2015-06-16
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the lovely students from Year 5/6 at St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary School in Humpty Doo. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 30 April 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House, and I thank his office for recently providing me with a briefing on the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill. Most of that briefing was spent discussing the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill, which we will be debating after this. During that briefing a fraction of the time was spent on this bill because whilst it is very technical, it is relatively straightforward. The opposition supports this bill and I will be relatively brief in my comments.
This bill, I understand, gives effect to the reform proposed by Justice Hiley, who has identified anomalies in the Sentencing Act. The minister, in his second reading speech said:
Those words allow section 57(1)(b), when read in conjunction with section 53, to be interpreted in two different ways. The removal or lessening of that interpretation is what is important here.
These amendments allow for more flexibility in the sentencing of offenders who have previously been ordered to serve a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period by ensuring the court will, when imposing an additional sentence for the new offence, fix a new non-parole period which is appropriate, having regard to the combined effect of the old and new head sentence. It will, as the minister said in his second reading speech:
In amending sections 53 and 57 of the Sentencing Act there are impacts on the Youth Justice Act, which is why provisions need to be consistent. As such, sections 85 and 87 of the latter act are amended to maintain consistency across the two acts.
I confess I have not read the 135 or so pages of the Sentencing Act, but I have perused the sections pertinent to this bill, and due to my briefing and subsequent conversations with a couple of lawyers, take it that sentencing is a very complex and technical area of law and the anomaly this bill addresses has been an annoyance for some years. While this anomaly is now resolved, I have it on good advice that sections 53 to 65 of the Sentencing Act, in the words of one lawyer, ‘Drive everyone nuts’. Perhaps that means further amendments are to come.
I am more confident of bills such as this when I see change driven from within the judiciary as opposed to the executive of government, which is known for its interference in sentencing with its mandatory sentencing regime. I commend Justice Hiley. It provides clarity – and makes the deliberations of sentencing and the requirement to fix a new single non-parole period where a sentence over 12 months for a subsequent offence is imposed.
Ultimately this bill removes ambiguity, closes a loophole and ensures that in this case, as per the second reading speech of the minister and the explanatory statement, sentencing provisions are clear, concise and promote fair and just sentences for those found guilty of a criminal offence.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting that while the minister brings this bill before the parliament to get an important part of the Sentencing Act sorted, he still fails to get the House in order for the growing number of people who are sentenced for crime and find themselves locked up in prison. You need only to look as far as the Australian Bureau of Statistics data for the March quarter, which shows that for the first time the Northern Territory’s imprisonment rate has passed 900 people per 100 000; the national rate is 194 people per 100 000. Western Australia has the second-highest imprisonment rate behind us.
I read an article yesterday by journalist Neda Vanovac on this subject. She interviewed the CEO of NAAJA, Priscilla Collins. I will quote from the article. Quite rightly, Ms Collins is calling on the government:
Mss Collins told AAP:
Ms Collins went on to say: :
You need only look at the weekend’s news or the NT News this morning to see that crime is spiralling out of control.
Mr Chandler: Rubbish.
Ms WALKER: Someone over there said, ‘Rubbish’. That person is clearly living in a parallel universe. I believe that was a member from Palmerston, where crime is off the radar.
I want to raise in this issue of sentencing and how we deal with offenders the bizarre announcement from the member for Blain towards the end of May about giving police new powers to lock up young people found on the streets at night. I find it frightening that he, a backbencher of the CLP government, considers it appropriate to give police new powers to take young people who have done nothing wrong, have not committed an offence, off the streets to some place where their parents can pick them up when they find out their kids are missing. Perhaps the member for Blain might respond in this debate as to why that is an appropriate course of action.
I come back to the bill. The bill in itself we have no issues with. There are, however, broader issues the government needs to look at with the growing, and worrying, number of people locked up in our prison system. In youth justice there have been a number of breakouts of young people from Don Dale, and, bizarrely, a break back in to Don Dale. I am sure the minister has much on his hands to deal with, not the least of which is the bill before us today, which, as I said, we support and commend to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill.
that the explanatory statement??? explains in greater detail how inserting a new clause 53(1), which read in conjunction with new clause 57(1), deals with fixing a new non-parole period in respect of multiple sentences.
The only change I see between the old section 57 and the new 57(1) is the word ‘caught’ is replaced by the word ‘offender’, and the words ‘in which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’. As a layman, I have tried to understand why it has to be changed. I am sure the judges of the High Court have better minds than mine, but I wonder whether anyone reading the intention of the original bill could see why it needs to be clarified. Obviously it did. Being a lay person I was pleased to see this document …
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He cannot stand in front.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, move off the floor.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I make note of this book that has just been published. It is a resource for judicial officers, Aboriginal interpreters and legal professionals working with speakers of Aboriginal languages. It is titled Plain English Legal Dictionary. They should broaden it for the lay person. It is a very good document. I have a legal dictionary on my desk but something like this is an excellent idea.
It was put together by Aboriginal Resource and Development Services; the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, NAAJA; the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and the Northern Territory government.
I congratulate all the people who put this together. Something like this also helps me as a member of parliament. Sometimes the words in legal documents are not always the easiest for people -even me – to understand when trying to work out what, for example, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is. It is not something that most people would understand in their day-to-day life.
I raise this because in my reading of this bill and in the minister’s second reading speech, it is clear that a matter raised in the High Court was the reason this section had to be clarified. As a lay person I would not have been able to understand that unless it was explained to me and I thank members of your staff, minister, for the briefing on this matter yesterday.
In the case of section 53, the second reading speech said this clause has been inserted to prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period where it imposes a prison sentence of less than 12 months. What was the original reason for this? Could a judge, if they thought this section was unfair, not sentence someone to a good behaviour bond to avoid it because they believe they should be allowed to set a parole for a shorter period than 12 months?
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talking about the number of Indigenous people in prison. My approach to that issue is slightly different. There is no doubt if a person commits a crime – and many of these crimes are to do with violence and domestic violence – they should be punished.
There are two issues. I know we are not here to discuss this too much, but we need to look at the causes of people going to prison. If they are in prison, we need to look at alternatives. I am not saying anything new to the minister on this matter. He and I are on the same page when it comes to the effects of a welfare state and high unemployment in some communities. It is the same old story; when people are bored and have nothing to do, they get into trouble. We really need to work harder to find out why people are committing crimes. Why they are getting into trouble in the first place?
In relation to people going to prison, again the minister knows my thoughts. We need alternatives to prison, that is, work camps. The previous government set up a work camp in Tennant Creek, and the current one is setting up another in Nhulunbuy. There should be more. The government promised, when it was in opposition, to have one in Katherine. It had a temporary one in Adelaide River. We should have a prison farm, as well. A prison farm does not necessarily mean just growing vegetables; it could mean industry.
It was good to hear at the last Development Consent Authority meeting, which I attended last Friday, that there has been an application to clear some land at the existing Howard Springs prison, which is not in Holtze. That land clearing application was to develop a farm to grow vegetables and fruit. That is a mix governments need to look at. In conjunction with the federal government – I do not think the Territory government can do this itself – it should tackle the problems that are the cause of people going to prison.
