behalf of the government, the construction of these new facilities may be 12 months off. Twelve months for drunks to be back on the street annoying and pestering others as they feed their alcohol dependency, Twelve months of shopkeepers and customers running the day to day gauntlet of problem drinkers and humbug.
Seemingly ridiculous, but not so when you consider the other part of the CLP’s approach to alcohol management and the lost souls with the hardcore alcohol problem. It is to allow drunks back on the street and build support for the establishment of drinking clubs across the Territory, including the return of full-strength grog to keep them there. At first glance it could seem appealing - let people make their own decisions about access to alcohol; show people the way of responsible drinking; establish drinking clubs so people do not have to travel to larger centres or our suburban shops for access to alcohol; use drinking clubs and the money earned from the sale of alcohol for whole communities supporting worthwhile community projects. Appealing perhaps at first glance, but how will this plan be implemented and how will it work?
The member for Blain, the Chief Minister, insists there will be mature discussion, consultation and opportunities for communities to make decisions and take responsibility for their decision on access to alcohol. However, who decides? Who speaks for the children? Are we to see a return to the bad old days when, infamously, access to grog was often determined to be men’s business, for men to decide their rules for their drinking clubs? A return to the old days such as at Wadeye, where a senior cultural leader took affirmative action physically demolishing the local drinking club because of the misery it had brought to the community.
Why is the CLP endorsing a plan which supports a return of the rivers of grog starkly highlighted in the Little Children are Sacred report? Does the CLP believe the establishment of drinking clubs and the return of full-strength beer helps address the core issues of family safety and wellbeing? What plans does the CLP have for spending public money, taxpayers’ money, on the implementation of its plans and the establishment of new drinking clubs? These are all-important questions which require an answer.
The new alcohol policies of the CLP government are deeply troubling. They appeal to the idea that people should have the right to drink and determine their own rules for access to alcohol. Indeed, the CLP is already using taxpayer funds to promote its way forward, proclaiming in a newspaper advertisement that Indigenous people in bush communities should have the right to decide what is best in relation to access to alcohol.
That right exists through the development of alcohol management plans under our Enough is Enough alcohol reform package and is accepted as part of the Commonwealth Stronger Futures framework.
My questions to the Chief Minister are: how will you ensure discussions and decisions about grog in our remote communities are undertaken in a careful and considered way? What are the minimum standards you have in mind for school attendance, community safety and wellbeing that should be established before opening the rivers of grog? Does the government really believe the establishment of drinking clubs will lessen the movement of people between the bush and town?
Not so. We are living in 2012. Territorians living in the bush will be increasingly mobile, living on or visiting our larger centres for education, to look for work, to access health services, and a myriad of other reasons. Indeed, the member for Fong Lim has argued in this parliament that he is in favour of urban drift. I quote:
- There should be more of it and that urban drift should be encouraged.
The incoming government has said closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage is one of its highest priorities and, in working in this critical area, the government will consult with local people on what works for them. We agree. Indeed, working in partnership with local people has been a hallmark of our work in addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Our focus has been on consultation and discussion with local people about their priorities, ensuring the voiceless have a voice, and there is a balance to the loud voices and self-interest of any one group. More grog and more power to drinking clubs have not featured as a priority for the people we have been listening to. The key priorities brought to us have been:
healthier and safer families
more opportunity in education and training, and meaningful employment
to take firm action to turn around the shocking truth that Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory are being hospitalised for assault, with most assaults fuelled by alcohol at 80 times the rate of other women
to build on our achievements in leading the nation in closing the gap in Indigenous death rates.
Territory Labor’s focus is to work to ensure all our kids, no matter where they live, can wake up in the morning full of hope and excitement, proud of who they are, where they come from, with a purpose in life and with choices and opportunities before them. That has been, and will continue to be, a priority. Not more access to grog or supporting drinking clubs and a drinking culture which is central to the day-to-day life of the bush towns. We understand the pain the families feel when their loved ones leave home to drink and the real dangers associated with binge drinking and bush drinking camps. Promoting drinking clubs as a solution, with daily drinking as a lifestyle and a town’s social life built around the club, is not the answer.
The Little Children are Sacred report was clear on its conclusions on drinking habits and clubs. It found, based on evidence from around Australia as well as the Northern Territory, that, and I quote:
- ... rather than mediating alcohol-related harms, the introduction of licensed clubs on remote communities is associated with development of heavy drinking culture with significant negative impacts on people’s health and community wellbeing in the short and long term.
That is on page 167. Put simply, the board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children concluded that the lives of Aboriginal children are more important than the right to drink. We agree.
Our focus has been to work with local leaders, health professionals and other levels of government with the best available information to develop sound alcohol policies and programs, improving the lives of all Territorians. We are at a loss to understand the Country Liberals’ priority of more grog and drinking clubs ahead of education, health, jobs, housing, and essential services and infrastructure in our bush towns. We also reject the notion that tackling alcohol dependency and abuse is somehow sign of a nanny state. The compulsory wearing of seatbelts, pool fencing as a way to prevent child drowning, and a long history of government regulation of alcohol and other harmful substances, are not signs of a nanny state. They are evidence of a responsible government working for all its constituents.
I put these questions on behalf of concerned Territorians to the new government. Territorians are seeking an explanation of why you so foolishly dumped the Banned Drinker Register, the best tool police say they ever had in dealing with problem drinkers, before you had an alternative in place, and to make clear your intentions and timetable for developing drinking clubs and more grog, returning those rivers of grog to our bush communities.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The argument put by the Opposition Leader which we are required to respond to is weak, disingenuous and based on a false premise, added with deliberate misinterpretation for the sake of the argument. To put it frankly, if this was run in the wider community in the presence of thinking people, it would not have rated very highly at all as a convincing presentation.
I accept the new government has made a decision, taken a different path which, in its early stages, would cause some concern. That is understandable. However, there can be no doubt at all my government went to the election with a very clear promise to scrap the Banned Drinker Register. We have taken the steps to put that decision into force, but why did we make that decision? The reason was clear. The Banned Drinker Register was a failure. Violent assaults in the Northern Territory are up 5% on last year and increased 44% under the Opposition Leader’s time as Deputy Chief Minister. A total of 19 988 people were taken into protective custody during Labor’s last year in power. The Banned Drinker Register did not stop the supply of grog and the same offenders kept offending. The people who were drunk on our streets before the Banned Drinker Register were drunk on our streets after it.
Crime increased across the board under the Banned Drinker Register, as did alcohol involvement in crime. They are the facts contained in the crime statistics removed from view under the former Labor government to allow it to run an argument and con the Territory into believing the system was working. There was greater interest in the policy position of the former Labor government than giving people the dignity of facts and figures by which they could be judged. They chose to remove that and now run this spurious argument that it was a wonderful scheme. It was not ...
Ms Lawrie: Open your eyes!
Mr MILLS: Open your eyes. We now have people drinking all over the place and they are now seen by the Opposition Leader. Before they could not be seen, everything was fine, ‘This scheme is working very well. I have never seen drinkers outside the Territory parliament. I simply have not seen them, Julia’, but everyone says, ‘Gee whiz, they are out there, I have seen them’. I saw them there before, I see them there now. When I see them I say, ‘You should not be drinking. Now nick off or I will call the police’. I ring and I deal with it because I am facing up to reality, unlike the Opposition Leader. She will not face reality and lives in some fairy world trying to defend her own position.
Your position is not worth defending because there is a reality lived by Territorians and they should not be conned; they should be told the truth. When it comes to grabbing a word spoken by a number of police officers and running it as the strongest defence for the scheme which is so important to you, because it is very important to you to appear right, good, and true and the police had the best tool ever and it was given to them by the Labor Party. The horrible Country Liberals took it off them and now they are dreadfully exposed. If they had to choose between a scheme which did not work and 120 extra police, what tool do you think they would choose? We have put extra resources on the front line - proper policing on the front line.
If someone was under the influence of alcohol before your Banned Drinker Register, which did not work - and my colleague, the Attorney-General, will outline in excruciating detail the facts and figures in case you do not understand it does not work - whether they are on the Banned Drinker Register or not, a person under the influence of alcohol should not be served.
There will be some adjustment; I am not blind to that. I understand how societies work. I understand how human behaviour works. There is a scheme in place; people adjust to it. Who do you think adjusts to it? It is largely the people who do not have a problem with alcohol. However, the ones who have a problem and need for alcohol adjust to it by finding secondary supply. They will not be deterred by a scheme such as that. My colleague, the Attorney-General, will show you what happened. It had no effect on those who had a problem with alcohol. As noted in the Northern Territory News on 2 August 2012 - this was before the election when this glorious scheme was in place which fixed everything:
- Banning drinkers fails to cut down assaults.
The government’s grog reforms and banned drinker register have failed to cut alcohol-related assaults - in fact, they have increased.
The report on the first year of the reform’s operation show alcohol-related assaults were 2% higher across the NT compared with the year previous ...
Ms Lawrie: For Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs.
Mr MILLS: I did not interrupt you.
- In fact, 2011-12 recorded the most number of such assaults in the past five years - 4011 across the NT.
The four years prior recorded between 3196 and 3971 grog-related assaults.
That is an NT News report before the election when this scheme was in operation. The top four protective custody clients were on the Banned Drinker Register and yet were taken into protective custody 117 times, 97 times, 88 times, and 74 times respectively. You told us, ‘They are off tap. Three times in six months they are out of circulation. They are going to this other scheme.’ What about this poor bloke - 117 times? What happened? He was on the Banned Drinker Register. The person taken into protective custody 117 times in just 12 months was still able to access alcohol. That is the point. This person was obviously on the Banned Drinker Register but, nevertheless, continued to access alcohol. Did the scheme work? Obviously, glaringly, no. This was noted in the NT News on 3 August 2012:
- The government’s latest weapon to rid the NT of the scourge of grog-related assaults - the banned drinkers register - might actually be causing violence, a crisis service says.
- But the government denied its register, which started in July last year, was making matters worse.
Of course it denied it. It defends its own position because that is more important than the truth:
- Jeanine Lumsden from Dawn House yesterday said the register might be causing conflict between banned drinkers and their partners.
- ‘Through the introduction of the banned drinkers register we’ve seen increased pressure on families’, she told the ABC. ‘Some of those pressures might be things like women expected to provide alcohol or transport to purchase alcohol.’
That is called the secondary supply issue. The people with the problem still had access to alcohol. They will find a way. Where there is a will, there is a way. It proves it once again. The crime statistics also confirm that. Further in the same issue:
- The government’s latest report on the progress of its grog reform show grog-related domestic violence assaults across the Territory increased by an estimated 7.8% in 2011-12.
- ...
- But the government did not respond when asked if it had researched what impact the banned drinkers register might have on couples with a history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence. The idea banned drinkers are getting others - such as spouses - to buy grog for them is an area the government has previously admitted was a problem.
The government created the offence of secondary supply - where those who knowingly supplied a banned drinker were put on the register themselves. But since the government keeps the register secret, it is difficult to prove someone knowingly supplied a banned drinker.
Flawed system! It was good for presentation purposes, created the desired effect and, in opposition, you can milk it for a while; however, the truth will dawn on people, and the truth will win out in the end.
On 30 August 2012, the Director of Licensing stopped the requirement for licensees to scan IDs. We said in the lead-up to the election we would do it and we did it.
If we did not do what we said we would, what do you think one of the first questions from the Opposition Leader would have been today? ‘You said you were going to do it but you did not do it. When are you going to do it?’ We did what we said we would.
In the coming year, I plan to introduce legislation which will formally repeal the mechanics behind the scheme and will progress the government’s commitment to mandatory rehabilitation legislation for habitual drunks. That is currently being worked on. Drunks will be taken off the streets and forced to undertake rehabilitation before being released back into the community. Anyone taken into protective custody three times within six months for being drunk will be on a compulsory court order. If the drunks breach the court order they are forced into mandatory rehabilitation.
We will not return to a scheme which completely failed to reduce crime and was absolutely ineffective. We are working on this; it is a highest priority and we will deliver as we said we would.
When it goes to the issue you have spent a fair bit of time on, Opposition Leader, speaking about - obviously not reading what has been reported on this matter - our plan to open up the rivers of grog for the communities is absolute nonsense; there is nothing further from the truth. The reality in all this discussion, and also laced through the Opposition Leader’s comments, is this paternalistic approach where you deny the people who are the subject of many of our conversations and discussions about alcohol the opportunity to be involved in the discussion. That is all this is about. It is giving local people, in this case Aboriginal people, the opportunity to talk about things such as how a good shire scheme would look from their perspective. ‘Guide us through this and we will work with you to come up with a scheme for local decision-making that is of benefit to you and we will work with you on that.’
‘What is a good way of operating schools in your community?’ We will put in a system where we will involve people in that discussion rather than decide for them, implement that, and then resource it and defend your idea and your policy position.
There are a number of other approaches we would take. Brought into this discussion was grog. Everyone talks about the problem of grog; however, what has been missed is the respectful discussion with communities who want to be involved in an adult conversation. The paternalistic approach has removed the dignity from local communities to be involved in that discussion if they so choose.
To conclude that having that discussion immediately pushes you to the point where they are going to open the floodgates to alcohol is very disrespectful to the people involved in the discussion. It also betrays the lack of real care and understanding of the people in these communities. They want to be involved in this. They want to talk about these matters and to hold up Aboriginal women to say the men are going to decide for them - those Aboriginal women need to be speaking. They speak loud and clear and should be heard. So should the women who have lost their loved ones in town or on the roads. They need to be heard as well. So do the men who are off the grog and want to explain their position. So too, the men who want to bring their community together want to be heard; let them all speak.
To conclude it would be a swift discussion with the intent - this also betrays the attitude of the former government. You think you will go into a consultation process with people and you have already determined the outcome. That shows you know best and have no real regard for the conversation or the different voices in the debate. I have visited many communities that would not mind being involved in that discussion, to allow that community to start to function and process important and complex matters such as alcohol.
Alcohol is just a topic. The decision-making process must involve local people. I expect this would take quite some time because a great deal of rebuilding needs to occur to provide the confidence that these conversations are real. I recently had a meeting at Maningrida where they welcomed this approach and an acceptance of the approach was agreed to and to let it take time; there is no rush. That was underlining this whole discussion and it was not about alcohol, it was about allowing voices to be heard. Those who work with Aboriginal people know they may take some time. The important thing is the quality of the journey and discussion. That is what we are talking about. Obviously, that point is completely missed by the Opposition Leader, either by intent, or her inability to grasp those subtle but important aspects of a way forward by treating people properly, engaging with them respectfully, and allowing time for these things to unfold. That is what it is about.
To capture this and try to run some argument that it is about opening up the rivers of grog is inconsistent with everything said by the new government while in opposition. It shows the Opposition Leader will craft, use, and appropriate any material, twist it in whichever way suits, and run an argument to advance her own position while ignoring reality. In the Twelfth Assembly it will probably not take too long before the truth surfaces and people start to grow tired of this. You have to have a little more substance than we have seen tonight - a mixture of emotion and false allegations based on false premises. You are building the idea that there has been monumental change and now people are running the gauntlet. They cannot go into the shop because it is mayhem. The Attorney-General will outline some of the excruciating facts which were callously and arrogantly removed from circulation by the previous government, and which we have given people the courtesy of looking at so they can see what is really happening. This is a silly motion; it should be rejected completely.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, while it is always good to hear from the Chief Minister, I was hoping the Alcohol Policy minister might speak first because the Chief Minister scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, the Attorney-General is in charge of the habitual drunks legislation, the Treasurer is negotiating alcohol reforms in Alice Springs, the minister is in charge of licensing, so I am unsure what the Alcohol Policy minister does. I look forward to hearing from the Alcohol Policy minister next. I am sure he will make an interesting contribution to the debate. The Alcohol Policy minister might be responsible for making inflammatory comments which allow other ministers to come in behind him and seem a little more reasonable. We can always rely on the member for Fong Lim for an interesting comment or two.
Mr Mills: You are revealing your political tactic.
Mr GUNNER: I am revealing a political tactic by saying I would like to hear from the Alcohol Policy minister? I am not sure if that is quite revelatory; however, it will be interesting to hear from the member for Fong Lim. I am sure we will hear from him soon.
In Fannie Bay, as I am sure everyone in this Chamber is aware, we have a number of hot spots. As local member from 2008, I thought it was really important to establish relationships with people who lived in and around the hot spots in my electorate. As a local member, you have to deal with the realities; you cannot walk away from them. You will always be held to account for them. I thought it was important to develop a relationship with people who had to live with the problem of hot spots day to day. When you are doorknocking someone in Westralia Street you do not ignore the park opposite the shops, you ask them, ‘How is it going? What is it like at the moment? What problems are you experiencing? I would love to hear from you any time you have problems. I always want to know what is going on. The lines of communication are open, talk to me.’
You have really good lines of communication with people who live in and around these hot spots. The communication from all of them this year is they have seen a positive change in the parks and around the shopping centres. That feedback came through loud and clear from people living next to the Westralia Street park, and from people living in and around the corner of Parap Road and the Stuart Highway - that has been a terrible corner. We have had to do significant work through Parap Road to get on top of it. It is more than the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register is one element in a range of things, but there have been positive changes through the area and the Banned Drinker Register has been part of it. We have seen positive changes through that area.