In Aboriginal communities we have the highest rates of unemployment, overcrowding and non-attendance at schools. None of these things are in any way helping the situation when it comes to giving people a better lifestyle and reducing the opportunity to end up doing things regarded as criminal behaviour. We cannot just take a figure and say it is terrible, because it is not a simple problem to fix. It is a complicated problem that needs the Commonwealth, the Territory and non-government organisations, including Aboriginal people to be part of the solution from the start. We need solutions that are not imposed on people but work in collaboration with them. I make these comments because the member for Nhulunbuy raised those issues.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate the support they place on the table. I apologise if I sound a bit doughy today, but I have the flu from hell so I would ask people to please bear with me.
My first comment is to the member for Nhulunbuy, and I ask who you are intending to let go. Name them. Tell us which people currently in prison you would like to see set free and why? The member for Nhulunbuy said in this House that we have too many prisoners in custody. If that is what she believes, she has to identify what changes she would make and identify the individuals she would set free. Are they housebreakers, car thieves or wife beaters? Who will you set free? That is exactly what the member for Nhulunbuy has advocated in this House today.
Ms Walker: No, that is not what I said at all. I spoke about justice reinvestment.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection; justice reinvestment is about taking money out of the correction system and putting into other systems. I have some real questions about justice reinvestment, particularly out of the Texas environment where it has been lauded as a great success. The only question I have is why did they have 171 000 prisoners 10 years ago and now 172 000?
How much will you take out of the corrections system to pay for justice reinvestment? The debt legacy we carry as a result of having to buy into your massive $1.8bn prison is something we have to spend money on. Are you now telling Sentinel services that you will not pay their bills of $60m a year for the prison? If so, you will find yourself in court pretty quickly.
I remind the honourable member opposite that the reason the prison Mahal had to be built in the first place was, according to the Labor Party’s projections when it was in government, they would today have about 1885 prisoners in custody. They were planning to have 286 more people in custody today than are currently there. I want to know from the member for Nhulunbuy, who will you set free and where will you make the cuts to pay for your justice reinvestment model? The justice reinvestment model advocated by Texas meant money was deliberately taken away from the corrections system. How much will you take away from the corrections system, where will you reinvest it, and what does that reinvestment look like?
Is the member opposite aware that the justice reinvestment phraseology can mean any number of things to any number of people? The justice reinvestment model that comes out of Texas sees money going back into particular neighbourhoods to run certain types of social programs. If you go to some of our remote communities, you will see some of the most socialised communities in the country. There is a government department for every occasion and nobody is required to do anything, because government will fix it.
That is the attitude we are peddling and the member for Nhulunbuy is advocating more of it, that we will close the gaol or spend less money in the gaol system, where she is also advocating we must spend more money on youth detention. Sadly, we probably are because of recent events. Never an articulated syllable comes out of the member for Nhulunbuy’s mouth in relation to the real problem, which is a passive welfare system that sucks the soul out of people. It sucks any form of identity they may have in what they do for a living, because it makes them passengers on the train of state-sponsored charity.
I agree with the member for Nelson on this point, probably a little more violently than he, that the way welfare is distributed is the root of so many of our problems in the Northern Territory. I have said it before and I will say it again; when you have a system of welfare which pours millions of dollars into this jurisdiction every fortnight, and then we as a jurisdictional partner have to spend millions of dollars every fortnight to clean up the subsequent mess that welfare money generates, then clearly we have a problem. I continue to lobby my federal counterparts and make public statements about the need for welfare reform in such a way that it creates jobs in remote communities that have meaning, structure and can create a future for the people there.
The reason I introduced the Sentenced to a Job program, and why we are clearing land at Howard Springs prison, is to create an environment of work. That is what we have been doing since coming to government and we will continue to do so. We create jobs in remote communities and place prisoners in those remote communities to work in those jobs. The Sentenced to a Job program continues to go from strength to strength. We hope to pick up a larger employer in the not-so-distant future who will pick up a number of prisoners and put them into full-time, fully paid work so they can start paying their way in life, including paying rent for their cells.
A person with a job is a person with an identity. Yet the best the members opposite can suggest is to cut money out of the prisons, let prisoners go and reinvest money into social programs. Where? Yuendumu or Papunya? Where will these social programs be and what will they look like? We have an abundance of social programs in these remote communities. We have health services in these remote communities as well as educational and police services. There is no shortage of NGOs that operate in these places. Yet we do not see success because the responsibility for the daily lives of the people we are trying to target has still not been given to them. We are doing it for them; we are not asking them to do it for themselves. Unless we as a state, a community and a country have the courage to say to people, ‘You are responsible. You must be responsible for your own welfare and the welfare of your family, particularly your children’, we will continue to have the atrocious outcomes we have.
The member opposite said we have this dreadful situation where we have 16 people in custody for every 10 000 people. Yes, and it is not a good result. I would like to see no gaols. I would like to see no juvenile detention facilities. I would like to make sure that the 1000 kids we currently have in our child protection system were in happy homes. But it does not work that way, because there are 1000 kids with parents who are so disengaged with their children that they neglect them, and are abusive or sexually abusive to them.
We continue to make excuses and say, ‘Oh well, there are social reasons’. We are not saying to individual people, ‘Be responsible. Be a good parent and do all that is necessary as a good parent. Ignore the card game, do not go to the pub or stick the money in the one-armed bandit. Become responsible.’ Every time I suggest this there is a chorus of people saying these people are victims. We have to stop saying to these people they are victims and instead say they have a duty to themselves and their community to lift their game.
We have become so involved in this idea that you can manoeuvre society by pulling its levers to produce beautiful outcomes, but there is scant evidence to prove it. Every time I hear about a new program that is super successful, the question I ask myself is; after 40 years of super successful programs which have done all of these social engineering things, where are the results?
The answer from the members opposite is to let the prisoners go. All right, name them and tell me how much money you will pull out of the prison system, because that is what I heard the member for Nhulunbuy advocate today, and she should articulate that clearly in a policy.
I have strayed away from the debate in point, which is a technical amendment of the Sentencing Act. I thank honourable members for their support in relation to that amendment. Members understand the nature of what is being asked of them today. Basically it gives control over a sentencing anomaly back to the courts in the way I suspect the legislation was always intended to operate in the first place.
I thank the staff here today and the other staff who have worked on this amendment, as well as acknowledget Justice Graham Hiley for bringing this matter to the government’s attention.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 April 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. I thank the officers from the department who facilitated a briefing for me and walked me through the reforms this bill aims to deliver. The original plan was to have the second reading debate when we last sat in this House at the conclusion of estimates, but it was delayed with a handful of committee stage amendments which obviously were not quite ready. However, I received them late yesterday afternoon along with the Attorney-General’s notes. I thank him for that, In the interest of transparency, he has afforded non-government members a chance to go over those late committee stage amendments, all of which appear to be quite in order, to improve the workability of the bill.
I understand the intent of this bill is to implement major reforms by bringing in changes to deliver efficiencies in the systems in the way in which matters are progressed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, soon to be known as the Local Court, and how that will work. Clearly, these reforms are driven by the government’s desire and need to see the courts operate more efficiently and reduce wastage of valuable time and resources. Any government worth its salt must always be seeking to find efficiencies, and, with it, savings. There is nothing wrong with that. Having more cases settled and at an earlier stage sounds very sensible.
I think I am correct in saying, broadly speaking, that to realise efficiency and reduce wasted resources the bill provides for two significant reforms to be enshrined in legislation: firstly, a new case management procedure for summary criminal matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which will see the replacement of summary case conferences with a court directions hearing between the magistrate, defence and prosecution to identify, early on, issues in dispute.
The second major part of the reform is the sentence indication scheme which encourages an early guilty plea for a more efficient case management system, and to be eligible a defendant must make a plea seven days before a case is listed for hearing.
I acknowledge the efforts of the minister and the agency to engage stakeholders in the reform process and conduct a type of consultation. If only other ministers from around his Cabinet table, including the Chief Minister and the Minister for Lands and Planning, would conduct such consultation instead of the, ‘We know what is best for you’ approach, and then, after the fact, scramble to give the illusion they consulted or areabout to.
With regard to this bill, consultation started in May 2014. I am not sure if an issues paper was released – an exposure draft of the bill which invited feedback from relevant stakeholders including, I assume, the Chief Magistrate, the judiciary, legal practitioners and their representative organisations, police prosecutors and officers of the court. All these people have a vested interest in engaging in that process, and their collective wisdom, expertise and experience in matters of law and the justice system is quite considerable.
Further consultation was held in October 2014, during a symposium the minister referred to in his second readings speech, led by former Victorian Supreme Court judge Professor George Hampel. As a direct result of that key changes followed, including the removal from the consultation bill of the graduated sentence discount scheme whereby courts were empowered to allow a sentence discount of up to 40% for early pleas. This is much to the disappointment of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory.
I understand another significant point during that consultation phase was recognizing the difficulties of implementing this system in our bush and remote courts and, as such, it will not be applied to them.
A fresh round of consultation led by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice occurred last May. However, the bill had already been introduced during the April sittings and at that time the department gave a snapshot of changes made to the consultation bill – what was in, what was out, and an opportunity for stakeholders to make further comments and suggestions on technical operational issues or problems. They said in the PowerPoint presentation they would take feedback to the minister.
The bill evolved considerably during the process of consultation. The minister stated at the conclusion of his second reading speech:
We all acknowledge that in its bid to consult, especially when there are significant reforms afoot, government may not be able or want to take on board all of the competing views and constructive feedback.
Having said that, while there remains a view amongst some that the bill has made considerable progress, some fundamental matters remain unanswered. Whilst consultation occurred, there is a view amongst some that the changes have been developed without any genuine engagement with stakeholders over some of the more philosophical issues associated with the bill. As one lawyer said to me; ‘We have been shown various versions of the bill, but the Attorney-General’s department has not consulted with us about the problems and what they are trying to solve’.
This takes me to the heart of what the NT Law Society raised in its original submission in May 2014 around an evidence base to support these reforms. I note the minister in his second reading speech makes the point that the background to this bill represents what he describes as:
With it – and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong – he also seems to point the figure at the defence for seeing trials fall over at the last minute.
What is of concern is that the policy assumes the late plea of guilty, causing the trial to fall over, is a failure of the defence. I suggest there is limited substance to this; it is just as likely that it is due to the late disclosure by the prosecutor of evidence or other materials.
I quote from the Law Society’s submission:
The submission goes on to acknowledge:
However, in their submission they next state:
I wish to expand upon the matter of mandatory sentencing, and how the existence of the CLP’s mandatory sentencing frustrates the very reforms the CLP is trying to achieve in this bill. Similar reforms implemented successfully in other jurisdictions work better, because they do not have mandatory sentencing.
In the Criminal Lawyers Association NT’s submission of May 2014, representing their members, which include prosecuting and defence lawyers, it states:
The CLANT submission goes on:
Resourcing of these reforms remains a concern, especially the requirement for directions hearings and defence disclosure. I asked this question at the briefing I attended, but I remain unconvinced that workloads will not increase. I am especially mindful of lawyers who work in legal aid services for their clients. For them, the changes to summary procedure are unrealistic without additional funding for legal services. The changes seek to impose stricter time frames and obligations on parties, but those things are very hard to meet when they are struggling to keep their heads above water.
Government said it wants these defence lawyers to be doing the work earlier, not more work. To be frank, there are many who believe this view is simply ignorant of how things work on the ground. Preparing a case early, before you have all the material, is double handling, especially for those representing legally-aided clients who simply do not have the luxury of time.
The Law Society of the Northern Territory’s submission raised this issue on the ramifications for legal aid services, but also addressed the fact that this bill shifts the onus to the defendant and his or her lawyer to prove innocence rather than proving the facts of the case by the prosecution. I quote from the submission at length:
Trepidation around significant resourcing implications for both defence and prosecution, rather than the savings suggested, are very real. I ask the minister to address this matter when he participates at the close of this debate, and to advise whether he has taken into account the Law Council of Australia’s policy statement on justice impact assessments. I draw to the minister’s attention the following points from that document:
The final point I quote is point 34:
These are quite clearly very important principles.
Front-end loading is just that. It is not necessarily a saving, just bringing things forward in time. It is likely there will be just as many vacated directions hearings, etcetera, because parties are not ready. I think our local media and reports into Latitude Travel, including the implication that prosecutors were not ready on multiple occasions, is a case in point and one which is raised yet again in today’s Northern Territory News.
I trust the minister will address the issue of resourcing and what many see as increased and unsustainable workloads.
The justice impact assessment I referred to a short while ago from the Law Council of Australia takes into account economic factors, not only for resourcing of publicly-funded legal aid services, but the cost of private legal services. I expect the provisions in this bill may also see costs increase for private clients, and I would also like to hear from the minister on that point. It seems it will require a lot more work early on that might otherwise not have been done for a matter that will be resolved.
There are some provisions that I think, given discussions I have had with lawyers, will be difficult to comply with or will be so formalistic as to be meaningless. The committee stage amendments address some of this, but, for example, clause 60AM(2) requires defence to serve prosecution a notice 21 days before a hearing with any objection to evidence and the grounds for such objection. I am sure defence lawyers, especially those working in the legal aid sector, would love to have their hearings prepared 21 days in advance and to have the time to reduce to writing all possible objections to evidence, but they do not live in that parallel universe. Surely it is the job of the prosecution to lead proper evidence.
I would like to hear from the minister on the matter I have just raised as well as proposed section 123A, which says you cannot get a discount for a plea of guilty within seven days of the date listed for hearing. This will mean that many more hearings will run as there is no incentive to plead. The fact is matters are resolved close to the day for many reasons, often late disclosure of new evidence by police. There is an exception if the court is satisfied that an offender could not have pleaded guilty earlier, but surely that is far too narrow. A person generally can plead guilty earlier but might only plead guilty late when confronted by fresh evidence.
If there is no chance of a discount, they might as well run the hearing as there would be nothing to lose. Surely this undermines the whole point of this legislation, which is to make things more efficient.
Why is it that a magistrate who knows how to run a court cannot be left to run that court? Should government not just step aside, get out of the way and leave them to run their courts? The minister addresses this on page three of his second reading speech. It seems the directions process which commenced under former Chief Magistrate Hilary Hannam was working quite well, but I note your assertion that not all measures of the bill can be dealt with by way of a practice direction and that there needs to be a statutory basis.