The Fannie Bay shops have seen positive changes. There were people in business who you could say were not early believers in the Banned Drinker Register and that was fine. However, they became converts and one was Manuel Kotis from Fannie Bay shops. He asked, ‘What are you doing to my shop? What are you putting in? How long do I have to deal with this? What is it going to be like?’ However, he then saw the change in customers coming into the shop and the change in who was camping in the park outside his shop. He saw a real change and knew it was as a result of the Banned Drinker Register. He said, ‘This is working’ and he was a convert. He was not an early believer, but he saw it working and saw the outcome. He said that as soon as it was scrapped he saw people back in his shop he had not seen for six or 12 months buying alcohol again. He had not seen them. They were not around, not in the parks, but they were back the minute the Banned Drinking Register was scrapped. All of the traders in and around Fannie Bay shops make the same comments. This has happened in other places around my area; however, at Fannie Bay the traders are prepared to be vocal and most have spoken to the media sharing their concerns and what they have experienced with others.
Manuel, and other traders at Fannie Bay, said to me, ‘We are hitting an all time low. We are coming off a period where the Banned Drinker Register was working, things were good, the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped and things are now getting bad and we are really quite concerned.’
I did an interview at the Fannie Bay shops with Captain Seafood, Mr Tim Copping, where we said since scrapping the Banned Drinking Register the hot spot has become hotter. The traders have said the nature and behaviour of the people at Fannie Bay shops is worse than it was. We were seeing a positive change under the Banned Drinker Register, it was scrapped and, suddenly, bang, it is worse. We did some media and, a couple of weeks later, had the unfortunate incident at the Fannie Bay shops with Liam, the young shopkeeper who was bashed. I visited Manuel. I know the Chief Minister visited him as well, and credit to him for that. Manuel has said repeatedly that as soon as the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped things became worse. Those people who bashed Liam at about 4.30 pm came back at 9 pm drunk. Police had not found them yet - that is five-and-a-half hours - they returned to carry on some more at the loading dock out the back.
This is what we are now working with. These people have been running these shops for - Tim has been there for about 20 years, Manuel has been there forever - they are institutions. They have a good corporate history of the area. They say we reached an all time good spot with the Banned Drinker Register and as soon as it was scrapped it became really bad. These people have decades of experience at the shops and parks and say as soon as the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped there were significant problems because the Banned Drinker Register made a positive change.
It was not a cure-all, it is not the silver bullet, but it made a difference and that is important. People were noticing there, along Parap Road and in Stuart Park, an outcome from the Banned Drinker Register. As soon as it was scrapped they saw an immediate change in the number of people in the parks and the aggression.
In this House it strikes you as strange sometimes how people can look at the same things with a different set of eyes. However, there is clearly no doubt we disagree on the Banned Drinker Register. We disagree 100% on the effect it was having and where it was going. One thing people have asked me is, ‘Why scrap it before bringing in other plans?’ It does not make sense to them to scrap something before the government’s plans were ready. It defies common sense. Why do that?
I will go back to Manuel, who said, ‘What annoys me most since the Banned Drinker Register has been removed is the new government has done nothing to replace it’. It does not get it especially when, in the 100-day action plan on the front page, it said it would immediately remove problem drunks from the street. There is expectation the Country Liberals were going to deliver - going to do something, but all it has done …
Mr Elferink: One-hundred-and-twenty extra police.
Mr GUNNER: … is scrap the Banned Drinker Register.
The member for Port Darwin mentions 120 extra cops. Our understanding is that 94 are the ones to be delivered through our agreement with the federal police. There has to be 120 on top of that. You cannot just take the 94 the feds are paying for - that is a nice saving on a political promise. People are expecting the Country Liberals to do something because it said it would. You said you would immediately remove all the problem drunks from the streets - front page of the 100-day action plan.
I will be interested to hear the member for Fong Lim explain how they will do that. On our side, we have some interest around your plans and how you will carry them out. It is not clear yet exactly how you are going to introduce your plans.
It was interesting to hear what the member for Sanderson said about the plans: if you choose not to undertake the voluntary program you will be taken to a mandatory rehabilitation facility.
I remember thinking at the time, ‘That sounds interesting’. If you choose not to do it, you will be made to do it. I do not understand where the word ‘voluntary’ fits in that. How do you make someone go? There has to be a trigger. There has to be something saying it is mandatory. Is that criminalisation? We are quite interested to see …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: … if the Country Liberals are going to recriminalise drunkenness. The Attorney-General will speak later and I am interested to hear what he has to say about the government’s plans. We heard from him after the election where he was asked directly, ‘It sounds to me like you are recriminalising drunkenness’. The Attorney-General said, ‘Some people would say that, perhaps that is true, because there will be a component of the criminal justice system involved in this’. The CLP is looking to recriminalise drunkenness. If you are a drunk, you are a criminal.
It is going to be fascinating to see how the government will do that. We are looking forward to the detail of the legislation on criminalising drunkenness and mandatory rehabilitation. We are curious as to how you will do that because the experts are saying it does not work.
John Boffa said:
- There is no evidence that the prison farm approach is going to work.
Even if you took every one of the dependent drinkers now - and there are thousands of them in the NT - and put them in prison farms for three months, they are only talking about three months, most of those people will relapse.
The experts are saying it will not work.
I am interested to hear how the CLP will recriminalise drunkenness and how it will work. What expert advice does the government have to say this will work? The government was recently asked where the expert advice was coming from and how it would work. Is it an evidenced-based approach? The Attorney-General said, the evidence he has came from years of being a general duties police officer. Fair enough, everyone has personal experiences they bring to the table.
The reporter asked if there was any scientific or industry evidence, ‘This is, essentially, something we are doing from the ground up’. The government is making it up as it goes along based on the experiences of the Attorney-General as a general duties police officer. I respect the work of general duties police officers. I know quite a few of them and have had much to do with them over the last four years because I have many hot spots in my electorate. They all say they like the Banned Drinker Register you scrapped.
Apparently, the experience of being a general duties police officer is enough to work out how to recriminalise drunkenness and make a mandatory rehabilitation plan work, even though the experts say it will not. I am interested to hear how the Country Liberals are going to recriminalise drunkenness. It is going to be very interesting to hear from the Attorney-General and the member for Fong Lim, the Alcohol Policy minister, on how these will work.
I want to thank the member for Fong Lim, the Alcohol Policy minister, because when I requested a briefing on what the Alcohol Policy minister does, to his credit, he rang me straightaway and said, ‘We are onto it; we are happy to do it. I am currently working with the department on a few things and I’ll get back to you soon’.
I thank the Alcohol Policy minister for that. It is nice to receive a phone call from a minister saying, ‘I have your request for a briefing and am happy to oblige. I have to do a few things with the department first.’ That is fair enough because you have a big agenda and I am interested to see what the Alcohol Policy minister has to do with it. What things are being left to you? What is within your ambit? That is a serious question. I want to know what the Alcohol Policy minister is doing while the Chief Minister scraps the Banned Drinker Register.
The Attorney-General is in charge of the habitual drunks legislation, the Treasurer is negotiating alcohol reforms in Alice Springs, and the Business minister is in charge of licensing. I am interested to hear from the Alcohol Policy minister about how he will deal with problem drunks because the front page of the action plan says they will be dealt with immediately. The government seems to have redefined ‘immediately’ because we are a fair way into the term in relation to ‘immediately’. I am interested to know how the Alcohol Policy minister is going to deliver the reforms.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution. I am surprised he does not know a great deal about this policy because I stood on at least three occasions in this House prior to the election and described in some detail what was in my mind’s eye, and the mind’s eye of the then opposition members as to how this would work. I will get to that in due course.
Let us deal with the first assertion being woven into this discussion by the opposition and implied in the terms of the motion: the BDR did its job. No, it did not. It did not come close. Listen to the member for Nelson’s observations. He says, ‘We want to trial it for two or three years to see if it works’. You do not have to trial it for two or three years, you compare one year with the next.
In the financial year 2010-11, the financial year prior to the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register, there were 20 354 protective custody apprehensions in the Northern Territory. In the year following, the 2011-12 financial year, that number was 19 988. The difference between the two years was a fall in apprehensions of 366 Territory-wide. To put that in context, from a statistical point of view there is no measurable significant difference.
The BDR, after coming into operation, and the $18m plan the previous government applied to its alcohol policy, was able to reduce protective custody apprehensions by 366. Arithmetic off the top of my head, but for every one less apprehension across the Territory the government expended $50 000. That is not a successful program by any measure.
Moreover, if you believed the system in place was working, it would not have been possible for a person who had been apprehended three times in three months to obtain liquor. Why is it - this was pointed out by the Chief Minister - the platinum member of the frequent flyer club was apprehended 117 times in the year the BDR operated? It means, by the government’s rules, that person would have been on the Banned Drinker Register 114 times during that year. This means the person was able to access alcohol with such frequency they presented themselves as being so drunk the police had to take them into custody and they were unable to acquire alcohol once every three days. That is not evidence of a system working. Many people on the Banned Drinker Register were accessing alcohol.
I remember the debate when the previous government wanted to introduce it in this House. We, on our side of the house, said, ‘The problem is no consequence flows from being on the Banned Drinker Register’. If you breach your banning order and get picked up again you get another banning order and, in case you are dragged in again, you get another banning order. This person will have received 114 banning orders. He was clearly, deeply affected by these banning orders. It was just amazing.
The next three - I heard the Chief Minister give these statistics - 97 apprehensions, 88 apprehensions and 74 apprehensions. Collectively, 376 apprehensions amongst four people and 364 would have been whilst these people were subject to banning orders. Four individuals managed to get so drunk so often they were picked up 364 times whilst they were on the Banned Drinker Register which means between four people they managed to get arrested every day of one year whilst on the Banned Drinker Register.
Mr Tollner: What was the consequence? Did you fix them after all that?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. The consequence was exactly what we warned when this legislation was introduced. They would receive another banning order, and another banning order. Oh, my God, they are drunk! Give them another banning order, quick!
Then the previous government has the audacity to come into this House saying the Banned Drinker Register worked. It did not work; it was an abject failure. It was a failure across the whole of the Northern Territory. If you look at the number of people taken into custody for the one year the register was in operation, it did not work – 366 fewer apprehensions?
The astonishing thing is if we take the first 69 frequent flyers and pull them out of commission for that one year, you would have 2300 fewer apprehensions because that is what the numbers showed. This is the evidence-based approach. Apparently, I have an absence of evidence and, therefore, I must suddenly become inert because I do not have any evidence or a doctor to back me up. Here is a bit of rocket science for you guys: if you take these people out of commission and place them into some form of restraint, mandatory rehabilitation, whatever you want to call it, whilst they are not being apprehended because they are being kept in some form of restraint - custody if you like - they will not be picked up.
So, four individuals picked up every day for one year, if you had them out of custody for three months, those four individuals would not be picked up one day for every three months. I do not need a doctor to tell me a person restrained from doing something with a consequence attached to their conduct will not commit the offence or become drunk. If we have these people out of commission and, in the process, trying to bring some change to their lives, involving ourselves rather than some passive process, saying to these people, ‘You are responsible; we are going to take you out of circulation and you are responsible’ then that is what we are planning to do.
I listened to the member for Nelson today. This is one component of the policy we have seriously considered but I have some concerns about it. The member for Nelson says he does not like criminalising it, which means these people will have to go through the court system, but he then says, ‘Look just treat these people as though they are sick. Pull them off the street and whack them into mandatory rehabilitation’, and I support that.
That is an astonishing way to proceed. I baulked at that when I originally thought about this policy a number of years ago because there is a problem with the state randomly taking people off the street and holding them in custody for three months without some form of judicial oversight. The reason our policy involves the courts is we are inviting judicial oversight of the process rather than simply pulling people off the street.
If we were able to convince the community at large that we could proceed with a mental health response where we could arbitrarily take people off the streets without reference to any form of judicial oversight that, perhaps, is something we would examine. However, I am concerned about habeas corpus and other trivialities of that nature. The policy the previous government tried to introduce did everything except the one thing it had to do: make the drinkers who continually appear, responsible for their actions. It made the community responsible, it made society responsible, but it did not say to the drinkers sitting in the park drunk that they are responsible for their actions. That is anathema to the members opposite, because it does not accord with the philosophy that you can manipulate society to engineer a result in the handful of a few.
I do not believe you can. It has been tried again and again, but I have seen no example where mass movement by government to target a handful of individuals has achieved the outcome it sought. I continue to argue for a process which invites judicial oversight. This is why, as I explained in the past, the thrust of the policy - and the details have to be bedded down - is once every six months, perhaps three months, but six months is the figure we used - if you are picked up in that period three times for being drunk, like the previous government’s policy - I believe it took this part from our policy because ours was written about eight years ago - you then come before a tribunal which will give you a pretty straightforward order. It will probably say, ‘Do not turn up drunk again’.
I do not want to live in a society where government polices whether people can get drunk or not. People can get drunk in their back yard, their home, wherever; that is their business. When that drunkenness has a negative effect on the community as a whole we are interested in holding those people responsible. The order will say something like, ‘Do not turn up in public drunk’. If a person says, ‘Wow, that is a pretty serious order, I am going to comply with it’ and they are not drunk in public again, problem solved. They do not come into contact with the system we are describing.
If, however, they do, and I suspect the majority of these people, particularly the frequent flyers I have referred to, continue to turn up as public drunks, they are committing an offence which means they go to court - this is where the judicial oversight part comes - where they are charged with a criminal offence. That is the criminalisation component. I am using the criminal justice system as a vehicle to get judicial oversight into a system where we take people off the streets with a view to a health outcome. It is a hybrid and I have never hidden that.
The member for Fannie Bay says we are criminalising public drunkenness. Okay, that is not the issue. These people are so seriously sick the last thing they are going to worry about is some trivial offence. However, it invites judicial oversight so the court gets to determine whether or not those people have committed an offence this parliament describes. If the court determines that is the case, then the court determines a mandated sentence whereby you will spend three months in a mandatory rehabilitation facility yet to be built, that is true.
Once inside that facility we have them in a controlled environment where we can, hopefully, bring about some changes. We do not guarantee that; there may be no ‘road to Damascus’ conversion. However, whilst these people are in these facilities they are not at the Fannie Bay shops, not in parks and gardens in Darwin, Alice Springs or wherever they are turning up and being nuisance drunks.
If we only collect the first 70, we will remove 2300 arrests - 14% of the people currently being apprehended by taking 70 people into custody. Let us say we introduce this and do it on the previous government’s plan of three times in three months - that is the yardstick - we will end up with perhaps 600 or 700 in custody. If we can remove the top 600 people who go through this system on a regular basis, we will slash the number of public apprehensions. I do not need a doctor of philosophy or medicine to tell me if you have the vast bulk of frequent flyers out of circulation they are not in circulation. It is common sense; you do not need a doctorate to figure that out.
Once you have these people in an environment where you can bring something to bear on them regarding corrective behaviour you may have some success. However, expecting them to clutch a banned drinker notice under the BDR and, through their alcohol-fogged haze, to suddenly say, ‘I will take this seriously’ is nonsense. That is where the BDR truly failed. We have been advocating, and I have explained in this House time and time again, this is about removing people - taking them out of circulation.
If you want to see whether this system works, look at assault rates and the presentations at Alice Springs and Darwin emergency sections. You will see a fast fall in presentations. I expect to see a change in the homicide rate because so many are the product of drunks in our parks and gardens stabbing each other. I expect to see a fall in the number of offence rates directly related to taking these people out of circulation. That is the plan, has always been, and has been articulated time and time again. However, it is not a promise to change the world based on the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register did not work. The previous government knew it because it was targeted at habitual drunks. When it realised it would only get about 800 or so, it started to expand it to domestic violence and offences relating to drink-drivers. The courts will deal with people who commit acts of domestic violence and drink-drivers for the offences they commit.
Our policy is not targeted at drink-drivers, people who go to the pubs, people whose eyes are too close together, or whether or not they have committed acts of domestic violence. Our policy is targeted specifically at those chronic alcoholics who, time and time again, come before the police as protective custody cases. That is the intention of the policy. People who are chronic alcoholics are, essentially, drug addicts. If you see a drunk sitting in a park clutching a little brown paper bag and a sherry bottle, they are no different to a heroin addict sitting in a park finishing shooting up. They live the same dreadful, despicable, disgusting lives.
We intend not to pander to these people saying, ‘Here is a banning notice, do not do it again’, because these people are true addicts and will go to any length to obtain their source of addiction. For that reason, the Banned Drinker Register did not work. Do you reckon they really cared one iota that they were on a Banned Drinker Register? Clearly they did not, and were able to source the liquor again and again.
That is why we will introduce a policy which will remove these people from circulation and have a dual advantage. One, it will have the law and order advantage because people will start to see less and less of these people in the parks and gardens. The second advantage is we will have these people in an environment where we can give some form of treatment to them. The rest of the community, those people who do not turn up drunk regularly in police cells, will then be able to get on with their lives, far less molested than otherwise would be the case, Banned Drinker Register or not.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, who has spoken to it. I am a keen supporter of the reforms of the previous government because I have faith in the model of that system - by reducing supply of alcohol to problem drinkers you will see a reduction in the terrible things that go with problem drinking - antisocial behaviour and the flow-on of all those things.
The reason I am such a strong supporter and believer in that is, having lived in northeast Arnhem Land for more than 20 years and having seen, from a grassroots level, the introduction of an alcohol strategy that has delivered such good results, delivered real change, and will continue to do so because, thankfully, it has not impacted – well, it has to a slight degree by the removal of the Banned Drinker Register - but it is a strong story, a positive story, because it is a system which has not come because government imposed it upon people, but because people at a grassroots level demanded it.
If you look to the history of the Gove region with the introduction of bauxite mining or exploration that began in the 1960s, and certainly at the Yirrkala mission homelands at that stage, the homelands movement had not been established so there was quite a concentration of people at Yirrkala. It is a well-known fact that the Yirrkala people challenged the Gove joint venture to operate the Gove bauxite mine and refinery and to build a township. It was the first land rights case heard in an Australian court and, to the devastation of those traditional owners, they lost the case. However, it was what started land rights in Australia, and, we know, much positive change after that.
What is lesser known is that the next challenge the traditional owners put through a court of law was to the availability of alcohol on the Gove Peninsula. With survey camps having been set up for mineral exploration, followed by people moving there during the construction phase, came canteens and alcohol. Traditional owners challenged that and were devastated to have lost that case as well. They could see how serious and deadly alcohol was for their people.
The local alcohol management plan has quite a story to it. It came about in November 2004. I am sure it was starting well before that, but official paperwork started to appear around that time.
I have spoken about this letter in the House before. It is a very powerful letter written and signed by three strong Marika women, Rirratjingu women, one of whom has since passed away, the late Dr Marika. I have no doubt their voices in this letter ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, can you move closer to the microphone? You are not being picked up properly. Speak straight into it.
Mr Tollner: You can slouch on the desk if you want.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, that is what you did. No problem, Madam Speaker.
I will read some extracts from this letter, written and signed by three strong Marika women from the Rirratjingu clan, speaking on behalf of the Mala leaders of the Gove Peninsula. Typically, because Dr Marika, well-known linguist had written this letter, she has done a paragraph in Yolngu Matha and then translated it into English. I will not read the Yolngu Matha, but I will read some of the paragraphs which put up the case, a case still current today.
- We are sick and tired of being harassed and traumatised by the continuous irresponsibility of the drinkers in our families. We do not have a good night’s sleep, and our children are not helping us by helping themselves, because they are stuck in the problems of addiction to alcohol and other drugs. They do not know how to help themselves.
People who are ill and elderly cannot sleep at night. They are constantly disturbed and upset. The drinkers don’t look after the country or respect their elders and carers. There is no peaceful sleep because they make a lot of noise and they have no respect for families in their houses. Their thinking is blocked by alcohol. They can’t see any direction properly, they can’t set directions properly. They can’t think properly, they can’t see properly, they can’t feel. And they don’t care.
...
We can see that children are being neglected and that they have no one to look after them, to care for them and feed them. We can see that the young people are overtaking us and dying before us.
It is devastating for us to bury our young people; they should be burying us. But the tide has turned: we the elders are singing and crying for our young ones.
This letter was written to a number of key stakeholders in Nhulunbuy. The one in my hand was addressed to Syd Stirling, the former member for Nhulunbuy, but a copy went to a number of key stakeholders in the community, including the mining company. It goes on to say:
We want you to help us by putting in place a strong law so that our people are supported and can change and again become clean, responsible, motivated, and strong - not social outcasts. Besides, not all Yolngu are like the drinkers, and we don’t want to be stereotyped as though we are all like them.
One more paragraph, Madam Speaker.
- Because this whiteman’s water is a curse, we implore you who are leaders and policy-makers in government, in corporations, in the public sector, and in community organisations, to hear our plea to close the takeaway liquor outlets in order to eradicate this curse that is killing us physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, leaving us in a desperate situation. Act quickly to make necessary changes in policy and legislation!
That is the bulk of the letter. I have not read it in its entirety, but that, in essence, is what they were asking people. That letter was written in November 2004. Over the next few years, there was a huge consultation process. The Liquor Commission came onboard and, essentially, the upshot was that on 1 March 2008, just before I became a member of this House, Gove had an alcohol management plan in place whereby anyone in the Gove region who wanted to purchase takeaway liquor - we know 70% of all sales of liquor in the Northern Territory are from takeaway stores - had to have a permit. It was even stronger than the permit system which went with the Banned Drinker Register. Essentially, you had to apply for a permit.
The Mala leaders of the Laynhapuy Homelands had made a decision that none of the homelands people would be allowed to have permits. At Yirrkala, the elders looked at every application from community members and would make the decision as to whether or not they would allow a person to have access to alcohol.
Of course, people could still visit licensed premises and purchase a drink at the Golf Club, at the Arnhem Club, the front bar at the Walkabout Lodge, but the difference was it was in a controlled environment. When you have takeaway alcohol, it is in an uncontrolled environment. If people have access to a lot of money on a particular day, they can buy a large amount of alcohol, drink lots of alcohol and do terrible damage to themselves and others. In licensed premises you are in a controlled environment, and I know it is very challenging for the licensees in those environments, but it is and should be a controlled environment. It is a harm minimisation program.
This permit system came in on 1 March 2008. I should add, it was based upon the success of a very similar program which had been in place on Groote Eylandt. People who have been in the Territory for a number of years would know that some of the alcohol-related issues on Groote Eylandt were horrendous. I was talking about this recently with the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, the member at that time. They were dealing with terrible issues associated with alcohol abuse and had to remove health workers and school teachers from communities at Umbakumba and Angurugu. They had to fly broken bodies out - women who had been bashed, people who had been on the receiving end of terrible violence because of people under the influence of alcohol.
The reforms in this region came from the grassroots, from people who were looking to the government, and other stakeholders, for support. Since 2008, there are at least 5000 or 6000 takeaway liquor permit holders in Nhulunbuy. Development of the system involved many people. I take my hat off to the local licensees who put the greater good of the community above their own business interests. They recognised they did not want to have to deal with, on their premises and outside their premises, and around the shops, parks and gardens, what we see when people are terribly intoxicated and unable to look after themselves: litter, and all of those awful things that go with alcohol abuse.
I want to make the point, because we seemed to have a semantic argument with the new government when it brought this up pre-election, that it is not supply. We are not talking about supply issues; it is about demand. Without a doubt it is supply, and I am not the only person who thinks that. In Central Australia there is a strong advocacy group led by Dr John Boffa, which also talks about the need to limit supply.
I also want to add that problem drinkers in my region are not exclusively Indigenous people. A sizeable non-Indigenous community makes up about half my electorate, and we have some people who are high income earners. Access to alcohol, people not short of money - it is a problem for both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community.
With knowledge of the success of the program in northeast Arnhem Land, I could see why the alcohol reforms under the Enough is Enough banner were being developed by the Labor government to deal with alcohol. I could see how it worked in the northeast Arnhem region. It was not a silver bullet for dealing with issues, but I have just pulled up on my screen a report prepared by the Menzies School of Health. Presented in March 2011, it provides an evaluation of how successful those alcohol measures were in the Gove region. It also highlights, during the time it has been in place, dramatic reductions in the number of people taken into police custody, the number of people presented at Gove hospital and in the number of calls to St John Ambulance. Also, around our town we do not see many people who have passed out under the influence of alcohol. We do not see the awful fights around our town shops. Occasionally, we do, but for the most part it is a very different place.
I can understand why Labor introduced the alcohol reforms. If we consider that the cost associated with alcohol misuse annually is around $642m - this also is in a report from the Menzies School of Health - $642m a year in the Northern Territory of taxpayers’ money which could be much better spent on health and wellbeing programs, in our schools and public housing. That $642m associated with the cost of alcohol is four times the national average. It is small wonder the Labor government had to put in some tough reforms.
We know they were not entirely popular at the time. Nor were they in Nhulunbuy, and it seems to be around the fact you had to have ID. People in Nhulunbuy now think nothing of going to the bottle shop to buy wine or a carton of beer and producing their driver’s licence. It comes as second nature. If I want to enter the Arnhem Club in Nhulunbuy, I have to swipe my ID to get through the door. I should add, that system sees that licensing venue in Nhulunbuy having fewer issues than any other licensed premise in Nhulunbuy.
The CLP, prior to the election, ran the campaign that the whole problem with the Banned Drinker Register - apart from the fact it thought it did not work - is that it penalised people. People who are responsible drinkers had nothing to fear, and the only cost to responsible drinkers was a few moments of their time. There is no cost associated with having to present ID as you make a purchase.
We also need to remember that when the very tough decisions were made to introduce these alcohol reforms - and the BDR was just one part of it - a number of very strong voices came out in support of it. I am looking at some previous notes when I spoke on this subject in parliament. We had the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, AMSANT, come out in strong support; the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition led by Dr John Boffa come out in support; Amity was in support; the Northern Territory Council of Social Service came out in support. That is just a few, and the same organisations are now speaking out publicly against the BDR being axed by the CLP government.
As has already been said by my colleagues, there is nothing in its place. The Banned Drinker Register has stopped. There is no shortage of stories in the media from people saying how things have changed since the BDR has gone; they have noticed drunk people, an increase in violence, an increase in people hanging around or passed out around the local shops. This is because, for a system which was working but was never given the time to effectively measure how successful it was - this is why it is so important to work with evidence-based policy - there is nothing, at the moment, to fill that void.
There has been a lack of communication and confusion for people about what this means. People in Nhulunbuy have approached me, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, saying, ‘I cannot believe they scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. We can see it works here. Does it mean it is being axed here as well?’ There was no communication to assure people in Nhulunbuy our local alcohol management plan would remain in place. One of the disappointing aspects is those people living around the Nhulunbuy region who were on the BDR, who had not been able to access alcohol from a takeaway liquor shop in Gove since 2008 - once the BDR was gone they could come back into Darwin. That was a source of much anxiety for people in my region.
When we talk about nothing there to fill the void, there is the promise of prisons. However, we are unsure if they are prisons or rehabilitation centres. I followed closely, as we all do, what was being said in the media and what members of parliament were saying. On 22 September, our Alcohol Policy minister was interviewed on the ABC. It was a little like not wanting to use the word ‘prison’. I will read some of the extracts. The minister said:
- These are sick people and they are treated as sick people and they are treated as people with an illness ...
... so they are put into, ah they are not treated as prisoners, they are not being punished, but they are being rehabilitated, and that’s the point about all of this ...
Then the interviewer asked:
- Dave Tollner, you talking about detained, okay where would they be detained, what conditions would they be detained under?
If I skip ahead, he said:
- Well, the fact is they are mandatorily detained. There won’t be any getting up and walking out the door.
The interviewer said:
- So you are talking prison, it’s a prison.
- Well [indistinguishable phrase]it’s a place of mandatory detention.
The interviewer said:
- A prison!
The minister replied:
- The point about an alcoholic ...
There is avoidance of wanting to use the word ‘prison’. The Health minister sidestepped away from that because he clearly did not have an answer on how this is going to work. We know an habitual drunks policy has been developed but, as members on this side have asked: are these people sick or are they criminals? I am pleased the Health minister recognised, on ABC radio, he is talking about sick people; however, if we are talking about prisons or mandatory detention, who is in there with these people? Are we talking about corrections officers, alcohol and other drugs professionals or health professionals?
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Then we had another turn of events in what we are trying to do with problem drinkers. I have in front of me the editorial from yesterday’s NT News. The Chief Minister quoted from an article in the NT News in his contribution to this debate, and mentioned questions raised by the NT News around the effectiveness of the Banned Drinker Register. However, I thought yesterday’s editorial was a classic and I want to read part of it:
- The Territory government’s desire to rid the streets of problem drunks – translation: long-grassers – is understandable.
But, disturbingly the emphasis seems to be more on ‘out of sight, out of mind’ than on tackling the root causes of chronic alcoholism.
- Minister for Health Dave Tollner says that the threat of compulsory rehabilitation will drive away the long-grassers:
‘If someone knows that they are going to be picked up and taken to somewhere they can’t drink, can’t smoke, can’t take drugs, hopefully they will leave that area and go and hide out in the scrub, go somewhere where they are not in the public eye,’ Mr Tollner says.
That is tantamount to saying: We don’t care what these lesser beings do as long as they do it somewhere that won’t trouble the rest of us.
What is missing - perhaps it will come out in the habitual drunks policy or the more we hear from the Minister for Indigenous Advancement - is how the CLP government is proposing to fix the problems in the bush in this four-year term.
There are some big issues out there, but in filling the void in peoples’ lives - let us say they go through this mandatory rehabilitation for three months - the door is unlocked after three months and they have not had a drink. What are they going to? What is missing in peoples’ lives to drive them to this sort of addiction, substance abuse and a life of misery not only for themselves, but for others around them? That probably goes to the bigger part of what is missing in this policy. The policy cannot sit on its own. It has to be across whole-of-government dealing with some deeply entrenched social issues we see in our communities and around the Northern Territory. Unless we deal with them, the extracts from the letter I read at the start from strong women at Yirrkala - these women will be writing this type of letter again, only the next one will be coming from places like the Tiwi Islands and our remote communities because of the prospect of the return of alcohol where people have already said they do not want it. That is where this debate will be going.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her insightful approach to a complicated issue.
One of the first speeches I made when I came to parliament related to the fact I went to Daly River in 1970 - people might think the grog problem is new. At Daly River in 1970 there were two pubs. One was Robbie’s Sand Bar, which probably gives you a brief description of what it looked like, and one was Fairweather’s pub at Daly River. Domestic violence was not called that in those days, it was plain old violence. I was 19 and had come straight from middle class Melbourne. I turned up at Daly River to grow vegetables and look after boys in the dormitory. It was an eye opener for me to see a man leaning over a woman with a steel bar, to turn up on Easter Sunday - we were singing hymns outside the church - to see a woman with her skull split down the centre, covered in blood.
I have said this before and find it hard to say even today, out of 30 boys I looked after in the dormitory half died under the age of 21, all because of alcohol. Things have not changed, and governments have not had the guts to change things because they are too closely associated with the alcohol industry in Australia, let alone the Northern Territory.
The difficult problems are too difficult. There is too much political concern that decisions made will be unpopular. The Banned Drinker Register is a classic example of that. I said during the debate on the Banned Drinker Register I did not think it would work because second and third supply would be its downfall; however, if governments did not have the guts to do something, unpopular as things might be, those governments would be condemned for that. The previous government should have been given adequate time to prove if the Banned Drinker Register was going to be successful.
We need to look further back than the recent debate on the Banned Drinker Register. I have listened to Central Australian politicians, and the member for Katherine, berating the previous government for the swipe card system in Alice Springs, Katherine and Nhulunbuy when people in Darwin did not have it. One can only presume the pressure on the previous government that all things were not equal in the Northern Territory got to it and it decided to apply it to the Darwin region and the rest of the Territory.
We have given it one year’s notice and the Attorney-General has shown us statistics which seem to have only come out after the decision was made - that is an aside. I also make the point, and have heard it mentioned several times, the government accused the previous government of hiding the statistics.
I want to remind the government that the CLP was part of the Council of Territory Cooperation when a motion was moved to lengthen the time between reporting statistics in relation to crime. In fact, it was Recommendation 5, which said the CTC recommends the minimum reporting time for crime statistics be reviewed to reduce the volatility in the numbers, especially when they are small, to assist in setting policy responses by government.
They were saying, statistically, figures were being distorted because in some places in the Northern Territory the numbers were so small you could make anything out of a change from month to month. I am unsure the previous government necessarily hid statistics. It agreed to the recommendations of that CTC report. That is why there was a change in the reporting of stats, which was supported by all sides of parliament.
In relation to the Banned Drinker Register, the government said, ‘that is it’, all over the Northern Territory. The member for Nhulunbuy has hit the nail on the head. Did anyone in government look at whether it was working in other communities? Nhulunbuy is a fairly closed community; everyone probably knows one another. Did it work well there? Did anyone do any research to see whether it was working in different locations? No, they made a decision based on what they thought one year’s statistics, mainly in the Darwin region, would prove - that it was not working. The government had made up its mind not because of stats, but because it was not politically popular. That is the real reason it was dropped.
I live right next to the pub, so I have a fair indication of what people think. Many people were quite surprised, after getting used to the swipe card system - many did not like it - the government did not let it run for longer. The longer you run a trial, the more chance you have of looking at trends. Twelve months in the Darwin region is not long considering how long it was running in Alice Springs. It had been running there for quite some time. How long has it been running in Nhulunbuy?
A member: Four-and-a-half years.
Mr WOOD: Did anyone see if it was effective in Nhulunbuy? If it was, would it not be good sense to keep it there? If the Banned Drinker ...
Mr Tollner: You heard from the member it was their alcohol management plan that worked.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Tollner: Listen to what she had to say.
Mr WOOD: Did you check to see whether it was effective in Nhulunbuy? You do not know.
The government has scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, and I had my doubts about it operating, but I would have liked longer term statistics to see if that was the case. The question now is: are those people still banned drinkers? If they are, how does someone know they are banned? Do you put photos on a wall in the pub and check people as they come in? What happens to banned drinkers today? I am asking some practical questions. Does the SMART Court still ban drinkers - the tribunal? What happens? Do those things still operate?
Mr Tollner: The point is, no drinker was banned.
Mr WOOD: You can answer later; I am asking those questions. What are the practical implications of scrapping the Banned Drinker Register and still having banned drinkers? Is there any point? I am simply saying there are some practical issues and it would be great to hear the government say, ‘We have scrapped it and these are the effects of the scrapping’.
In relation to the government’s preferred alternative to the Banned Drinker Register, mandatory rehabilitation, it was obvious the member for Port Darwin did not quite pick up on what I was talking about.
The problem I have with mandatory rehabilitation is you need reasons to put people in mandatory rehabilitation. From my point of view, it is a mixture of compassion and public safety.