In the next paragraph the minister said in his second reading speech: :
That cuts to the chase, and for many perhaps rings alarm bells about the importance of the separation of powers and the need for judicial independence. The Law Society of the Northern Territory also addresses this concern explicitly on page two of its submission under the heading, Who Should Decide Court Procedures and Process :
We ask the minister to commit to a review, in 12 months’ time, of the effectiveness of this bill, to assess how well it is delivering on its intent and to outline the positive and negative outcomes,. I would like to think the review, whilst it may be done by government – although we have concerns about government investigating government, we know that kind of reporting can be fraught with problems – would feature the engagement of an independent group, such as the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee.
I am sure the minister will be looking to data as an indicator of success, and the Territory might see results commensurate with Victoria’s reforms, with measureable savings in witness appearances, police shifts and reduced court hours, all because of provisions for preliminary briefs and sentence indications. In his second reading speech he quantified that data from Victoria. However, this is not Victoria; this is the Territory, and our jurisdictions are very different in a number of ways. With collection of data, as an evidence base aside, the opposition wants a review to include a full assessment of the impact of resourcing as per the Law Council’s Justice Impact Assessments.
Minister, I acknowledge the enormous body of work you have undertaken, led by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, and that you have engaged with many stakeholders who have given their time to this process. We will watch with great interest to see how these reforms unfold and hope they deliver what you say they will. As I said, we do not oppose this bill. We have raised a number of matters and we look forward to hearing your contribution, as well as hearing what the member for Nelson has to say on this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill. This is an extremely important bill with the purpose of introducing reforms to the case management procedures for summary criminal matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. This means the introduction of legislation to provide for the procedure, whereas currently the procedure is governed by practice directions made by the Chief Magistrate. By doing this the bill will provide fair, efficient, expeditious and economical case management procedures.
There are several key objectives, which include: to facilitate early disposition of a charge arising from a complaint or information before the court; ensure that if a complaint or information proceeds to a hearing of a charge, the hearing is focused on very important issues, and those are the issues in dispute; to minimise the time between the making of a complaint or laying of information and the hearing of the charge; and, very importantly, to minimise the trauma to victims of crime or other vulnerable witnesses.
As a former police officer, I cannot begin to tell you how important these changes are. It means valuable time in the court will not be wasted on what is or is not in dispute. Even more than that, anything that minimises the trauma for victims of crime is a major win. Many victims have been through months, if not years, of trauma before they finally get to face their perpetrator in a court of law. A long, convoluted court process can quite often be the final straw that breaks these victims. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill will provide tangible measures to ease that burden.
There are several key elements to the reform; each and every one of them is important. There will be new preliminary briefs of evidence to be provided to the defendant within seven days of his or her first appearance in court. The preliminary brief will contain key information and the evidence the prosecution has at that time. There will be a new directions hearing presided over by a magistrate to set a time line for the progress of the matter and to discuss frankly the issues with the parties.
There will be new defence disclosure requirements. The defendant will need to disclose the issues that are in dispute, and those that are not in dispute, at the directions hearing. The defendant will also be required to give notice to the prosecution of any alibi, expert evidence and any objection to the evidence.
It will encourage any early pleas of guilt; a new sentence indications scheme whereby the defendant can apply to the court to indicate, on a without-prejudice basis, the sentence the court would impose at the time if the defendant pleaded guilty; and amendments to the Sentencing Act to encourage compliance with the new procedures or early pleas of guilty, including a provision stating a magistrate can take into account the extent of the defendant’s compliance with the new procedures when sentencing him or her; a provision requiring the magistrate to state what he or she gave the defendant for an early guilty plea; and a provision precluding a magistrate from giving a discount of a guilty plea if the plea was entered within seven days of the date set for the contested hearing.
These are important changes and I applaud the Attorney-General for his foresight in bringing these amendments to the House. It is also important to acknowledge the large amount of consultation that went into these proposed reforms. Among contributors are the Chief Magistrate, the NT Police, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Justice.
In May 2014 the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also consulted external stakeholders including legal aid agencies such as the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, the Law Society of the NT, and the NT Bar Association.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also engaged Professor Hon George Hample AM QC to conduct symposia with these stakeholders in Darwin and via video conference to Alice Springs. This consultation was extremely important and assisted with how the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 looks today.
There are many beneficiaries of this legislation. All court users will benefit because the bill aims to achieve efficiencies in the case-flow management in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In particular, the court will likely see a reduction in matters listed for hearing due to early pleas of guilt. Victoria saw a significant reduction in police shifts when that jurisdiction introduced similar reforms. Victims of crime will benefit by a reduction in the number of hearings in which they need to give evidence, and also by matters being resolved either by hearing or plea earlier.
The Country Liberals government is committed to the swift justice measure of the Pillars of Justice framework for reforming our criminal justice system. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 is a key component of that reform. These measures, we believe, will encourage a change in culture towards a system that is cooperative, efficient and fair, while upholding the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Currently over 80% of matters result in a guilty plea. This bill aims to secure those guilty pleas much earlier than they are entered at present. Swift justice involves a range of initiatives to reduce unnecessary burdens currently seen in court processes. It also aims to reduce the time spent by various stakeholders who are caught up in proceedings. That includes, of course, our police officers.
I can speak from experience of hours and hours of wasted time by police officers attending court hearings where they found, at the end of the day, they were not required.
This government is a strong supporter of the Northern Territory Police Force and all the work they do. It is such a complicated environment in which they work. Added to those complications is the fact that sometimes police officers could be called to sit at a courthouse after a night shift for endless hours of waiting for their matter to be heard only for the case to end with a guilty plea. I have experienced that a number of times, and I cannot begin to tell you just how hard it is for a police officer, having spent eight or 12 hours working during a night shift, to have to front up to court, sit there waiting and then potentially have to give evidence in a compus state after being so sleep deprived. This bill supports our police officers through the simplification of court procedures.
The current contest mention system requires that where a defendant indicates he or she will plead not guilty and contest a summary matter, a full brief has to be prepared as a matter of course. Once the full brief is prepared, the parties are then expected to discuss the matter to identify where evidence is required to be called at a contested hearing. This is where it gets even more confusing. At the contest mention the parties are then required to hand up a contest mention form to indicate the discussion has taken place. It is very common for parties to hand up separate forms because they have not discussed the matters set out in the form.
The number of contest mentions far exceeds the number of contested hearings listed and the number of hearings that proceed and see the light of day. This means matters are listed for contest mentions and contested hearings where there is no genuine dispute.
The Northern Territory police, in particular, noted a significant increase in their workload following the implementation of that practice direction in preparing a full brief of evidence even where a narrow range of issues was in dispute. I can personally attest to that also, having done that many times during my time in the police force.
The Northern Territory government needs to do everything in its power to ensure our police are out on the beat where they are needed most. We do not want a situation where our officers are tied up with endless paperwork for court issues where it could be avoided.
Another issue which this legislation will minimise is the wait and see defence. This is the well-known problem where the defendant will wait until the day of the hearing to see if the victim will turn up to give evidence. Again, I can attest from personal experience how common that is. We know this is especially a problem in domestic violence cases, where the victim will be intimidated and eventually refuse to give evidence.