If one looks at the Disability Services Act, one can see it is built into this type of service. I am not asking for people to be just taken off the street. If people have gone through the revolving door several times we should be looking at the Disability Services Act as a guide to what we might be able to do. For instance, this is the principle for treatment and care under the Disability Services Act:
- The following principles (the treatment and care principles) apply to the treatment and care of a person with a disability:
(b) if a restriction on the rights or opportunities of the person is necessary, the option chosen should be the option that is the least restrictive as is possible in the circumstances;
There is another clause relating more to cognitive disability, which this is all about.
If you go further, it talks about the meaning of criteria for involuntary treatment and care. It says:
- A person fulfils the criteria for involuntary treatment and care if:
In this case, it says if the person has a complex cognitive impairment. It goes on to say:
(d) the person is engaging in repetitive conduct of high risk behaviour likely to cause harm to himself or herself or to someone else; and.
(e) unless the person receives treatment and care in a secure care facility, the person:
(iii) is likely to suffer serious mental or physical deterioration; and
(f) the person has the capacity to benefit from goal-orientated therapeutic services in a secure care facility; and
(g) the person can participate in treatment and care in a secure care facility; and
(h) there is no less restrictive way of ensuring the person receives the treatment and care.
Number 6 – Meaning of treatment plan under Part 3 says:
(1) A treatment plan for a person with a disability is a document prepared by the CEO stating the services proposed to be provided for the person’s treatment and care on being admitted to a secure care centre.
The treatment plan has to go to a CEO and a decision is made as to whether that person should be admitted. It is not a case of criminalising anyone. It is saying this person has some problems and, if you go down the path of the Disability Services Act, you see there is compassion, but there is also a belief this person is sometimes a risk to society. If you read the act, it has all the qualifications and safeguards in it. This would be the better model than the prison system because you are then mixing people up who should not be in that system unless they have caused a violent act, injured someone or committed murder.
However, if it is just picking up people because they have been through the revolving door several times, you should not be using the correctional services process at all. This is basically saying being drunk is now a criminal offence. It might be the long way to get there, but it is one of the issues.
Going back to the Banned Drinker Register, we have spoken about statistical proof. That is fine, but did anyone talk to people like the member for Fannie Bay mentioned, like the letter in today’s paper which said:
- Within two weeks of abolition of the Banned Drinker Register, the amount of public drunkenness and general antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol increased significantly along the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek foreshores.
Once again it is common to see people staggering around, yelling, fighting, vomiting, urinating, sleeping under the public shelters and leaving rubbish wherever they happen to drop it.
There has always been an element of this behaviour in these areas.
While it is true that some people found a way around the BDR public drunkenness in the above areas it noticeably decreased while the BDR was in place. It cannot be all coincidence that it has suddenly increased again.
Has the government bothered to ask shopkeepers or landowners in areas which had persistent problems in relation to antisocial behaviour? You can deal with the statistics, but you also need to have a look for yourself. People were saying, anecdotally, it was working. It might not have got people off the grog, but it might have moved them from places they knew they were not going to get grog - to another park - and cause fewer problems. Did anyone check that? Did anyone ask people if they noticed a change after it had been in for 12 months?
I have not heard anybody say that is the case; it has been done purely on statistics from the Attorney-General. Whilst that might indicate over 12 months there was not much success, there may have been other ways this could have been evaluated besides the statistical approach.
The other issue discussed as part of the solution is the possible reintroduction into some communities of social clubs. I do not know where the idea of wet canteens came from; it is a Queensland term, perhaps a southern Territory term. It was always social clubs up our way. I do not have a philosophical disagreement with the idea of social clubs. Daly River had a social club. Br Howley set one up. In fact, to get people out of Fairweather’s pub he used to get invalid port - it caused invalidity – put it in the fridge to make it as cold as possible. Then, because that was one of the favourite drinks, he would get the men to sit around the community and drink it slowly, looking at it as a way of relaxing after a day’s work. Unfortunately, it did not work because down the road was the pub, and the only reason they really wanted to drink was to get drunk.
There have been attempts to make social clubs work. As far as I know, the social club at Daly River has finished because the community bought the pub. I was talking to Miriam Rose today about the pub and she said the problems are still there. They own the pub and still have problems.
We have been talking about these problems ever since I came to the Territory, so these problems have been going for 40-odd years. I have not seen any great changes. People have tried to bring in change. Many people have died; generations of young men especially, and women too.
Even though we say women are affected by abuse from men affected by alcohol through domestic violence, quite a few women are also affected by alcohol. You do not have to go far in this town to see that. The crying shame is no matter whether they are black or white, it is a waste of humanity. I saw people last night who have obviously had a hard time - the swollen eyebrows, the nose is not straight. You can see they are not that old but they are old, and their lives are disappearing. You wonder where and how you can turn these things around.
Social clubs, in theory, might be all right. Northern Territory senator, Nigel Scullion, does not agree. Marcia Langton, who a number of our Aboriginal members have thanked for her support, does not agree. Noel Pearson, who a number of new members have said is a great bloke, does not agree. Professor Peter d’Abbs, who has been around an awful long time, has also said we will have problems if we introduce alcohol into some of the communities.
I listened to the Chief Minister. He said the government is not going to rush this; it will be looked at over a long period of time.
Paul Toohey, who has been around a fair while in the Territory, has some interesting statements in an article. He is referring to the Chief Minister and Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland, and I quote:
They say the communities should decide - embrace the problem.
- But Aboriginal communities are not famous outposts of democracy. They are known to be run as fiefdoms by a powerful few, who could easily persuade a vote to go one way or the other. Lifting restrictions in communities is not dealing with the problem. It is about hiding our country’s problem by sending it bush.
Complaints by Aboriginal leaders that they are treated as second-class citizens by not being able to drink are perfectly reasonable. There is no reason why responsible people shouldn’t get individual drinking permits on communities.
Maybe that’s where it should start. But if certain communities were to say ‘yes’ to the wholesale lifting of alcohol restrictions, the governments of Mr Mills and Mr Newman had better make sure they back them up by giving them the full suite of measures needed to control drinking and to clean up afterwards: doctors, nurses, police, prisons and rehabs.
I agree with that because …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Paul Toohey raises an important issue. I have lived on Aboriginal communities and know powerful lobby groups, powerful people, can influence the way things happen. I have seen it in voting in local government, and I have seen it in other areas. I have seen it within my wife’s family, where the powerful, because they are powerful, are able to sway the opinions of others. I am sure the member for Daly would have seen it from time to time. Some people are able to win the argument not based on whether it is popular or logical, but because they have another reason. In this case, what Paul Toohey is saying is to lift the restrictions.
I hear our new members talking about the rights of Aboriginal people to have a greater say in the running of their communities, which is fine. However, as Paul Toohey said, you would have to ensure, when people are making decisions about whether there should be social clubs on their communities, much groundwork is done to ensure people are fully informed and not bullied or pressured into voting a certain way so any decision made was fair and reasonable.
The other community I worked in for quite some time was Bathurst Island. I went there in 1974; there was a club there then. They had a four can limit, which might have gone up to six cans. You might think that is a controlled social club; however, there were ways to get more than four or six cans of beers. You play cards and somebody goes home with 24 cans of beer and causes havoc. Many times people have said, ‘Let’s have a controlled drinking outlet in a community’. However, there are some clever people who know ways around it.
I asked Miriam-Rose today, ‘What happens? Are people banned from the Daly River pub?’ She said, ‘Yes, we can ban them, but then they hop in their car and one hour away is the Adelaide River Inn’. It is not easy; this is not a simple thing.
One of the problems is our society is too easy on the alcohol industry. When Ian Tuxworth was Chief Minister I was at Bathurst Island. I asked him to give us some money for anti-alcohol advertising. He gave us $3000 and we put together two video tapes. If I could find them they would be interesting. One had a bit of swearing because there were some blokes on the Vic Hotel balcony carrying on like they were all drunk, and a few words were said. At the time, Channel 8 would not play it because it said the words were offensive. I thought, ‘I hear worse on the movies; maybe there is pressure. They might be a bit scared to upset Swan or VB’. We made another video with a gentleman with a big stomach which was wobbling, making him sound as if he was unhealthy from drinking too much beer. They both played on television for a short period of time.
The reason we tried to do something that way was because we felt the influence of alcohol advertising, especially in Aboriginal communities, had a big influence on what Aboriginal people saw as the norm for drinking.
You might remember the XXXX advertisements. They go down the beach in a vehicle, open up the back of the vehicle and it is full of XXXX. The message is to drink it all. There is an overriding belief by the alcohol industry that advertising grog is successful because they do it all the time. They are not particularly worried about the effect of that on communities across Australia, especially remote communities. Perhaps people do not understand the subtlety of the advertisement and think it is the normal behaviour you would expect.
Other problems with alcohol should be looked at, as the member for Nhulunbuy said. I have mentioned advertising. There should be restrictions on advertising, but what causes people to drink? Is it lack of employment? Is it the welfare mentality? Is it overcrowding? Is it a perception there is no reason to live? If you have no reason to live, why not get drunk? Why not get on ganja? What are we doing in communities to make life better for people?
If we spent the same amount fixing up houses, providing jobs, getting kids to school, getting rid of welfare, we would have some chance to turn things around. People need a reason to live and, when they do not have one, many look to other ways of finding pleasure. One way is to get drunk. If there is no attempt to turn the things that cause problems with alcohol around, then we will not achieve anything, Banned Drink Register or not. That is trying to be a bandaid at a certain time in someone’s life, but if there is no early intervention telling people about the dangers of alcohol - that does not just apply to Aboriginal people - look at binge drinking, the alcopop industry. How many young people have a few wines before they go to town at 11 pm or midnight? I am not sure if Mitchell Street is much different to other places. If I asked the government to look at the Newcastle experiment and apply that to Mitchell Street I wonder what it would say. In Newcastle, pubs close at 1.30 am. They stay open internally, but once you move outside a pub at 1.30 am you cannot go to another pub. You cannot do a pub crawl after 1.30 am. You can stay in that pub until 3.30 am, but that is it.
That change, which was unpopular with the AHA, has decreased the amount of violence in the Newcastle CBD area considerably. It was supported by nurses, doctors, paramedics and the police. It was opposed by the AHA, the then New South Wales government, which only allowed the experiment in that area, and the present New South Wales government will not consider it elsewhere even though it has been proven to work.
Why? Because of the influence of the hotel industry. It is a very powerful lobby. You can see how difficult it is even talking about tobacco. How difficult is it when you have to attack the tobacco industry? We are dealing with big companies which have to accept a far bigger role in responsibility for what their product does. BP realised petrol sniffing was caused by unleaded fuel and took some responsibility - it produced Opal fuel. It tried to do something about it. It is time the alcohol industry did something to help people affected by alcohol. It might pay taxes through excise, but it needs to do more than that. That is the easy way. It needs to be hands on saying the industry has caused great suffering, especially in Indigenous communities, and needs to ask what it can do to reduce that suffering.
The industry cannot wipe its hands of what has happened in our communities, or the boys I used to know in the dormitory who died from alcohol. It has to take more responsibility rather than just promoting grog through sport or advertising. It is a problem in our society and will not go away with a feather duster approach. It needs tough decisions by government. Those decisions may be unpopular with the AHA but, if we are going to turn it around, we have to do something now.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader for bringing on this debate. It shows how out of touch the opposition is, and gives us the opportunity to explain some of our policy. For that, I am very thankful. I have listened to the debate so far and am somewhat bewildered. The question has been asked several times: why would you scrap the Banned Drinker Register before you put anything else in its place?
That was adequately answered by both the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General when they said it was not working. There were drunks everywhere. In many cases the situation had become worse. It was a costly exercise and was not working. What other motivation do you need to get rid of something? What else did we need in its place - another inconvenience, another great waste of money? No, nothing of the sort.
We need a good, thought-out policy and that is clearly what the government has in mind. What gets me about this whole debate is the lack of compassion the Labor Party has and, also, the member for Nelson, towards our local community. They seem to think it is okay to penalise the entire community for the actions of a few; to treat people who turn up to the bottle-o like criminals, demand ID and demand they have their driver’s licences scanned. They are not concerned at all about tourists who did not have a driver’s licence or other form of identification, and were not aware of the rules in the Northern Territory or the black mark that left in their minds. They were not concerned people felt they were being treated like criminals every time they walked into the bottle shop, and not concerned that people, after being treated like criminals, walked out of the bottle shop and saw drunks lying around the streets.
The lack of concern Labor has shown to local businesses concerns me, particularly businesses operating alcohol sales. These people had to put on more staff, reduce margins even further, and they had no say whatsoever in the introduction of the BDR.
The thing which concerns me most was the lack of compassion for the drunks on the street - people who clearly have illnesses, sickness, and addictions to alcohol. These people need treatment because they have lost control of their lives. They need to be taken off the streets and treated with dignity and respect, given the opportunity to dry out, to clean themselves up, and to reconnect with society and live decent lives.
The fact Labor managed to give someone a banning order 114 times shows no compassion for that person’s situation whatsoever. That person should have immediately been put into some form of mandatory rehabilitation. Clearly, Labor is not interested in dealing with problems; its only interest was dealing with its own self-preservation, and spinning some story to be seen to be doing something about a problem the whole community was aware of.
It concerns me that Labor members, who quite often say they are the great champions of Aboriginal society, do not seem to trust Aborigines to do anything. They do not trust Aborigines to handle grog, that is quite clear. They say, ‘Oh no, we cannot allow alcohol into this community or that community; they cannot be trusted’. I heard the member for Nelson say, ‘These communities are run by powerful men, you cannot trust them. The people are powerless to look after themselves because of powerful men who get their own way, and who will ride roughshod over an entire community’. The member for Nelson said Aborigines were particularly susceptible to television advertising, and we could not trust them because of the advertising on television about XXXX. He said it is particularly bad in Aboriginal communities because they take note of advertising and are more susceptible to what is on the television than most other Australians. I find repugnant the view that blacks cannot drink, which is the view which seems to emanate constantly from the opposition and the former Labor government. ‘We do not trust Aboriginals with grog - full stop’.
It might surprise the opposition to know there are now eight communities with social clubs. A further 22 communities have restricted access to alcohol. The idea is we ignore them. They are not allowed to have alcohol because we do not trust them. We do not think they can be trusted with alcohol.
At the same time, we talk about Aboriginal advancement in this House and the desire to have jobs and a better education. What about the communities that want to embark on tourist ventures? Some of the coastal communities might want a fishing lodge. The inland communities might want to do some nature-based tourism. Why should those communities not be able to have a restaurant for tourists, where they could sell tourists a glass of wine with their meal, or have a few beers after a long day trekking through the Australian bush or out catching barramundi? Why should those people not be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a meal? The only reason is because Labor does not trust blacks with alcohol; it is as simple as that. That is the line coming from the opposition all the way through.
The government has been quite clear about this. It recognises there is a problem with drunks on the street and in the parks in the Northern Territory and it wants to fix it. It is going to deal with the problem drunks themselves and, in the vast majority of cases, the problem drunks do not have the ability or the wit to deal with their personal issues themselves. As a result we have said, as a government, we will take on that personal responsibility and put them into a rehabilitation program.
Ms Lawrie: Lock them up.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the interjection, ‘Lock them up’. Of course they will be locked up. We will lock them up the same way we do mental patients unfit to plead - we put them in secure facilities. It is all right to put someone who does not have the ability to determine what is going on into a secure mental facility, but God help us if we put a drunk who has completely lost control of their life into a mandatory rehabilitation facility!
No, the opposition does not have that compassion. It would much rather see them out on the streets with 114 banning orders against their names still accessing alcohol, still creating havoc in the streets, still bashing women, still urinating on shopfronts and still creating all those social problems - ‘No, we have the Banned Drinker Register’.
The Opposition Leader says the previous government turned off the tap. No, you did not turn off any tap at all. Every alcoholic was still accessing alcohol and could walk into a pub where no one turned off the tap. I am sure the Member for Karama knows; I am sure she has been into a pub or two in her time. The only place you drink beer on tap is inside a pub. It did not matter who walked into a pub - if your name was on the Banned Drinker Register or not - you could still walk into a pub and be on tap with your name on that list. So, big deal, you never stopped anyone drinking. Now you have the audacity to say you were doing something. All you were doing was wasting money!
I listened to the member for Nhulunbuy say Nhulunbuy has not had a problem with alcohol for years. She did not put it down to the Banned Drinker Register; she put it down to the Nhulunbuy Alcohol management plan.
Nowhere has any member of government said we were going to get rid of alcohol management plans. The Nhulunbuy alcohol management plan will still exist, the Alice Springs liquor accord will still exist - no one is talking about scrapping that. Where local communities make local decisions about how they deal with alcohol, we will support those communities. Whilst those communities support the Nhulunbuy alcohol management plan, we will support it as well. Whilst the Alice Springs community supports the Alice Springs liquor accord we, as a government, will support that decision. We will continue to ensure all those measures that are in place and driven by the local community remain in place. No one is talking about scrapping them.
Labor asks when talking about remote communities, if this government is going to pour grog on the problem in remote communities? Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is suggesting we are going there now to do that.
We have said, right from the word go, the first thing we want to see is rehabilitation programs put in place so we can start treating the problem. Where a person voluntarily steps up to the plate and says ‘I want to be rehabilitated’, we want to ensure there is a strong sector and organisations ready to support them and help them get off the grog. We will be better resourcing those NGOs which currently provide those services. For people who have gone beyond that, who do not have the ability to make that type of decision and have lost all control of their lives except for the daily hunt for grog, we will deal with them as well. We will put them into mandatory rehabilitation and do everything in our power to get them off the grog. We will ensure when they come out of those rehabilitation facilities we have good transition mechanisms so they can get back to their communities, get a job, or do whatever it takes to operate in a decent manner in a civilised society. That is a far more compassionate way of dealing with the community, businesses and drunks than Labor’s plan.