We as a government are committed to putting an end to this unethical behaviour. Every police officer who hears this or reads what is being said in this House today will get this. If the defendant waits until the day of the hearing to plead guilty, it has a great impact on those witnesses waiting to give evidence, including the victim who is already traumatised by the entire experience.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Yiota Devriadis. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, the defendant can also require the court to allocate its valuable hearing times and resources to a hearing that will not proceed on the day. There are many inefficiencies built into the current court system and this legislation will go a long way to resolving quite a number of them.
The background to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 is a culture of non-cooperation and inefficiency. This bill will transform that culture, ensuring the resources of police, prosecutions and the courts are not wasted.
I again applaud my colleague, the Attorney-General, for his hard work in bringing this important legislation to the House. It gives me great pleasure to support it on behalf of all of the police officers in the Northern Territory who have had to endure the inefficiencies of the court system, which the amendment to this legislation will make inroads to change.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for what should have been part of the second reading. It is great to hear other members of the government support bills and give a different point of view or slant on what the Attorney-General is putting forward. I never looked at it from the member for Katherine’s point of view, but I have no doubt the police will welcome this. I have heard these sorts of frustrations before. I had not quite put two and two together.
It sometimes disappoints me in this parliament that we have about two or three speakers and that is it. This is an important issue to discuss. As I said, I thank the member for Katherine for his contribution today. I am sure Northern Territory police will welcome anything that allows them to avoid them sitting around courthouses doing nothing, and then finding nothing came of all that time. If it means police are doing their work on the beat, not wasting their time in courthouses, I support that.
I thank the department for the briefing. I do not find this legislation easy, and when I speak about it I speak from a layperson’s point of view. It is not easy to talk about clause by clause, but I understand what the government is putting forward. In his second reading the minister said:
The minister went on to say
I understand that but as you go through this piece of legislation, trying to understand how it fits within what you are trying to do, it is not that easy. I asked at the briefing yesterday if it is possible to get a flow chart. I do not know whether that made life better or worse for me, but there are a lot of arrows there.
Mr Elferink: That proves that Napoleon Bonaparte actually lost the Battle of Midway.
Mr WOOD: That is right; it looks a bit like that. Believe it or not, I have read it and it helps. Sometimes we need things like that for people who do not understand the court process. We do not understand the court processes if we have not dealt with them, but we must speak in this parliament about the proposals that government puts forward to change those court processes. If those court processes can make the system more efficient it is important.
The minister is looking to see whether the Battle of Waterloo had some relationship with this flow chart – but I digress.
The issue, in a philosophical way, is to make sure justice is not diminished by the changes government is putting forward. I remember making this statement when the minister first raised the issue of his Pillars of Justice and he called reforms to the summary criminal procedures ‘swift justice’. When I was younger, and even today, I watched a lot of westerns. They had a different meaning for the words ‘swift justice’, and it did not usually involve the courts ...
Mr Elferink: I hanker for the old days as well.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The title could have been better if it had been about a more efficient justice system, that did not mean people’s rights were necessarily diminished, but the process of dealing with those rights or matters before the court was done in a more efficient way.
Attorney-General, I support what is proposed. As I said, it is good to hear from the member for Katherine. I do not think what the member for Katherine was saying has come out much in this debate. He has raised another side of the practical issues this legislation might help resolve or improve.
That section you mentioned in the second reading speech says there will be improvements, hopefully, and maybe some cost efficiencies – I am not sure that might be part of the review – in the way these matters are handled. The other issue that is important is if this minimizes the trauma to victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses. Some of those practical implications need to be emphasised.
However, I am interested to know, minister, if there is a downside to speeding a process up when you encourage a guilty plea. I am not saying people should not say they are guilty. We do not have the American system. Sometimes is it the case a person is encouraged to plead guilty which might not be the proper process. Sometimes you are encouraged to do something because you might get a lesser sentence. Is it always appropriate someone pleads guilty when maybe the case should go through the court system to see whether that person is aware of the ramifications of that plea? I am talking from a layman’s point of view to see whether there are any implications in speeding up a process that could have some downsides in relation to justice.
The member for Nhulunbuy quoted from the Criminal Lawyers Association. I have a letter – I hope I do not verbal the member for Nhulunbuy – dated 31 May which was a copy of a letter that might have been sent to NAAJA, I am not sure. It says:
I read section 60AC and it relates only to courts in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. You mentioned it in your second reading speech. It says:
I think I mentioned Katherine, I am not sure. Is Katherine mentioned in section 60AC?
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: No. You might be able to tell us why, for clarification. It continues: :
I went to the briefing yesterday but I thought about things afterwards. Do the bush courts have regular dates they hold for certain areas? Or is it difficult in remote communities to get people to those courts?
Mr Elferink: Practical reasons.
Mr WOOD: If you could give us an explanation, it would be good. We were concerned that if it was about getting people to court, you could have the same problem trying to get people to Tennant Creek court.
The Criminal Lawyers Association also mentioned – this was written by Russell Goldflam.
That is clearly written in the new bill.
I understand why that is required.
I am interested in the minister’s comments on that.
The Criminal Lawyers Association said it:
I am interested to hear why, although as you say in your second reading, minister:
You also state at least 80% of matters are dealt with through the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It is still a fair question to ask why the sentencing restrictions are imposed on one class of judicial magistrates and not another.
Mr Goldflam also mentions section 123A again, which he notes is in the nature of a stick rather than a carrot.
The comments from Russell Goldflam are constructive. It would be good if the minister could address those issues in the House. I agree, and I raised this at the review, that we need to look at the effectiveness of these changes.
The member for Katherine mentioned at the briefing that Victoria has seen a large reduction in the time these cases take. It would be good to see, from our point of view, how it has changed.
The other thing I and the member for Katherine mentioned was how a range of people were asked for their submissions about this piece of legislation. It would be good to know if there are issues law groups are concerned about that the government does not agree with. If there are any major issues, could the government enlighten us and give reasons why they do not agree with those concerns.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this legislation. With a few more weeks of letting this drip-feed into my brain, I could get a fairly good understanding of what it is about. I thank your ministerial guys and the minister who put this together. I will keep it safe because if matters like this come up again I will pull this out and be able to understand what you are talking about, to some extent. There are a lot of arrows but that has no relation to my comments about looking at westerns.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution. I also thank the member for Katherine because his contribution was extremely important in light of this debate. Whilst I might have thought about his points, I got a much better understanding after he spoke today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, picture this: it is 2 am on Mitchell Street – for the purpose of this conversation. Police are called to Discovery nightclub. Person A has punched person B in the mouth, and A is arrested for the crime of aggravated assault because B has several loosened teeth and a very serious split to his lip all the way up to his nose.
Person B is then interviewed and a statement is collected from him. He is taken to hospital where his lip is stitched up. A is then taken to the watch house where he seeks legal advice, and the legal advice is, ‘Do not say anything to the cops at all’, which is the standard legal advice lawyers would give you. ‘Provide your name and address, but say nothing else.’ Person A is then bailed to appear. He has given his name and address and he seeks legal advice. The lawyer then listens to what A has to say but does not tell anyone else. Person A then walks into the court room and A’s lawyers stands up and says, ‘My client is pleading not guilty’.