Only when we have those measures in place will we look at allowing other places to change their alcohol plans. Some places want to get into the tourism industry. If they want a restaurant, providing the community is supportive of that and it is universally agreed, we will support their application or, at least, give it consideration. I know of communities in the Northern Territory who have had a number of their citizens killed on the roads while walking back to their community from a pub drunk, at night, in the middle of the road, hit by a road train.
In one community, I am aware four people have died in the last couple of years - hit by road trains. That community said, ‘Look, if we wanted to put a social club a bit closer to the community, somewhere where the people did not have to walk down the highway in order to get home, would the government consider it?’ My response to that was, ‘Providing we have in place a system to deal with problem drunks and providing the entire community was supportive of a management plan to ensure that club is properly managed and it does not lead to enormous social problems, we would consider it’. That is all I have said, all any member of government has said - we will consider it.
Unlike Labor, we believe individuals can make the right decisions for themselves. Whether they are black, white or brindle, it does not matter. We do not take the view that if you are black you are not allowed to drink. To me, that is a terribly racist way to think and a terribly paternalistic way to deal with people. To suggest, as the member for Nelson did, that we cannot trust Aborigines in remote communities because they cannot handle their grog, because powerful men roam communities and that they are often victims of television advertising, I find abhorrent. A man who says he has lived in remote communities and who says those things - even if you believe it, you do not say it publically.
The member for Nhulunbuy said alcohol costs the Northern Territory $642m a year. I do not know if that figure is correct or not. She also said it was four times the national average. I do not know if that is correct or not. She is pretty well on the mark. Alcohol does cost our community enormous amounts of money so anything we can save - as the Attorney-General said, if you take a mere 60 people off the street you reduce incarceration of drunk people by almost 20%.
They are the people this government is targeting - the problem, long-term street drunks. Clearly, alcoholism is a problem in our community; however, not all alcoholics affect our community the same way. There is probably not a bar in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs which does not have its fair share of alcoholics. Often, blokes will sit in the same chair in the same spot every day and not move. They will sit there and quietly drink away their lives, shuffle off home at night, and somewhere down the road will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money in health costs. Similarly, there are people who knock off from work every afternoon and buy a big cube and go home and drink it. They do it every afternoon, but they go home and drink quietly in their house, watch a bit of telly and go to bed.
Those problems we have to deal with as a community. No one is saying we should not be trying to deal with them as a community, but the real issue for our community at the moment - and listening to people on the streets whether you are in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs – they have had a gutful of problem drunks on the streets causing antisocial problems and carrying on in the worst possible way.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you Madam Speaker, thank you member for Barkly.
It is clear our problem street drunks policy is to target the problem, the drunks themselves, not the entire community. It is not to penalise the entire community, or make the entire community feel like a criminal every time someone goes to the bottle shop. That was the main reason for getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register and the fact it was a costly experience with no benefit whatsoever.
Our policy is compassionate. We understand that quite often problem street drunks have mental problems because of their excessive drinking and are not in a state to make rational decisions. We have said we will step in and assist those people to get off the grog. At least dry them out long enough for them to make a decision as to whether they will get off the grog. Quite clearly, it is a difficult thing. All forms of addiction are difficult to kick, I can vouch for that. I have an addiction of my own which I have been trying for years to deal with, without a great deal of success. I understand alcoholics with an addiction will have a great deal of difficulty kicking that habit. However, that does not stop us from at least having a go, trying to point them in the right direction and giving them some hope in life and some ability to make the decision they want to live a normal, decent life as a member of civilised society.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am compelled to make a contribution to this debate. I listened for some years to the member for Karama as Minister for Alcohol Policy in the previous Labor government. She kept making great statements in the House about people being turned off tap. I cannot let that go by again. I remind the opposition that its Banned Drinker Register only related to takeaway alcohol; it did not relate to bars. You do not find taps in takeaway alcohol outlets; you find taps in bars. The Banned Drinker Register did not stop people from going into bars for a drink. The terminology used by the then minister responsible was not ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I advise the House that we used to tap kegs in Armidale at the Rugby Union, and we drank takeaway out of taps regularly ...
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Please be seated, member for Barkly.
Mr STYLES: What happened at the rugby club the member for Barkly went to is not really relevant. I do not know of any takeaway liquor outlet in the Northern Territory which sells jugs of beer you can walk out of the premises with. My understanding of the Liquor Act is things have to be sealed. Under the 2 km law, if they are unsealed they are tipped out. I can see the rugby club having problems here walking down the street with a jug of beer from a keg. That is not right and not relevant to the argument.
Look at what the Banned Drinker Register did - I mentioned this in an earlier debate in this House. Dawn House issued figures on some of the problems the Banned Drinker Register caused. Apart from the fact it was not working, it said - in an article I do not have with me but I recall – it saw an increase in domestic violence of 7% which could be put down to the Banned Drinker Register. That wonderful organisation supports women and children with domestic violence and other issues. It says the pressure on those women and the domestic violence which occurred as a result of the Banned Drinker Register put their figures up 7%.
The figures we have suggest violent crime increased. There are a number of increases as a direct result of the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register. I was on the select committee for youth suicide. We were listening to evidence from people from the Tiwi Islands and there was a range of people. About 18 or 20 representatives came to Darwin to address the select committee. Some of that evidence gave an astounding figure. Not much stuns or amazes me these days; however, I was stunned and amazed when the experts engaged by the Tiwi people to put together statistics said 82% of people on the Tiwi Islands smoke marijuana. It is an appalling situation when you have 82% of the people on the Tiwi Islands smoking marijuana.
We asked why that was happening. We were told because of the banning of alcohol, people had shifted their addiction from one drug to another. Interestingly enough, that was supported by information I had from people in my electorate.
They advised me that since the introduction of the Banned Drinker Register, they had an increase in visitors to drug houses in one particular street in one suburb, and another suburb. I will not name the street - I do not want to identify the people concerned. They had spoken to police, they had spoken to me, and they were trying to fix the issue. When the Banned Drinker Register came in they saw an increase in visits to drug houses.
The police have since dealt with one drug house. However, the problem with the second example I referred to is once the Banned Drinker Register came in, the drug dealers thought it was a great marketing opportunity. They banned people from buying alcohol so they moved in to fill the gap. They drove the Commodore to the corner, people rang a mobile number and it was delivered. You do not need ice, you do not need an esky and you do not need refrigeration. You do not have to produce your driver’s licence, your password, you simply hand over the cash, people hand over the marijuana and you get smashed.
Also, some of the marijuana they are selling these days - the hydroponically grown stuff - is a far greater hit than the marijuana people may have smoked 10 years ago. It is up to 50 times more potent. When you read the stories of people who get onto marijuana, it is causing huge problems - personal health and community issues. Schizophrenia is on the rise and the medication is struggling to control it. You are destroying people’s lives.
Alcohol does the same thing. The Banned Drinker Register was not working because it was just shifting the problem. The member for Fong Lim mentioned addiction. Nicotine is about as addictive as heroin. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. Alcohol falls into the same category. They are very addictive substances.
When someone gives you a piece of paper saying, ‘This paper says you cannot drink’, and you are caught drinking again and they give you another bit of paper - I wish that worked because we could use that. We could go to the drug addicts saying, ‘You are not allowed to buy marijuana, you are not allowed to buy heroin’. ‘What about ecstasy?’ ‘You are not allowed to buy this.’ If pieces of paper worked all our problems would be solved.
How was the Banned Drinker Register going to work when you cannot enforce secondary supply? You cannot find out who is on the list because of privacy laws and regulations. It is not published so you are never going to have secondary supply as an offence. Although you made it an offence under the Liquor Act, trying to prove it would cause many problems. Pieces of paper simply do not work.
What works is putting these people into a rehab centre - take them out of circulation. I do not propose to go over that again. Speakers in this debate have already explained that fact. I do not understand how the opposition does not get it. It is still trying to peddle a system which does not work, which interfered with seniors, tourists and a whole range of things. Not only did you put the community through a great deal of expense, trouble and inconvenience, it did not work.
The alcohol management plan in Alice Springs commenced in 2008. When you talk to police officers there - I am going there in about another month’s time and hope to talk to some people and get a briefing. In 2012, they were locking up the same people they were locking up in 2008 even though they had alcohol management plans in place. When the Banned Drinker Register was introduced, the same people were going through the watch house.
How can these people convince us and everyone else that the scheme was successful? It was an abysmal failure and, sadly, there are still people suffering because the previous government did not put in place - people involved in the consumption of alcohol are the problem not the rest of the community.
The previous government had things in place which penalised the community and did not tackle the problem. We have to tackle the problem. It is going to be difficult, it is going to be hard. However, we are up for making the difficult and hard decisions without affecting business, slowing down business, slowing down tourists or slowing down everything. We will give these people some real rehabilitation and real training and, hopefully, we can fix it.
There may be a few who will not want to go to these places and may put themselves in a position where they are not located and not able to accept the help. However, many people are alcoholics. You have to visit some of the clubs to see them. They quietly have a drink - they seem to consume much alcohol. They do not drive home, they get a cab home, they walk home, they do not go home, they do not kick their dog, and they do not get involved in domestic violence. Yes, they probably do need some help and, if we can, we will help those people as well.
When you say a piece of paper is going to help them - that is about what it is. We know from previous speakers that people have been given more banning notices than I have had hot dinners in the last 10 years - it simply does not work. They are still locking up the same people who were alcoholics before the Banned Drinker Register was introduced, and those people are still showing up in the books and sobering-up shelters; it is simply a revolving door system. They are still getting hold of alcohol. They could still go into bars under your system, which I found quite amazing. If you are going to ban these people why not say you need it to go into a bar, not just takeaway alcohol’.
With the absence of successful prosecutions for secondary supply, I was told by police officers it was a joke. I am sure someone in closing debate will say, ‘Oh, yes, but the commissioner said it was the best tool they had’.
Mr Elferink: We are going to give police a better one.
Mr STYLES: That is right; we are going to give police a far better tool. All the police officers I have spoken to – I have not asked them for their comments, I simply asked what they thought but had no debate with them. They said, ‘It is fantastic, great’. They are looking forward to being able to give these people some real help and taking them out of the system.
The Treasurer in the previous Labor government said, as a result of the report into alcohol abuse, it cost us $672m per annum. That is a big chunk of the Territory budget. If we can get to the real problem, give these people some real rehab and save even 20% of that - that is a lot of money we will save and can put into rehabilitation if they are not drunk, not creating issues, bashing people, getting involved in domestic violence, ending up in our hospitals, clogging up accident and emergency and, of course, surgical units. I am told we have the second largest faciocranial reconstruction unit in the world in Darwin. Why? Because people are bashing each other half to death with all types of tools - bare hands, star pickets, bottles or sticks. It is a disgrace and we have to fix it.
When I hear the opposition say, ‘It is terrible; you are going to do this and that’, well, we are going to tackle the problem. If these people are in a rehabilitation centre for three months they are not drinking, they are not on the streets, they are not involved in domestic violence, not bashing people, not clogging up beds, not clogging up our theatres for reconstruction. There is a range of things they are not doing. They are getting some real job training in areas where they do not need a university degree. Many people do not have much of an education. We need places where we can offer people training and give them a second chance to have the life so many other Territorians are enjoying.
I ask the opposition to take into consideration some of the things said by this side or at least give it a go. Given the opposition’s did not work, perhaps it might like to support something which works and will make a real difference in our community, not only to the lives of people who suffer this terrible addiction, but also the people who have to put up with the mess that is left and the problems you have with people camping around shopping centres or people’s front yards.
I am sure the member for Fannie Bay has the same problems I have in my electorate when I doorknock and people say, ‘We have a nice garden in the front; we come out in the morning and have to clean up human filth’. You do not have to go far; simply go to CLP headquarters on McMillans Road - they have the problem there. Two days ago I was talking to the lady who runs it and she said, ‘Can you get something done about it? I have to get the pressure cleaner, fill it up with Pine O Cleen every morning, and clean away human filth’. Who was in government for the last 11 years? It was the current opposition. You did not fix it. We will. Madam Speaker, thank you.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this great debate. The motion has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition and it is very specific - condemning the removal of the Banned Drinker Register without any other effective strategies or plans.
The member for Fong Lim participated in the debate, had an extension of time, and has really been the key in outlining the CLP’s alternatives, ‘We’re gonna, we’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that. We’ve got a whiteboard exercise going and we’re gonna do this, then we’re gonna put them in compounds and we’ll find out the layers of chronic disease and renal conditions and mental illness. Then we’ll bring in all the specialists. Then we’re gonna let them out.’
The member from Sanderson said, ‘They’re gonna get a job, and we’re gonna train them in there too’.
It reminds me of the residential building insurance legislation. The CLP argued tooth and nail - it was a fantastic debate. I refused to support the legislation because it said to me, as Minister for Lands and Planning, ‘You are telling us to sign up to something we are not quite sure of. You have not told us what it’s going to do.’
The CLP is now telling the opposition, ‘Sign up; we’ve got the plan. We’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that, and we might do this and we might do that. We’re gonna do this.’ The sense of irony in this debate is brilliant. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing to this House some of the first tangible examples of what the CLP is ‘gonna do’ as an alternative.
In this debate the CLP is massaging statistics, and you have to be careful when you massage statistics. The Banned Drinker Register is one element of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform package. It is a package of reforms. The Banned Drinker Register was one tool and was cut in its infancy. Your statistics are infantile because the Banned Drinker Register was cut out twelve months after its implementation. The CLP, in this debate, is saying, ‘But what about the consequences? What were the consequences?’
As a resident of Tennant Creek, I was looking forward to the day a person reached the stage of going through the tribunal and the tribunal said, ‘You will do X, Y and Z’. If that person did not participate in that regulatory regime of conforming to X, Y and Z, they would go to the auto teller on payday, put their card in, and $60 would come out. They would come to my electorate office and scream, bellow and roar, ‘What’s the go here? There is only $60 in my account.’ I would say, ‘Sorry, you didn’t participate in the tribunal activities. You did not conform to the regulatory regimes. You are now on 80% income quarantining.’
Where I come from, problem drinkers drink in collectives. They use collective money to access large amounts of alcohol and they create big problems for themselves, their families and their community.
The BDR was part of the Enough is Enough reform which was rolling out but, unfortunately, a Northern Territory general election got in the way, cut the legs from under the Labor Party, and now the CLP is ‘gonna do this and gonna do that’.
I hope it gets on its ‘gonna’ pretty quick because it is like the Banned Drinker Register. It is talking about 12 months, perhaps longer. We will wait to see; however, in the meantime, there is nothing in its place, which is what this motion says. That is what it condemns. The lowest part of the debate so far has come from the Chief Minister, the member for Blain, when he looked at the member for Araluen and said, ‘Well, just imagine if we did not scrap it. The mob on the other side would come into this House and condemn us.’ Well, guess what? I bet your bottom dollar we would not have.
We would have applauded it as a brave and courageous move if you had left it in place while you took 12 to 18 months to develop your policy. We would have congratulated the CLP. The lowest part of the debate was where the Chief Minister said, ‘Oh, the Leader of the Opposition might question me in Question Time’.
One can imagine, because the CLP parliamentary wing has been performing Shakespeare for four years with the member for Blain playing Julius Caesar, the member for Fong Lim playing Brutus - you can understand why the guy is so nervous and paranoid. That is playing with Territory lives, and we are trying to get some sanity into the alcohol debate. The Enough is Enough package was thoroughly worked through, referenced by stakeholders and evidenced by the Menzies School of Health Research as trying something - move it forward.
I would like to benchmark my understanding of the problem drinker because that is where we were coming from. I grew up in a very crowded household with an uncle, aunt and cousins. Visitors coming to our house early in the morning would often see my father sitting at the breakfast table with a longneck of Tooheys Pilsner in a very good beer glass drinking. They may have assumed my father was a problem drinker; however, he had just finished 14 hours of night shift, had a couple of beers in the morning while we prepared breakfast and got ready to school, then he went to sleep all day and went to work all night. People might have assumed he was a problem drinker because he loved to have a beer at 7 am, but he was a shift worker and that was his pattern.
I would catch a bus from 37 Juno Parade, Greenacre to Lakemba Station, and I took great delight in going to the bus shelter - a bit of deviation before I went to school. In the bus shelter sat the metho drinkers. The metho drinkers were fascinating because not only did they give me a history lesson - many of them were war veterans. I remember a couple of these old boys were World War I war veterans and a couple were World War II. There were some mental illness patients, no doubt, and there was a couple of refos - your classic homeless person. They drank metho and I used to love sitting with them. I still remember vividly when they had their shot of metho the discussion really influenced me in many ways. I deduced that those guys were the problem drinkers; they definitely had a problem with alcohol.
That is what Enough is Enough went after. Our plan was going for the problem drinker, and we had to balance the debate out. When I arrived in Tennant Creek in the early 1980s, Tennant Creek through the 1970s and 1980s was the powerhouse of the Northern Territory. We produced more growth state product than Darwin, we had more registered businesses than Darwin, and the disposable income was phenomenal. You can imagine there was a great deal of alcohol consumed. At the time I first arrived, the place was rocking. Probably 20% of a population of 5500 people were Aboriginal, and they were living very much in a fringe nature in the town. I will never forget when I first started to explore what were called the black bars. It was pretty horrific stuff; it was a bloodbath.