At this point the file then goes back to the police. There is a contest mention. ‘What is in dispute?’ is the question asked of A’s lawyer. ‘Everything’, is the answer. The file goes back to the police and the police collect the following evidence: the statement from the victim; several other statements correctly identifying A at the scene of the crime; a statement from the attending police officers who effected the arrest; and, perhaps, the recovery of blood splatters on the floor to prove that there is DNA evidence to demonstrate that B bled copiously. Then the doctor must be dragged away from his work to give a statement to police, which doctors do not like to do because it gets in their way. Then the trial date is set, at which point A walks into the court and the doctor, police officers, independent witnesses and god knows who else are standing outside the courtroom.
All of those people are there several months down the track. A’s lawyer stands up and says, ‘Our defence is that B had a broken bottle in his hand and A, my client, was defending himself’. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what happens. It is perfectly lawful. The only problem is, in practical terms, why did he not say so up front? Seriously!
Now you have a witness statement from a doctor which has no point of evidence that is in dispute. Is A denying that he punched B? No. Is A denying that he split B’s lip? No, he is not. Is A denying that he has loosened B’s teeth? No, he is not. It is not in dispute, so why do we need the doctor’s evidence? Why was he called in the first place? Why did we even get a statement from the doctor? The other five witnesses’ statements put A at the scene of the crime. Is A disputing that he was at the scene of the crime? No, it is an integral part of his defence that he was at the scene of the crime. ‘Absolutely, I punched B in the mouth! He had a broken bottle in his hand!’
Why do we need those other five witnesses standing around the front of the court house for six or eight hours whilst the process goes on? Do we even need the police evidence? Is there any dispute that A was arrested? No. Is there any dispute that A was witnessed to be arrested by the other police officer, which is why the second police officer is there? No, it is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether or not B had a broken bottle in his hand, prompting A to defend himself.
Wind the clock back under this new system. The police are called, A is arrested, brought into the watch house, gets legal advice, turns up to a court, turns up to a directions hearing and all of a sudden is asked, ‘What is your defence going to be?’ ‘Well, my client was defending himself.’ ‘What do you mean, defending himself?’ ‘B had a broken bottle in his hand.’
That goes back to the police for investigation with one of three outcomes. Outcome one: police, through their investigation, discover that B did not have a broken bottle in his hand. So they pick up the phone, speak to the lawyer on the other side, ‘Mate, you are going to lose. We have good evidence to demonstrate, from two or three witnesses, B did not have a broken bottle in his hand. You may want to talk to your client.’
Outcome B: ‘Mate, we have just done the investigation. Bloody oath! B had a bottle in his hand. We are no longer pursuing this matter, because we know we will not get up on the assault charge. Clearly A was defending himself.’
Or outcome three: ‘We don’t know whether B had a bottle in his hand or not. We do not have sufficient evidence. We had some person who was going to stand up in court and say he thinks he may have seen something in his hand that glinted.’ In which case, that is the issue before the court: did B have a bottle in his hand?
You do not need the doctors or all the other independent witnesses, just those issues. That is the matter then, through a directions hearing, that goes back to the police, and they then investigate. How much time have we saved? How many hours of police work?
Having investigated a number of these sorts of things, I would be guessing, straight-up aggravated assault, from memory, full file, would have been 12 to 16 hours’ worth of work, most of which never sees the light of day in a courtroom because it is not in contest.
This idea is not new. It has existed in the Northern Territory in another place for a long time, and that is in the civil courts. If I walk into a lawyer’s office and I have a contractual dispute with the member for Nelson. I wanted to purchase …
Mr Wood: Chickens.
Mr ELFERINK: Good, chickens! … 500 chickens from the member for Nelson. What is the going price for a chicken?
Mr Wood: Oh, at point of lay, probably about $9 or $10.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Say $10, so it is $5000 worth of chickens. It turns out that I have a contractual dispute because I was expecting nice, big plump chickens, and he sent me a whole bucket load of bantams. It is a contractual dispute. Do you know the odds?
I go and see my lawyer, the member for Nelson sees his lawyer, we go through the process and end up in the court system to sort out this dispute. The chances of ending up in court over a dispute like that are very small. You would be lucky one time out of 10 that a dispute like that would find its way into a court. Why? Because the lawyers have to talk to each other, so only the matters in dispute in a civil dispute are the things you will find in a court room. If you walk into a courtroom with a civil dispute like that and you have not spoken to each other and are still adducing evidence as to the disputed facts, the court will tell you to get out and get your stuff together.
In the summary procedure process, the stuff we do in the lower courts, which is 95% of all matters heard in courts in the Northern Territory, we are talking about, effectively, what some people call the sausage factory. I call it the meat grinder of our justice system; it just churns this stuff through. The small assaults, the drink-driving offences, the property offences, the small criminal damages, the unlawful entries, those things – the meat grinder is just grinding this stuff through and it becomes a very mechanical process. I challenge anybody to sit in Court 1 on bail and arrest day when they are going through the guilty pleas without coming to the conclusion that it is a mechanical process.
We all know the system. The lawyers practice it, there is an indifference to what is happening in the courtroom and there is the hubbub and noise of it. Through that process we start to filter out the things that are in dispute. So A has answered his bail, walks into the courtroom, has obtained a lawyer who says they are disputing all facts. Okay, in the current environment we will then go to a contest.
A contest mention means the file goes back to the police and all the work I have just described is done before you even get to the hearing process. You have this massive draw on police resources.
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk specifically about the separation of powers in relation to these things. We are not diminishing in any way the court’s capacity to deal with these things. We are telling defence lawyers to get their stuff together a little earlier and make sure they are ready to go well before they reach the courtroom, so when they walk into the courtroom they are not running the line of pleading not guilty and all facts are in dispute. By the time they get to the hearing date several months later, potentially many hundreds of wasted hours later of police and other people’s time, they are running a small defence or a very peculiar defence and the rest of the material is not in dispute.
That is what we are doing today – creating an ease of system. The amendments before this House do not limit the court’s power. In fact, I argue in some ways they enhance the court’s power to start telling defence and police to talk to each other. ‘When you get to a directions hearing if you have incomplete evidence, we understand that. We will not bash you for having incomplete evidence, but we expect you guys to start communicating so the facts in dispute find their way into the courtroom and all the other gumpf is filtered out.’
Something similar to this was introduced in Victoria where they went from 7000 to 3500 hearings in 12 months. There was a massive drop in the number of hearings; it halved them. That is the reason I am attracted to this. Nothing in this says to the police, ‘You do not have to play with a completely open hand’. In fact, as the Attorney-General it was one of the first things I insisted on when we changed the police paperwork to make sure coppers were declaring everything going on in their case to the defence.
I started to lose some of my enthusiasm for this initiative because of the amount of pushback and resistance I received, particularly from the defence fraternity. It was not until I did the bar readers course with Professor George Hampel and was talking to the good professor – a lifetime defence barrister before he became a judge who did some prosecution work, but most of it was defence – that George Hampel reinvigorated my enthusiasm for this course. That is why we took him on as a consultant. He was able to convince far more effectively the defence fraternity in the Northern Territory than I ever could have.
What am I? Some busted-ass lawyer who has never really practiced who has his admission to practice in the Supreme Court, compared to a guy who started his career defending people who, if he lost, were hanged because he has been around since the 1950s, a pre-eminent lawyer who went to the bench, I think of the federal court, and finally got chucked off the federal bench because he became too old. They took him on as a professor at the University of Melbourne where he continues to run advocacy courses around Australia and the world. This guy is a smart dude. He is not very tall, he is physically not what you would call an imposing character, but he intimidates the hell out of me with the sheer presence of his mental acuity. I think he is 81 or 82 years of age now and still working every day. He is my pin-up boy in terms of what I want to be like when I am that age.
He brought his smarts to the table – title of professor, former federal court judge, former defence barrister going back to the 1950s – and he was able to convince the defence fraternity of what we are trying to do.
Why am I not applying this to the Supreme Court? I suppose we could, but, frankly, the Supreme Court is a slightly different animal and deals with a relatively small number of matters when you consider the overall number of matters dealt with in the Northern Territory. I chose, and I think most of the legal fraternity would agree with me, to leave the Supreme Court unmolested in these areas. It is a matter for the Supreme Court because it deals with indictable offences which have much more serious consequences.
When it comes to managing large caseloads through the lower courts, a little preparation will save us a lot of expenditure down the track. What we are saying to prosecution and defence is: prepare your fight effectively; know what the points of issue are; see if you can negotiate or deal with the issues prior to ending up in a hearing; and, if you end up in a hearing, make sure you argue about points genuinely in dispute. That is what this legislation is about.
Sentence indications are another element of this legislation. Frankly, sentence indications are available to the courts right now. Nothing prevents a magistrate indicating a sentence in a courtroom right now. I know it has been done. However, this gives some certainty and structure around those matters and we have dealt with this issue in the past in this place, with magistrates being seized of issues whether or not a sentence indication binds the court in any way. This is now in a without prejudice environment where a sentence indication can be made.
I will give you a classic example where I have seen this type of thing happen. A matter is being argued by a defence lawyer, a client is sitting in the room, the prosecutor is sitting there silently and all of a sudden you realise what the defence lawyer is doing. He is hedging around the fact he is scared his client will go to gaol. What stops the magistrate saying, ‘Are you concerned, Mr Smith, that your client will go to gaol?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Would it give your client some comfort if I could indicate that on the evidence I have seen so far, it is unlikely he will go to gaol? Would you like to now seek an adjournment?’ ‘Yes, we would.’
There is then a quick conversation in the back of the room or the lobby of the court. Ten minutes later the lawyer walks in and says, ‘My client is changing his plea’, because he was scared that in the act it says he would be sent to gaol.
There are few acts in the Northern Territory statute book that do not carry gaol sentences, even for the most minor offences. The ability for a magistrate to reassure a person they probably will not go to gaol for a particular offence is probably not a bad indication of sentence. This legislation creates some structure around that approach. It is about making sure the wheels of justice are properly lubricated with proper communications. It is about people talking to each other in the system.
What you learn in law school 101 is that your first duty is not to your client. Your first duty is to the court. Sometimes I suspect that with people’s enthusiasm to look after the interests of their client, they may overlook the primary duty of a lawyer to a courtroom. That is tolerated by courts because clients have the right to a fair trial.
Nothing in this process limits or diminishes the capacity for a person to have a fair trial. It simply gets the gumpf out of the way so we know what we are talking about. That is what this government thinks a court system should be, and the intent of the legislation. The sentence discounts process was something that CLANT was particularly interested in as well. I understand why. However, we stepped away from it. In fact, I will read something that might help from a piece of paper that has just been shoved into my hand, ‘While CLANT supported the provision allowing 40%, the other stakeholders were concerned about allowing for the sentence discounts for guilty pleas beyond what is precedent in the Northern Territory courts. Also other stakeholders were concerned about the possibility of giving unduly lenient sentences. Additionally it was noted that defendants who are informants, and agree to give evidence against other accused, may receive up to 50% discount on their sentences’..
I will not read out the whole thing but there was an issue about whether or not sentence discounts properly supported the principles of justice.
It does not limit the fact there is a range for most sentences which is generally well-accepted and well-adopted by the courts across a raft of sentences. Yes, we have the operation of mandatory sentencing for assaults, outside of the provisions of exceptional circumstances. That is a fundamental policy of this government and will be an issue between this government and the courts for as long as the sun comes up and goes down. That is how the system works.
From our perspective, we want to see our court system being effective and efficient. Ultimately, this House cannot drive that. Ultimately, there is one other player in this process to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, and that is the magistracy. The magistrates have governance and carriage of these legislative instruments, and they have to ensure – and I am sure they will – these processes will lead to the efficiencies government seeks.
I thank all members of the legal profession who have commented on and given input to the government with this process. I am grateful we have come through the process with as little rancour as we have. Yes, it has been a long time in negotiation, but the final product is acceptable to all parties to a greater or lesser extent.
No, I do not think this erodes the course of justice in the Northern Territory. No, I do not think it unnecessarily impinges upon the right to silence. The right to silence has been limited in a number of jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, in different ways. You only have to look at the caution when you are arrested in England. In the Northern Territory if you are arrested the caution is: you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so; anything that you do say may be written down and later given in evidence.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that clause 5 of the bill be amended to insert a new subsection 60AI(5A). New subsection 60AI(5A) will state that the court may appoint a date and time for a directions hearing earlier than four weeks if the defendant has applied under section 60AI(5) or the court’s own initiative, and only if the court is satisfied that there is a good reason to do so. This amendment is required so that the court is able to set a directions hearing earlier than the four-week minimum time frame required under section 60AI(2) in cases where it is appropriate to do so, such as where the issues are not complex.
Concern was raised that there would be cases where an earlier directions hearing is warranted so that in turn a hearing date can be set earlier than after four weeks from the first mention. Although the defendant may apply for an earlier directions hearing under the current section 60AI(5), the new 60AI(5A) will enable the court, of its own motion, to set a directions hearing sooner rather than waiting four weeks. The four-week minimum time frame would, however, likely apply in the majority of cases.
My memory was jogged about another question in relation to Katherine and the bush courts. Katherine has one magistrate so there would be difficulty in applying the proposed principles in the Katherine environment. In regard to bush courts, often lawyers will only see their client for the first time on the day of court, which means you cannot apply these things. So there are very practical reasons for excluding bush courts. The purpose of this bill is to create practical outcomes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 of the bill be further amended so that section 60AQ(2) states that a court may allow for the prosecution to adduce further evidence whether or not it is obtained as a result of the defendant’s disclosure.
Currently, proposed section 60AQ(2) states that if the defendant has failed to comply with a disclosure requirement and is ordered at hearing to comply, amongst other things the court may order that the prosecution is able to adduce evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s compliance with the disclosure requirement.