With the alcohol debate and the struggle dealing with alcohol in the Territory I often ask my wife, who is a very good political commentator and does much research herself, ‘We are really struggling, have we got anywhere? It’s 10 steps forward and nine steps back’. She always says, ‘If you want a reference point, remember the blood on the street in Tennant Creek when those two pubs operated the uncontrolled environment known as the black bars’. That is a reference point for me because the local Indigenous community under Julalikari Council started to take control and participate in the alcohol debate. It went through an evolution of policy development as well. One of the things it did was first in Australia, if not the world – the Night Patrol.
It took a reactionary move to address the issues coming out of alcohol abuse in Tennant Creek, and it did a great job. It was a reactionary move and it removed people off the main street, out of harm, and tried to get them into safe environments and take them home. Then the sobering-up shelter developed in Tennant Creek. Then, of course, we went through the period of the grog wars. The grog wars were an interesting time because people coined Enough is Enough and decided on a method of prohibition. Prohibition turned into Thirsty Thursday. Thirsty Thursday was a day - the Indigenous community led it and said to Territorians, residents of Tennant Creek and beyond, ‘Join in with us. Let us all be part of a solution not the problem.’
I do not have any hang-ups about disadvantaging tourists or anybody else. I come from a community which said, ‘Let us all get into this and do it together’. Of course, you had complainers and whingers, and you had people who knocked it, but it was pure prohibition designed to have one day a week were families spent all the money on food and shopping and supported all those important aspects of family life and development.
That prohibition was exploited by the problem drinkers. They were so creative in the way they worked. I remember some of the brilliant ways the problem drinkers dealt with no takeaways on Thursday, the grog-free day. There was less humbug, there was more family shopping; there was a different vibration around the place. Some of the mainstream punters were complaining, but a culture of subversion grew around how to deal with Thirsty Thursday.
One of the classics was membership of clubs quadrupled overnight because people realised they could get takeaways from the club. That had to be changed.
The tavern licences were the best. You can get alcohol in Tennant Creek at 7.00 am as long as you purchase a substantial meal. When you witness the remnants of a bacon and egg sandwich on a table surrounded by empty green cans at 10 am - that was funny but not funny, as you can imagine. That was another way the problem drinkers took on the system and exploited it. The culture changed to, ‘We go to the roadhouse’, so they started to shift out and the roadhouses had to deal with the issue. Prohibition produced exploitation by whom? Not by the mainstream. We were still operating in the mainstream, people were still dealing with the grog in their own way, but that subversive culture, the problem drinker, kept pushing the envelope.
That is when Thirsty Thursday came to its end - the envelope had been pushed so far and wide. I was rather jaded about it all, as was much of the region, and we needed something new. I was fortunate enough to get into parliament and start to work with a Cabinet which was looking at a holistic approach that was fair, real, targeting the problem drinker and going somewhere I had never seen before, the point of sale.
My Cabinet and Caucus colleagues will testify I was a stick-in-the-mud. I debated because it was a good, healthy exercise done with real stakeholders in the Northern Territory not just politicians sitting around.
The member for Fong Lim asks where the motion goes - what is going to happen with your plans to roll the grog out. I can tell you stories until the cows come home, but let me pick up on two points from a maiden speech - a speech about vision. In her maiden speech, the member for Stuart said she had been influenced by Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton. These guys are academics, are Indigenous leaders, respected leaders, and I agree with the member for Stuart, they must be consulted. They need to be listened to in a CLP debate when you are going to take grog into the bush and start to spread the cheer around. Those leaders need to be listened to.
The other one was the member for Namatjira who, in her speech about vision, said something which really hit my heartstring - in real vision with Indigenous people you have to get away from talking to whitefellas and politicians and all the ya ya - you have to talk to the grannies. She is dead right. You have to talk to the grannies.
The member for Fannie Bay delivered a very important speech in this debate outlining the dysfunctional nature of different members with different responsibilities. You guys should pull all that together, really think about that and ensure you use those strategies important to Indigenous culture which were brought out in this House before any of these experts take you down a path which may make you feel a little insecure. Let me tell you, this is going to take some time.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform took a long time, much energy and much consultation. Without the BDR, there are 2500 problem drinkers. The old bus shelter, the metho drinker, they are back out there and are going to rock and roll for another 12 or 18 months, create havoc for themselves, their families and the community, while you guys are going through the process we already went through. It is important that is on the table because as all this chaos rolls out, you will get a better understanding of how important this is and how ‘we are gonna do this’ and ‘we are gonna do that’ is really just the whiteboard exercise. You need to move on from that to the next level.
What I did with Enough is Enough, as a local member, is take it on the road. One of the cohorts I love is the old people. I always go to the old people first. I show respect, I sit down and introduce myself, I start a conversation and then I listen. It is so important to listen. Normally, the conversation goes off into what I love the most - Territory history from an Indigenous perspective. It is fantastic. I have collected so much over the years.
I steer the debate back to Enough is Enough and a couple of things were coming through very clearly. The appreciation and valuing of getting ID, and we started to push that a little further to get a driver’s licence. Do not settle for the proof-of-age card. Do not settle for the Ochre Card, get a driver’s licence. Many of the older people started to celebrate the ID because it provided them with what the member for Fong Lim talks about - the right to purchase takeaway alcohol. They were sweet; they knew how to do it, they knew how to operate it.
I then shifted to the next level of debate, which was to be careful of secondary supply. If you buy for a banned drinker, the trouble the banned drinker gets into will follow you back. People started to debate that and started to talk about it in the region. It was about education and awareness of operating in a new system which definitely hit the point of supply, the point of sale, and then they could start to normalise their lives operating within the system.
The CLP used this as an election platform. It appealed to the mainstream Territory community and talked about how inconvenient it is and all the elements the member for Fong Lim provided in his debate. Those people bought it and we were very disappointed to see, on the second day - as if there is not enough to do as a new government - the word started to filter through the regions. It was like wildfire; it came down through the regions and local people I have known for more than half my life were asking, ‘Is it true, has it gone?’ I had to admit it was.
One of the sad points was when I was at a festival, a problem drinker I have known for a long time, now a senior lady, was drunk. She came to a really good family gig at the festival. She was drunk, and it was embarrassing for her and her family. You know the scene I am talking about. She congratulated me and said it was the best thing I had done. I said. ‘What was that?’ She said, ‘Scrapping the ID system - getting rid of the Banned Drinker Register.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I took this lady aside and said to her, ‘No, there is a big difference here. Our party did not do that. The new government has done that’. She felt it was a good thing. That problem drinker will now be in limbo while you guys do that important work - coming to terms with what you are going to do.
When you go down this road you will discover how complex it is, how challenging, and, in that limbo, I hope this old woman survives. She will hit it hard. She will go back into the bottle shops around Tennant Creek or roadhouses, no boots on and in whatever state, and access alcohol. Whereas, the BDR, as one element of the package, provided real frustration for that woman.
I can give you anecdotal evidence like we have been using in this debate - you guys have not come up with anything better other anecdotal evidence. If you want a semantic argument, or a statistical argument, we will argue it. We will take you on. I will bring in my sister, a mathematician, and she will cut your statistics up. I am not really good at statistics, but by jingo, she is. I will take your statistics and we will debate you every step of the way.
At the moment you are working on anecdotes. You are going to learn the hard way. Good luck to you! In the meantime, my old friend is back on the grog. She does not need any ID; she can get into the bottle shop and do her own thing. That is sad. I still have that conversation with her whenever I see her.
There are many other elements to this debate I have sketched out. There are some nasty ones, commenting on politicians’ egos and massaging the egos of the political nature of this game, the backslapping, hand slapping, and the good old boys. ‘We are going to do this’, and the nanny state debate which crept into this House before the election. We are going back to the Wild West - all that good old jive. I could go there, but I am going to flip that page over to move on. This debate is far too important.
We talk about asking the grannies, talking to the elders, and really consulting - the Chief Minister says he wants to have the conversation; it is imperative members of the CLP participate in this.
In this debate it would be remiss not to go to two final elements. One is the incredible work and the fortunate situation we have in Tennant Creek and the Barkly where we have a Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Project, operating out of the Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation. It is not happening in other places and we are promoting it. It ran out of funds, we got more funds, and Adele Gibson and a team of young Indigenous women are doing a fantastic job. The banner, Strong Baby, Strong Life, is really important work. The whole operation is based on education and awareness.
We talked about it in government and are talking about it in opposition. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a major issue for future generations of Territorians. The links coming out of the international research, particularly relating to foetal alcohol affected kids ending up in the corrections system, as youth suicide statistics, at the wrong end of the social spectrum, are really disturbing. There is no doubt that in the town of Tennant Creek we have a cohort of young people having children without awareness of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We need that as a high priority in this debate - not the debate about social clubs or making everyone feel good, and we are the bad guys because we cannot trust people, you are the good guys so you can. Forget that. If you really want to debate this stuff let us start to prioritise. If it is alcohol we are talking about and rehabilitation, the horse has bolted, mate. If we do not get foetal alcohol spectrum disorder right, we are in a world of pain for generations.
The member for Fong Lim tells us about the social issues in the street. That is one way to start to address the problem.
I have a media release from the Barkly shire signed off by respected leaders in our community - Barb Shaw, President of the Barkly Shire Council; Pat Brahim, General Manager Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation; Trevor Sanders, Anyinginyi Health Corporation CE. The heading is very simple, ‘Do our communities need grog?’ They are asking for something very simple and the Chief Minister is promising it in this debate. He is saying, ‘We are not going out there headlong into this stuff; we are going to have the conversation’. That is good to hear because these people want to be part of the conversation before there are any more cowboy antics, before any more, ‘We will scrap this, we are going to do this, and we are going to do that’. Let us settle this now, but let us always think of those children not born yet. Let us consider the young parents.
The member for Sanderson spoke about drugs and statistics he discovered from the Tiwi Islands. Those statistics are pretty common across the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about alcohol, we are talking about alcohol and other drugs - volatile substances. This is the real story. Let us not limit this debate, as the Chief Minister says, to the politics of it; let us talk about the people, let us get real.
The BDR was one element of a major reform in alcohol - the toughest reform the Territory has ever seen. It was too tough for the CLP - it scrapped it. It was too hard. It was disadvantaging the mainstream punter with a normalised lifestyle, going into a bottle shop not wanting to pull out a licence. I can get that; those are your values. That tough reform was trying to take on the challenge for the future.
The member for Nelson highlighted it - I love his history lessons and tonight’s history lesson was pretty tough - when he talked about Daly River in 1971. In 1977, I did some research in Walgett, where there was a wine saloon. I was a member of the RSL club, a member of the golf club, I went to the Imperial pub and the Oasis pub, but I had to check out this wine saloon. The member for Nelson revitalised my memory with his story of that social club, because that is where you bought port in seven ounce glasses. Let me tell you, they were not real social drinkers in that wine saloon; they were pretty hard core. They were the problem drinker the New South Wales government did not know what to do with. They were the problem drinker we had in the Territory when I first came here, and they sold port glass flagon bottles - you guys might remember that - and the destruction from a bottle, let alone the port. Then we went to 5 L, then to 4 L and then to 2 L.
At the end of the day, the point of sale was working because it was a tool we had in a package of tough reform that was evolving. However, let it be known in history, it had the legs cut from under it. It never had a chance to work, to put real statistics on the pad of the new Attorney-General - those real statistics mathematicians like my sister like to analyse over proper periods in research done with a proper ethical base. It had the legs cut from under it because of a political agenda and all you guys are part of it. As the Chief Minister said, let us all get back to the table and be part of it again.
When we talk about mandatory rehabilitation, let me in on the discussion because I would like to start back in the bus shelter with the World War I vets who sip metho.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of this motion. It is true, when the Banned Drinker Register was introduced by the former Labor government it did not see the instant effect it had on our community in our ongoing fight against alcohol and alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour. The day the BDR was introduced, we did not see an overnight change in our streets, parks, shops, footpaths or driveways. We did not wake up the morning the BDR was introduced and suddenly feel safer. No, the effect was gradual. Day by day, week by week, people doing wrong when under the influence of alcohol were being added to the Banned Drinker Register.
The BDR was denying people of all races and backgrounds legal access to grog and it was working. However, the day the CLP scrapped the BDR with nothing in place the effects were instant across the Territory, none more so than in my seat of Johnston.
Within days of the BDR being scrapped, I had members of the public asking me what the hell was going on. Regular users of the bus came into the office saying suddenly things had become really bad out the front of Rapid Creek shops and asked why it was happening. ‘The BDR was scrapped and you put nothing in its place.’ They said to me, ‘You should bring it back’. I said, ‘You should call the new Chief Minister, not me’.
It was not only the public hit by the drastic change in our community with the scrapping of the BDR, the police have certainly felt the brunt. In the first week without the BDR and during the setting up of my electorate office, the police informed me they had nonstop calls to the Rapid Creek Business Village because of antisocial behaviour and people fighting, many of whom were banned from grog under the Banned Drinker Register and were, overnight, back in the line at the bottle-o and back in our local parks.
When the BDR was in place it was the best tool the police had to deal with the problem of alcohol violence and antisocial behaviour. The decision to scrap it has meant the good men and women of our police force have had an enormous increase in dealing with alcohol-related violence, harm, and antisocial behaviour. Our hospital and emergency department has also been busier than ever with victims of alcohol-related violence.
The CLP needs to move into the real world and talk to the people affected by this reckless decision, the emergency departments, the police officers and the people who voted it in.
I invite the Chief Minister to talk to the people of Johnston, also the electorate of my fellow colleague, the member for Nightcliff - her constituents come to Rapid Creek Business Village where my office is located - and tell them the BDR did not work.
Local residents who come to the supermarket or Greenies, and members of the public who have access to many NGO services, can tell you many stories of witnessing an increase in alcohol and antisocial behaviour and fighting since the BDR was scrapped.
The other day I had a police officer come into my office looking for a woman who had been viciously assaulted in front of the shops. A member of the public had called police because of what they saw. The woman, apparently, had major head wounds and they could not find her. People are passed out on the footpaths, wander around the streets, or even passed out in the heat of the day in the garden bed in front of my office. We have not seen this confronting behaviour for a long time.
Scrapping the BDR has impacted on local businesses. From what I have seen so far, it is bad for the good people of Johnston in Millner, Moil, Coconut Grove and Jingili. The fundamental core of who I am is to help the most vulnerable people, people who need help, people who need a helping hand to overcome something bigger than them. This disease is killing people. The BDR was working, was a great tool, and needs to be reinstated.
We expect government to do what is right. Government is supposed to make decisions which protect its people. The CLP government removed the BDR, a measure that worked. Overnight we saw the change. The effect of scrapping the BDR was instant. Overnight we felt less safe.
This is irresponsible. It is a reckless decision by government and it is hurting all Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): We have had an interesting debate and you can see the very clear differences in the government’s position and the opposition position. I thank the member for Nelson for his comments because he tries to play the middle man role. The point, fundamentally, he was making was the BDR was part of a suite of tools aimed at ensuring there was an approach to harm minimisation - to reducing the harm alcohol inflicts on individuals, their families and the community. It may not be everything to everyone, and you can always pick flaws in any set of policy tools with a range of implementation; however, his fundamental point in supporting it was he could see it was an attempt to deal with the harm inflicted by alcohol across our community and our society.
The point the government continues to miss is, fundamentally, the opposition has recognised you went into the election with a commitment to scrap the BDR. That was your commitment and you won government, so we understand you were going to scrap the BDR. The fact you scrapped it before you had an alternative in place is what we find ludicrous. Chief Minister, you made the accusation that if you had not scrapped it immediately I would have attacked you as Leader of the Opposition. You are wrong. You are incredibly wrong on that.
From the day I heard it was scrapped I was calling for it to remain in place until you had an alternative in place. I did media on it, I made public comments on it, I made as many public announcements as I could. I consistently said, ‘Don’t scrap it until you have an alternative in place’. Knowing that, you had your policy view on the BDR - you were going to scrap it. That is your view. You are in government. However, scrapping it without the alternative in place means, as a community, we will suffer the harm from that for a year, for 18 months, for however long it takes for you to construct your legislative framework, your mandatory treatment facilities, and have the resources to fill those facilities with, you would hope, appropriately trained and qualified staff.
We are hearing it is all a little loose out there - there is nothing definitive. Nothing clearly definitive came through in the debate from the government. Where are these facilities? In the early days, we were hearing perhaps something would be set up around Ti Tree. I said, ‘Well, that will be interesting. What serviced land is available in Ti Tree? Where will the housing be for staff for the facility? What cost for a facility like that in Ti Tree? Where is the serviced land?’ We are hearing Katherine.
The previous government had funding in the forward estimates for a prison farm at Katherine to mirror the Barkly prison workers camp. Are you going to scrap that prison workers camp and turn it into a mandatory rehabilitation facility? We do not have any detail on that. However, a commencement date would be at least 18 months away if you were to start work right now to have those facilities constructed and running. There is the cost associated with that, let alone trying to source the trained rehabilitation workers. Consult with the organisations which currently provide institutionalised rehabilitation services across the Territory and you will discover how hard it is to attract qualified staff in the Territory to these centres. That is assuming, of course, that these truly are going to be rehabilitation centres and not prison camps. Again, these are only assumptions because the detail was not provided in the debate from government tonight.
These are questions people are genuinely seeking answers to. It will take some time to construct that detailed legislation. It will time to identify the resources, the location, the sourcing of staff, the provision of housing, unless you are going to source staff but not provide housing in these regional and remote communities.
That is still an unknown quantity; however, you add significant on-costs when looking at staff housing across the regional and remote centres. The point you missed in this debate is all this takes time. Whether it is a year, 18 months, two years, in the intervening period we have unfettered access to alcohol. The cheapest form of alcohol is takeaway.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The bully boys are back. They have to shout out, because they cannot handle the truth.
In the intervening period, we have unfettered access to takeaway alcohol for 2500 problem drinkers. They were on the Banned Drinker Register for a reason. Why was the Banned Drinker Register targeting point of sale at takeaway? It was doing that because 70% of grog consumed in the Territory is takeaway. The bulk of consumption is off premise. We went to the heart of the bulk of consumption - off premise. Any studies done around patterns and behaviour of drinkers in the Northern Territory show the greatest rate of violent incidents and antisocial behaviour incidents are off premise. The reforms went to the heart of where the bulk problem was and the bulk of the problem drinkers’ behaviour.
The point you also missed in the debate - a point very ably made by the member for Barkly - is statistics cannot be genuinely deconstructed until something has been in place for a few years. I know you will never take my word on anything, but have a conversation with a statistician. Chop a program at year one and you will never get to the bottom of the statistical argument. Anyone who understands statistics will say you have not run it for long enough.
The Chief Minister and the member for Port Darwin are very excited because they have identified four people on the Banned Drinker Register who were frequent flyers. Give us the history of the other 2496? What is happening in their lives? How are they flying? What is occurring with the others? You say, ‘How would we know because the government hid the statistics from us’. Not true! We tabled every quarter in parliament. I held media conferences on it. We would have statisticians and police available.
The Enough is Enough alcohol reform reports were every quarter. Contained within the reports every quarter was a detailed breakdown, a list of alcohol-related assaults, both DV and non-DV assaults across the Territory, broken down statistically across Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Nhulunbuy, and the balance of the rest of the Northern Territory. According to the government, the data was hidden. The data was provided on a quarterly basis in reports tabled in parliament, and debated publicly. I held media conferences every quarter. They would be alcohol-related assaults by both DV and non-DV categories. Lo and behold, turn to the other page of the so-called crime statistics we were hiding and you will see recorded assaults by alcohol involvement. Also, within the report were antisocial behaviour incidents. The reports were comprehensive, not that the government would recognise that because, according to the government, we hid all this data and information. We did not; we tabled it in parliament every quarter. We will put that furphy aside - inconvenient facts get in the way of spin.
If you go to page nine of this report, it would give you a pie chart - a breakdown of the type of BDR, the type of BAT notice, the type of court order, whether people were on their first, second or third. Going through, there were month-by-month breakdowns of the number of people being placed on the Banned Drinker Register. They would talk about the breakdowns in categories, whether they were infringements or protective custodies - protective custodies were running at about 54% of people being placed on the Banned Drinker Register - secondary supplies, DVO-related apprehensions and contraventions of orders. According to the government, none of this information was ever made available. I listened to this in the debate: the quarterly stats on alcohol-related assaults and alcohol-related incidents. Are these reports delivered every quarter, tabled in parliament and debated publicly? According to the government in debate tonight, this simply does not exist. The crime statistics were not provided to the public and were not debated.
It is extraordinary that you can bury your head in the sand to such an extent over the statistics. It is an inconvenient truth for you which gets in the way of your spin that we hid the statistics.
We heard the member for Nelson talking about the broader crime statistics which were turned into annual figures, in line with the rest of the reporting regime of our nation and a recommendation of the Council of Territory Cooperation, at a time when the CLP sat on it - there was no dissenting report around that. Why did it make that recommendation? They listened to the experts, the statisticians - and the member for Nelson made the point in his contribution to this debate.
Because we are such a small jurisdiction with such small numbers, we get weird anomalies in statistics unless you take them out to a broader range of time. Let us ignore that expert advice and the fact there was a CTC recommendation on it, because that would be an inconvenient truth for the government and its current spin.
The other inconvenient truth is the reality. I have been overwhelmed with the extent of support for the Banned Drinker Register since it was scrapped. I tell people it took me more than a year to work on a policy. I had to consult with a range of experts across the nation, analyse all the evaluations of our alcohol management plans done by Menzies School of Health Research, the plans which existed in Alice Springs, Katherine, Groote Eylandt, and the work we had done in Nhulunbuy in east Arnhem. Menzies School of Health Research performed many evaluations. We had to evaluate them and understand what was in them that showed signs of working.
We tested that evidence with experts within the Northern Territory, people like Dr John Boffa, also people in institutes who have spent their lives studying this stuff in Adelaide and Perth, and created some policy work around that, which was the basis of the Enough is Enough reform. We then tested that with the Police Commissioner, alcohol experts in the Territory, people who deliver alcohol rehabilitation programs, people who work in the court system - create the entire reforms not just the tool, which is what the BDR was but, of course, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, chaired by Michael O’Donnell, as well as the SMART Court, the rehabilitation system, and the ambulatory rehabilitation was set within it. Bear in mind, this was a $75m five-year program, a small skerrick of that in comparison - the $7m for the BDR tool. The rest was around the tribunal, the rehabilitation, the court system ...
A member: How many people did you rehabilitate? What chance did that ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... the bulking up of that was a phased implementation. We phased the implementation into the tribunal, into the SMART Court, because we had to hire clinicians to do assessments on people who were chronic alcoholics - all chopped off at its knees.
The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal did not even have the opportunity to use the powers it had through Commonwealth legislation coming into effect on 1 October, to quarantine welfare ...
Mr Elferink: We have not shut that component down.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Port Darwin says the government has not shut that component down. How are you doing referrals given you no longer have the BDR tool in place? Much explanation is necessary to the public about the hit and miss approach you are taking in the early days to tackle the scourge of alcohol in the community. You ignore the fact this had the support of the Australian Medical Association, and AMSANT, the Aboriginal medical provider association of the Northern Territory. It had the support of the police, the Law Society, the Bar Association. It was universally embraced by the legal fraternity. Any of us who have worked with the legal fraternity for long enough know it is pretty damn hard to get anything universally embraced by it. It universally embraced the reforms, police universally embraced the reforms, including the Police Association. If it was just the hierarchy, the Police Association would have soon told us we were off track. So would the health practitioners - doctors, nurses and people working across the rehab institutions. Again, it is an inconvenient truth for the government to look at the range of stakeholders who universally embraced these reforms when announced and as they were implemented and people continued to understand.
I have said to people in the weeks since it has been scrapped who have been complaining, that it took more than a year of extensive consultations, considerations and testing to create the reforms. It took a year, and throughout that year we were reporting quarterly. We had to defend the system, we had to explain how it worked and we were being attacked by the opposition. We had a year of having to defend something pretty new indeed, because it did not exist anywhere in Australia or the world.
That being said, that is what you expect with comprehensive new and innovative reform. It took about three days after its scrapping for everyone to really love it. The airwaves lit up across talkback shows in Darwin. It did not matter where I travelled - whether it was Alice Springs or Tennant Creek - it was the same message everywhere. People could see the drunks back on the streets and in the parks.
Mr Tollner: You took your rose-coloured glasses off, that is all! They were always there, Delia. You were telling us …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: You are such a clown, Dave. The takeaway bottle shops would say it became so bad they had to hire security because they were being inundated by the 2500 people who had been refused sale for that time.
You can joke and laugh on the other side, but I am looking forward to the quarterly crime statistics. I saw the crime statistics quarter on quarter and, across all the quarters, alcohol-related assaults were down in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs ,,,
Mr Elferink: What about assaults? Assaults were going up and up.
Ms LAWRIE: This was an alcohol reform, you clown. Alcohol-related assaults were down across Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. Tennant Creek had quarters where they were down and quarters where they were up. The police explained the quarters they were up were when they had undertaken particular task force approaches to domestic violence - a good thing. You take the up on domestic violence assaults in those quarters. Nhulunbuy was up through different quarters. The overall Territory result in the last quarter was the 5% you refer to, that was the Northern Territory balance. When you ask police what is occurring outside the urban areas they say, they have police stations and police there, they are pursuing the non-drop policy on things. Many of these things are an inconvenient truth for you.
Governments make mistakes early and you have made one. Good governments accept that. Get on with the job of putting safeguards back in place in our community. Reinstate the Banned Drinker Register until you have your own system in place. Everyone has seen the difference since it has been scrapped ...
Mr Elferink interjecting
Ms LAWRIE: You will continue to bury your head in the sand because it is an inconvenient truth for you, member for Port Darwin. That is your nature, but I hope there are other people with more maturity in this Chamber in government.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to inform the House about the heart-warming initiative of Good Shepherd Lutheran College Junior School in Gray and Senior School in Howard Springs some three years ago. On 19 October, I was at the Palmerston Markets and had the pleasure of speaking with Tara Errity, the Community Development Officer of Good Shepherd Lutheran College. She mentioned the school, that day, had raised over $4000 for its Pink Day. I learnt that Pink Day was initiated by college executives some three years ago upon receiving news that one of the secondary school teachers, Jodie Springhall, had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The college executive and students were so concerned by this alarming news they took it upon themselves to fight breast cancer in support of their beloved teacher.
Pink Day involves the students and teachers dressing up in pink at the cost of a gold coin donation. I am reliably informed the teachers have an unspoken competition for the best dressed on this special day. There are also pink cupcakes and iced donuts available for purchase throughout the day, and all money raised goes to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. Pink Day gathers more and more momentum each year and is an excellent example of students being proactive and responding to a real life situation in a meaningful way.
One in eight Australian women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. In 1994, when the National Breast Cancer Foundation began, 30% of women with breast cancer lost their lives to this disease. Just under 20 years on, that figure has halved. There is no doubt the money the students have raised will go a long way to help improve prevention, detection, and treatment of breast cancer.
I am very pleased to say Jodie Springhall has won her battle with this dreaded disease and is now in remission. She is about to commence a wonderful holiday around Australia. May she have a safe journey and forever live free from the clutches of this disease. May the school continue to have the courage to fight for matters of importance, and forever support its school community.
I also acknowledge the achievements of Gray Primary School for being the Northern Territory Impact Award winner in the 2012 National Australia Bank Schools First Awards. I am exceedingly proud of the school’s achievement as I attended Gray Primary School from 1989 to 1994 and have very fond memories of those primary school years.
Gray Primary School was the first school in Palmerston and has a highly multicultural student base with half the students being Indigenous. Principal Sue Beynon identified a need in the school community for holistic support of its families. Principal Beynon had the wisdom and foresight to initiate a partnership between the school and the Smith Family to increase support to her students and provide support to the families and broader community.
After 18 months of negotiation, Gray Primary School and the Smith Family began a partnership with its Families Learning Together program. The partnership now boasts eight member organisations, including Good Beginnings Australia, Somerville Community Services, Copal and Healthy Palmerston, FAST NT and YMCA Top End.
On 19 October 2012, I attended the presentation of the National Australia Bank Schools First Award which included a cheque for $60 000 to this school - an astonishing amount of money. I am informed this money will be swiftly but well spent by the school on 30 iPads for students, a leadership program for Year 5 and 6 students for 2013, parent engagement programs such as 123 Magic, reading and maths for parents to learn how to help their children, financial literacy, healthy eating programs, Families and Children Together programs, music programs, parent yarns, Strong Men - Strong Kids barbecues, amongst many other things.
At the award presentation, the school heard firsthand from two parents about the positive impact these programs had on their home life, their marriage, and their interaction and understanding of their children. It was truly heart-warming and inspiring to hear these stories, and they are a testament to the hard-working staff and vision of Gray Primary School.
Since the beginning of the partnership in 2006, Gray Primary School has seen marked increases in its attendance rates, particularly amongst its Indigenous students, which is significant because as I mentioned, half the students at Gray School identify as being Indigenous. Student behaviour has also improved and academic achievement enhanced.
I send my thanks to Sue Beynon for her initiative and foresight, to Kylie for her passion and commitment to the delivery of these programs and maintenance of the partnership relationships, and to the families and students of Gray Primary School for embracing the partnership and all the wonderful programs and friends that come with it.
I also thank the National Australia Bank for its generous support of our schools, and wish Gray Primary School the best of luck at the national finals on 7 November. I will wait with anticipation for the result.
Driver Primary School is a delightful school in the electorate of Drysdale. I must admit that, as a former netball player for Gray Primary School and Sacred Heart Primary School, I have always felt a healthy competitive flare with Driver Primary School as they had a fierce netball team which was very hard to beat. That sense of competition is well and truly behind me, particularly seeing it has been at least 15 years since I played netball.
On 5 September, Sherrida Edgecombe, a senior teacher and Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Coordinator at Driver Primary and acting Principal Leanne Kelson, who ordinarily is Principal of Moulden Park Primary in Blain, travelled to Sydney to accept the prestigious Life Education Australia Fifth Annual Gold Harold Award for the Outstanding School category. The awards recognise schools which have excelled in their contribution to the healthy development of children.
I remember all too fondly the Happy Healthy Harold van arriving at school and the anticipation of spending class time in the caravan learning about how the body works and healthy eating. Of course, there was the wonderful Harold puppet we all know and love.
There are a number of reasons why Driver Primary School took out this illustrious award. Driver Primary School has a kitchen garden which facilitates student education in propagating, growing, harvesting and cooking a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. The garden also has a small clutch of livestock including chickens, quails and ducks from which fresh eggs are collected and cooked daily. Lessons on the farm vary from what students refer to as the fun jobs - collecting the eggs and harvesting the food - to equally important jobs like sorting compost, digging holes and, of course, scientific theory. I really enjoy my time teaching students on Driver farm.
About four years ago, Driver Primary School converted from a model where the individual student had to pay for participation in the Happy Healthy Harold program to a system where the school funded the lessons. This initiative was driven by the school’s leadership team out of recognition that the user-pay model resulted in small class numbers, poor educational resources and a lack of integrated messaging across the school. The leadership team and Driver Primary School wanted every child to benefit from life education and have access to all the resources that come with it. This has made a profound difference on the messaging the school can now deliver in its curriculum and ensures no student is advantaged or disadvantaged over another.
The leadership team should be commended for this bold but critical decision for the betterment of its students. The leadership team made a decision which made more work for teachers and administrative staff and tougher budget management, but they did it because it was the right thing to do. They did not have to make this decision, but they did.
The Principal of Driver Primary School, Mr Robert Presswell, whom I have not yet had the privilege of meeting by virtue of circumstance, is said to be a truly inspirational leader in the Driver school community and has reinvigorated the delivery and diversity of the curriculum throughout the school.
In closing, I congratulate the teachers and staff at Driver Primary School who work hard every day to ensure our children receive the best education and opportunities in life.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a woman who recently passed away who did much work in the Daly River region. Helen Drummond was born on 2 September 1954 and died on Wednesday, 10 October 2012.
Helen was an elder twin to Ivan. She went from a Melbourne hospital to Nazareth House Children’s Home under the care of the Sisters of Nazareth. It was discovered the twin bond was so close they were never to be separated, a fact seen and implemented by Sister Agatha, Mother Superior of Nazareth House.
At the age of two, Helen and her twin brother Ivan were adopted by Claire and Gerald Drummond. The parents discovered the children had their own language which excluded the rest of the world. Suffice to say, this is not unusual when you hear stories about twins. They had their own learning, and they had special names other than Ivan and Helen. The family accepted the way they spoke and how they communicated with each other.
A condition of the adoption was they were both to return to the Nazareth House, Sebastopol, near Ballarat, for one day each year until they were 13 years old. On those days, they would meet Mother Superior with their parents, and play with the other children, numbering from 50 to 100, before returning home to Glen Waverley. Helen was concerned for her future from a very early age and she was aware boys had it easier in life than girls. She tried hard to rely on herself to be self-sufficient in things which would make her happy. Helen loved reading, and did so quietly and consistently throughout her teenage years in a stable home environment.
She was an accomplished Irish dancer, winning several awards with her skills. She was, from an early age, concerned for the justice and welfare of those she had contact with. She developed a pride in those around her, and was intentionally selfless to their benefit. Aged 17 in 1971, Helen was one of only two girls who graduated with distinctions, majoring in the following areas: commercial principles, accountancy, economics, shorthand and typing. She went on to win a Diploma in Secretarial Studies.
In the years 1972-73, her first job was receptionist and clerical assistant to the Secretary of the Electrical Contractors Federation of Victoria. In 1973, at the young age of 18, and from Melbourne, she left home to become a lay missionary at Daly River Mission. That would certainly have been a major change in her life, going from southern Victoria to Daly River Mission. For the next six years, she was given a stipend of $45.50 per week to live on, which she saved to buy an annual airfare and presents for her family when she returned home.
During the time she was in office administration, she was a Commonwealth Bank agent, wages and accounts clerk, and obtained success in providing annual audits for five companies’ sets of books including: the Nauiyu Nambiyu Community Government Council and Merrepen Arts, the women of which she assisted in its establishment, which continues to this day. She also helped the local housing association, which constructs better and better housing developments and public facilities. She also did the books and helped with the local store and the Nauiyu Club.
After six years of work in the Daly River area, Helen returned to Melbourne to work at the CSIRO for one year, but was asked to return to the Daly. She returned to the Daly River Mission community for her seventh year on the condition she earn a real wage. In those days, the isolation of community life meant life was pretty basic - no TV and only one radio receiver telephone in the office, which meant the signal was relayed to Darwin with voice-activated switching with each person saying, ‘Over’ ‘Roger’, ‘Over and out’, and open air projection of films flown in each week as entertainment.
Survival in an Aboriginal community meant she had to deal with the cultural shock of bush life with a foreign language, tribal ways and beliefs, and communications in pigeon English with the Nauiyu Nambiyu people of Nungi Kurrunggurr - the deep green river, I believe - Daly River. While she was in the Daly River area, she would go lagoon hunting and foraging with the women and children in the early days and played netball and tennis. She was given an Aboriginal name Umuquorn. Helen went out on night patrols in the ranger’s boats on many occasions looking for crocodiles to spot, count, capture and tag. It was a life of adventure for a young girl from the Melbourne area.
She worked there until the end of 1988, during which time she became godmother to many children in the community. On one occasion, the women told her she would never drown, she was unable to sink. Some of these words are from the eulogy her brother delivered at the funeral.
By the time Helen left the community she had the respect of many people, especially from businesses and organisations in Darwin. She met with the women of the Daly River community to establish a women’s centre, found the funding for it and the staff to help develop their own skill sets in the arts. She was always aware of their dignity and need to come to the fore in self-confidence at their own pace. Her rsum declares her role working for Nauiyu Nambiyu Community Government Council between 1980 and 1988 as office manager, and eventually council clerk or, as it was probably known, town clerk. Her brother was of the view she was probably one of the first white women to be town clerk in an Aboriginal community.
After Helen left Daly River she worked at mission headquarters in Geranium Street, Stuart Park, with Br Andy Howley to establish the Alcohol and Family Recovery Unit, which included services to the wider suburban community with the aim of excluding no one who needed such counselling. As an incorporated body, it was for the development of Aboriginal and islander communities. This was only possible by the help of Bishops of Australia donating enough funds and a stipend for Br Howley, and wages for Helen for one year to get the program up and running.
In 1997, Helen’s parents moved to Darwin continuing their retirement and working and assisting Helen in her work. There was always a very unassuming way she went about her business.
By this time, Helen regarded herself as having among her personal attributes an excellent knowledge of local tribes, their homelands southwest of Darwin and good rapport with the leaders of these communities - the Port Keats, Wadeye, Melville Island, Bathurst Island and wider Daly River region.
During her life’s course she came to know people well. She was proud but not boastful. She also worked for the electoral office, became a Justice of the Peace, was registrar for the Northern Territory Justices Association, and continued learning skills as she went through life. She also assisted the court system, sitting in judgment in minor cases to ease the pressure within the system.
She was elected to be the Australasian Registrar of Justices of the Peace by delegates in Canberra, and she would have been in New Zealand at the time of her death. Her mind worked to the very end although her body was starting to fade on her.
One area of great interest and love was her dogs. She was well-known and well-loved in dog showing circles. She had standard schnauzers at one stage and papillons. I believe she also had cocker spaniels. I knew Helen well. She did very well in the show ring and was very kind and caring with all her animals.
In the last years, her health deteriorated but her mind never went. One of the things she was always concerned about to the very end was the welfare of her twin brother. She wanted to ensure all personal debts were erased so he did not have to worry when she was not there. Ivan was her twin brother and her rock. He cared for her to the very end. She passed away in the Palliative Care Unit at Royal Darwin Hospital.
One of the other areas of her life not many people knew about was that she belonged to the social group of women I belong to. It is nothing clandestine or like Emily’s list; quite the contrary. We went out to local restaurants and ate, drank, told bad jokes, chased men and then went home slightly intoxicated. Helen, being the kind of person she was and her background as a lay missionary, did the eating and drinking but not the chasing of the men or drinking to the early hours of the morning.
She will be sadly missed by Ivan, her sisters, and her extended family. I extend my greatest sympathies to them.
When you go to funerals and meet other people, it is sad to discover things you did not know when people were alive. None of my family or friends knew Helen was a twin. We did not know about her lay missionary work at Daly River or the Tiwi Islands. She was a quiet achiever whose life came to an end far too soon.
One of the last quotes from Ivan was that he believes her greatest disappointment in life was the divisive destructiveness of self-interest shown by others which could, and did, lead to some of the undoing of her good work with Aboriginal communities and through the Catholic Mission work. I say to Ivan, his sisters and his family, my sincere condolences and may she rest in peace.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was recently at a Bar Association dinner. During that time I became aware the newest senior counsel for the Northern Territory is a gentleman by the name of Ian Read.
As Attorney-General, it is worth introducing these people to members in this House because it demonstrates the quality and depth of people we have in the profession in the Northern Territory.
Mr Ian Read SC was admitted in Victoria in 1989. He has worked almost exclusively as an advocate ever since. He commenced working for Galbally & O’Bryan as a solicitor/advocate in the criminal jurisdiction. Mr Read SC joined the Victorian Bar in 1994 and read with John Rush QC and Michael Colbran QC, practised largely in the original and appellate criminal jurisdiction for defence and prosecutions, but also in civil and commercial fields. He went to Kiribati in 1998 with AusAID in a capacity-building role, holding an in-line advisory position with the national government whilst in Kiribati. Ian appeared before Sir Harry Gibbs and Lord Cook, now both deceased, in the Kiribati Court of Appeal. When I say he appeared there, I presume practising law rather than as a defendant.
He came to Darwin in 2000 and worked briefly in a policy unit in the Department of Justice then went to the Legal Aid Commission. He has practised predominantly in the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, and has appeared in the High Court. He has participated in community and professional activities, including advocacy and training workshops. His father was a country court judge in Victoria and his grandfather was chair of the District Court of Victoria. Clearly, it is a genetic problem in his family. He is married to Ngalmi, a Kiribati woman.
I want to place on the record my congratulations to Ian Read SC for his elevation. As Attorney-General I would like to acknowledge when I can these elevations. It is necessary that people in this House know who is in the profession and who is being advanced. Whilst we live in separate domains - those of us in parliament and those who practise in the courts – it, nevertheless, does us well to acknowledge each other and each other’s achievements. There will be times when we cross swords with people in the profession, times when the people and the profession agree with us in this House, but whatever the case, it is necessary and right to acknowledge positive things. The elevation of Ian Read is a very positive thing.
I also wish to mention a meeting I had with Mark Spain and Margaret Michaels of Clayton Utz, Darwin. In 1996, the well-known Darwin law firm of Phillip & Mitaros became Clayton Utz in a period of rapid expansion for the national, dare I say global, firm. The firm is based in Lindsay Street, Darwin and has three partners and a number of lawyers.
The first partner in charge, Mark Spain, has a long history of involvement in complex Northern Territory litigation. He was the youngest partner in charge of a Clayton Utz office. The other partners of the Darwin office are Margaret Michaels and, more recently, Polat Siva. It is worth noting, on 16 August this year, the office of Clayton Utz won the best law firm in Darwin award at the Euromoney LMG Australasia Women in Business Law Awards 2012 in Sydney.
I will be reporting to this House on my meetings with law firms large and small, individual lawyers, and other people within the judiciary and within the profession from time to time to demonstrate a promise I made to the profession: I will take an active interest in what happens in the profession and an active approach in demonstrating the profession means something to the Northern Territory government.
I would like to place on the record I have met, on numerous occasions, with the Chief Justice as well as having met with the Chief Magistrate on a number of occasions. I have toured both the court houses in Darwin, and toured the court house in Alice Springs to look at the specific problems each of these court houses have.
I thank the Chief Justice for his open and accommodating ways. I thank the Chief Magistrate for her openness and accommodation of my inquires from time to time. I will continue to report to this House about the meetings I have with various firms and speak of the profession I represent in this House.
As Attorney-General, I am and always will be mindful of the unique role this ministry has. Members may be unaware of this, but in England the Attorney-General is a champion of the judiciary, not a member of Cabinet. Being a Cabinet minister and Attorney-General may occasionally place you on the horns of a dilemma. That is considered so serious in the United Kingdom that the Attorney-General is not a member of Cabinet. However, in Australia, the practice is different and one has to navigate these difficulties from time to time as both a Cabinet minister and Attorney-General. I place on the record that I take my role very seriously and will be a voice for the courts when they are unable to be a voice for themselves.
I draw honourable members’ attention to another astounding practitioner in Darwin, a lady by the name of Raelene Webb QC, who I met recently in my office. She is a barrister at Magayamirr Chambers, Darwin, was first admitted in the Northern Territory in 1992 and studied at the University of Queensland where she obtained her law degree. She also has a Bachelor of Science with honours from the University of Adelaide; clearly a talented woman with a broad capacity. She has made her career in law and commenced as an associate to Justice Carney of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. She commenced work with the then Northern Territory Department of Law. In 1994, she was appointed crown counsel and has practised as a barrister since this time, appearing in a wide range of matters, tribunals, courts and has also appeared in the High Court. In March 1999, she moved to the private bar and has since acted as lead counsel on a number of matters before being appointed Queen’s Counsel on 17 September 2004.
Ms Webb QC is the current president of the Northern Territory Bar Association. I had an opportunity to go to the Northern Territory Bar Association and Miss Webb QC indicated this would be her last tenure as the head. Nevertheless, she is a remarkable woman whose passion shines through the work she does. I enjoyed meeting her very much.
I wanted, once again, to alert members of this House to the fine people we have working in the profession in the Northern Territory and the depth of talent we have. I thank honourable members for their attention and am certain all honourable members will agree that people like Raelene Webb QC are fine representatives of the profession in the Northern Territory and we are lucky to have them.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister for Tourism prides himself on his history as a shock jock on Alice Springs radio. He is now bringing that management style to his Tourism portfolio. The minister wants to pass legislation on urgency to establish a new tourism commission. The minister wants opposition support for ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Anticipation of debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister wants the opposition’s support for this; however, his office will not brief me on the legislation until after he has brought this to parliament. What is the urgency? Why the secrecy? More importantly, this legislation and his future tourism decision-making will impact on hundreds of Territory businesses. Has the minister discussed his legislation with them and taken on board any of their suggestions? How will the proposed tourism commission and transfer of tourism leadership to Alice Springs help us tap into the emerging tourism markets in China and India? These markets should be a key focus of our future plans. Indigenous tourism is one of the best tourism assets. Sadly, support for one of our most exciting and Territory-specific sectors, Indigenous tourism, is about to be take a big hit in funds under the new arrangements.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 68 - Anticipation of Subject:
No member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided that in determining whether a discussion is or is not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter being anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.
Madam SPEAKER: One minute, I will seek some advice.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you for that ruling, Madam Speaker. I am a bit confused, but will see where we go.
Mr Elferink: If I may assist, Madam Speaker, I realise the member is probably unaware of it. It is a specific rule in relation to debates on the Notice Paper. Of course, we will make accommodations. We do not expect you to be across all the rules on Day 1. The Speaker will give you a certain amount of latitude, I imagine, for what you want to say. However, you cannot really have the debate before the debate is going to be had - that seems to be the thing. From the government’s point of view, we will not make a song and dance about it, but it is a rule. Perhaps if this is being done on your behalf, some thought should be given to the rules.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, the legislation pertaining to the relocation of tourism operations to Alice Springs is on the Notice Paper for debate. Standing Order 68 says you cannot talk about it because it is on the Notice Paper. However, you can talk in general terms about the matter - your views in regard to government policy or comments it has made publicly about it, for example.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will do my best to get through this in general terms without entering into the debate I am going to have very soon. I am concerned about tourism; it is our highest priority in the Northern Territory. I was listening to the minister for Tourism yesterday talk about the Dreaming side of tourism. It is a major strategy around an important issue for us.
I ask the minister to come clean on the tourism vision for Territory tourism and his personal priorities. I am proud to be the shadow for Tourism. I will shadow him in everything he does and ensure he spends taxpayers’ money wisely. I will advocate as strongly as I can for hard-working Territorians proudly investing in and developing a strong tourism industry.
Regarding the minister for Tourism’s comments yesterday, he should take a deep breath, focus on working with the people whose industry he is playing with and we can debate the merits of his legislation in the November sittings of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you for your general leeway there.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the general election 2012 in the Northern Territory and one of the suspicions confirmed today by the member for Braitling in Question Time. It was predictable from the member for Braitling because he is a new minister and was hit with a very direct question. Instead of answering the question or taking it on notice, he chose a vindictive and personal attack. In that vindictive and personal attack - which we have become used to from the member for Braitling in this House in opposition and, now, it looks like in government as a minister of the Crown - he said, ‘he did not get’ me - one of his big disappointments when he woke up on Sunday morning after the election was he did not ‘get’ the member for Barkly.
It confirmed a bit of a suspicion because I have been around the backblocks with mobile polling and supporting local Labor candidates for a long time. I discussed with my campaign team, constituents, and Caucus the nature of the campaign run in the bush in 2012. It was very different; very strategic, very targeted by the CLP, and washed with cash. I have never seen so much money change hands in bush campaigning. And the gifts; the gifts that changed hands were incredible.
The member for Braitling probably wants to take the advice I gave the CLP candidate for Barkly. It is very simple, ‘Examine your conscience and question the advice you are given in your campaign’ ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I listened to the member very carefully and am concerned he is making allegations of a criminal nature against a member in this House. If he is going to suggest that gifts and cash were given away in exchange for votes during a campaign, he can do it by way of substantive motion or report it to the police.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. No, I did not interpret it that way. He was talking in general terms.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When you talk about examining your conscience, the member for Port Darwin can examine his conscience.
I am telling the story, and it is a historical story relating to the confirmed suspicion that the member for Braitling outlined quite a vindictive line where he wanted to ‘get’ the member for Barkly. Well, the member for Barkly was re-elected as a Labor member. The campaign was very different and I will share one story about why, in an historical context.
As a Labor government, we worked hard to nail the growth town policy to look at closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and real work around this pragmatic move forward in policy and resources. We worked side by side with the Commonwealth government. That involved achieving very difficult, very controversial and hard-working outcomes in the Stronger Futures package. It also related to the development of the Labor government’s homelands policy. That was packaged up and provided a 10-year story of real Indigenous development across the Northern Territory.
I was particularly pleased with the outcome in the homelands policy. Not only did we keep the Commonwealth government at the table - it was walking away from homelands in the Northern Territory – but the Northern Territory Labor government, through much strategic work from the Treasurer, laid significant resources on the table to complement the Commonwealth’s resources. This was a great story for homelands for the next 10 years to complement the Stronger Futures package.
There is a little outstation 80 km south of Tennant Creek which I have visited over the period of my time from 2008 to 2012. I know the place well. There were significant problems relating to service delivery from the local resource centre. I just could not break through. Simple things were happening which I could not break through.
One of the things the Labor government came up with in the new homelands policy was to start to drive new initiatives to work with the Aboriginal resource centres, to really work on accountability and partnerships, and work together to solve the problem. It had turned into, basically, the local member visiting and discussing issues and not being able to get those issues resolved. It became pretty well ‘blame me’ and ‘blame the government’. That is straightforward; however, there were many other issues in this story. It became quite frustrating. I was very happy with the outcome of the homeland policy development and the work we had done with the Commonwealth government around the Stronger Futures and I told that 10-year story.
We had also develoed, for the first time, the Regional Integrated Transport Strategy in the bush. I was talking to people who were a little more isolated, a little more difficult, about how we could present new passenger freight models to the Labor government should we be re-elected and start to push the boundaries on that Regional Integrated Transport Strategy. We were doing great work, and I am sure the Labor government was ready to entertain more innovative moves into transport in the bush. These places could have been great pilot studies.
The local candidate for the CLP crafted a strategy as I had shared my dream of a passenger freight model with a couple of public servants who were members of the Country Liberal Party. They visited my office in Darwin and I openly shared my thoughts. They took those thoughts away, fed them to the CLP and crafted their strategies. It culminated in, for this particular outstation, free buses being provided. People were bussed into town and given accommodation at the Eldorado Motor Inn with meals and so forth, then bussed into mobile polling booths - first pre-polls, and then on the Saturday morning static in Tennant Creek. The bus service was very effective and moved many Indigenous constituents straight to the ballot box after experiencing wonderful hospitality. It was amazing to see this change, historically, in how the CLP decided it was doing business.
This is when I started to think the CLP was different. The member for Braitling really summed it up for me in Question Time when he hit me with that very vindictive comment, ‘We did not get you, but you are still on our list. We are going to get you.’
When I think back on it now, the advice is to examine your conscience and really question your campaign advice. I do not have time to tell you some of the funny stories about people, great friends of mine over many years, who ended up on those buses and in front of a Labor camp at both the pre-poll and the static on the Saturday and some of the hilarious things that happened. My Alyawarra came back so well after going toe-to-toe with a very hostile booth at Alpurrurulam with a gentlemen by the name of Lindsay Bookie. It was fantastic, all my Alyawarra started to come back. By Saturday morning in Tennant Creek I had an increased vocabulary and was able to communicate with those constituents who found themselves on the bus with the promises they were made and the whole strategy about coming in and voting for the CLP.
At the end of the day, my campaign team, who were absolutely fabulous, were getting rather concerned with this strategy and with the busloads coming in one after the other. I said, ‘Look guys, let’s face it, we are the Labor Party. If we go down today we will go down with dignity. Now, hold your nerve, stand up straight and look people in the eye and tell our story, which is the 10-year story of really addressing Indigenous disadvantage, straightening some of the systems, and delivering for Indigenous people in the regional and remotes.’
To cut a long story short, here I am back in this parliament representing the people of the Barkly for another term, in opposition. I am a proud member of parliament, representing a place in which I have spent more than half my life.
Member for Braitling, thank you for the honesty in your emotion today in Question Time confirming my suspicion. You can be assured, I am on your tail with honesty and integrity and we will hold you to account, and your government, every day every step of the way. I look forward to, once again, teaching you, young fella. If you choose to learn the easy way, good on you; if you choose to learn the hard way, whatever it takes.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016