The amendment is needed because the current wording of the section confines the prosecution’s ability to adduce evidence only to evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s disclosure. This was an oversight. The amendment is required as it may be the case that the prosecution properly seeks to adduce evidence they already obtained but not previously considered relevant, or the prosecution may need to call a witness or cross examine a witness.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 be further amended so that proposed section 60AT(2) is replaced with a newly-drafted subsection. This amendment results from further consideration of section 60AT in light of proposed amendments, which I will move in a moment in relation to section 60AU. The amendments to the existing section 60AT(2) are technical in nature and are to:
insert the words, ‘if section 78DG and 78DH of the Sentencing Act do not apply’ at the front of subparagraph 60AT(2)(a), because under this subparagraph the court may indicate a sentence of imprisonment for offences to which the mandatory minimum sentence provisions for violent offences do not apply.
insert a new subparagraph 60AT(2)(c), which makes it clear the court may indicate that it would likely impose a sentence of actual imprisonment if section 78DG of the Sentencing Act applies to the offence. Section 78DG concerns sentencing a defendant to a term of actual imprisonment for a violent offence in circumstances where a mandatory minimum-term of imprisonment is not required under the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Sentencing Act. This new subsection distinguishes between indicating actual imprisonment for a violent offence under this subparagraph and actual imprisonment for a non-violent offence under 60AT(2)(a).
amend subparagraph 60AT(2)(d) so that it is clear the section applies if section 78DH of the Sentencing Act applies to the offence. This makes the subsection more accurate as it relates to the court, indicating a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a violent offence
The amendments are necessary, first, to be consistent with the amendments to be made in the proposed section 60AU, and, second, to be consistent with the language and process required under the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of Part 3, Division 6A of the Sentencing Act. When reviewing the issue addressed in section 60AU it was realised section 60AT(2) needed to be improved and made more precise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 of the bill be further amended so that section 60AU is omitted and replaced with a redrafted provision. During consultation it was pointed out that the current wording of section 60AU made it mandatory for the court to take into account an available victim impact statement or victim report considering whether the exceptional circumstances exemption applies to a case where the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a violent offence applies. This is consistent with section 78DI(3) of the Sentencing Act, which gives the court the discretion to consider a victim impact statement or victim report when determining the question of exceptional circumstances.
Current section 60AU is therefore amended to insert a new subsection 2, which will make it clear that where a court is deciding whether or not to indicate a type of sentence under section 60AT(2), but has nothing to do with the exceptional circumstances exemption, the court must also take into account a victim impact statement or victim report, if it is available.
Subsection 3 is also inserted, which will make it clear that the court does not have to take into account an available victim impact statement or victim report if the court would not have regard to those documents if the court were hypothetically sentencing the defendant and deciding whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional.
Additionally, definitions of ‘victim impact statement’ and ‘victim report’ are inserted by the new section 60AU(5). This is because a number of structural changes have been made to section 60AU and a victim impact statement and victim report are now referred to in a number of places in the section. The definition for ‘victim impact statement’ and ‘victim report’ now refers to definitions in section 106A of the Sentencing Act. The amendments to section 60AU are needed because the current wording of the section is inconsistent with the Sentencing Act, which gives the court discretion as to whether to take into account a victim impact statement or victim report when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. It is desirable that the section 60AU is consistent with the Sentencing Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move clause 12 of the bill be amended so that new section 123A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act states that:
This amendment is needed because currently section 123A(1)(b) states that the ‘offence is listed for trial’. However, it is not clear whether the word ‘trial’ in that section is intended to be known as the summary hearing in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There was concern that it may be interpreted to apply to the Supreme Court, which clearly is not intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 89, that ministerial statements be called upon immediately after Question Time, followed by Government Business Order of the Day No 3.
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 519 petitioners praying that the eradication program is stopped and banana plants saved. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate and conforms with the requirements of standing orders. This petition is similar to Petition 43 presented in February 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
The CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 44 has been received and circulated to all members.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide a statement on Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. During the previous sittings of this Assembly, I presented a statement on the education reform agenda this government is progressing under the Framing the Future strategy. Today I will focus on the reforms that we will drive to improve outcomes for Indigenous students.
When we came to government it was clear that education outcomes for Indigenous students had not improved despite a considerable increase in both Northern Territory and Australian governments’ funding over recent years. The reality of low and declining education outcomes means that for a high proportion of Indigenous students living in remote communities in the Northern Territory life will likely not provide the same opportunities as it will for students in our larger towns and urban areas.
Literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students in very remote communities in the Northern Territory are the lowest in Australia. Low school attendance continues to affect education outcomes. Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training completions are very low in number for our very remote students. Last year there were only 20 NTCET completions for students from remote areas out of an enrolled Year 12 cohort of 120 and a possible Year 12 age cohort of 800. This is why there must be a focus on Indigenous education in remote and very remote communities. We cannot shy away from this.
This government stands firm on the decision to commission this comprehensive review of Indigenous education and to implement the review’s recommendations. We commissioned the review with scope to investigate education service deliveries across the whole spectrum of schooling – the early, primary, middle, senior and secondary years. The review was undertaken by Mr Bruce Wilson of Education Business Pty Ltd following a formal procurement process. Mr Wilson is a highly-respected independent consultant with more than 30 years’ experience in education.
The level of interest and engagement by stakeholders during the review was widespread and appreciated. The passion and commitment of many was very evident. I believe many respondents could see their feedback and input had been considered in the final report.
I will provide a direct quote from the report because I believe Bruce Wilson has captured the need to take a different approach in Indigenous education, particularly in very remote communities:
Those who have read Bruce Wilson’s report will have observed that the majority of the findings focus on education in remote and very remote schools. Bruce Wilson confirms this is where the greatest need exists. I encourage everyone to reflect on the data Bruce Wilson presented in the report, and I quote again:
Many of you are familiar with the findings of the review, but I will restate some of these, because if any justification is needed, they clearly demonstrate this government is driving this reform agenda to improve not just educational outcomes but, most importantly, lifetime opportunities for Indigenous students that a good education assures.
The need is quite confronting when you consider the picture the report represents in the NAPLAN literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous children in remote communities. We cannot shy away from this. Our literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students are well behind those of our non-Indigenous students, and they decline with increasing levels of remoteness. The review found that despite substantial investment and dedicated effort, in some areas the education outcomes for many Indigenous students are worse than they were at the time of the last comprehensive review undertaken in 1999. By Year 3 the literacy and numeracy results for Northern Territory Indigenous students in very remote schools are already behind those of Indigenous students in very remote schools in other parts of Australia.
As many will know, these results do not improve as students go through school; in fact, they get worse. By Year 9 Northern Territory Indigenous student achievement in very remote schools is on average five years behind that of Indigenous students in very remote schools in other parts of Australia. We cannot shy away from that.
This is perhaps the starkest of findings, which this government and this minister find totally unacceptable. This sample of findings portrays a picture that should leave no doubt that most Indigenous students in remote and very remote communities in the Territory commence school poorly prepared to engage with and be successful in their education.
The Australian Early Development Index, the AEDI, is a measure of early childhood disadvantage. It measures how children have developed in the domains of physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, communication skills and general knowledge. Of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory, 59% are recognised as developmentally vulnerable in at least one domain of the Australian Early Development Index. This compares to a figure of less than 21% for non-Indigenous children.
This means that Indigenous children are almost three times more likely to have difficulty as they undertake formal schooling. The consequence of this is that students struggle through the primary years. For many students this culminates in low attendance, low achievement and, eventually, total disengagement from education, which leads to limited opportunities in employment and limited active participation in the economy of the Northern Territory.
This reality is visible daily to the teachers working in remote and very remote schools. It is a reality confirmed by NAPLAN data, and a reality we cannot shy away from. In 2014 only 16% of very remote Indigenous students in Year 3 achieved equal to or above the national minimum standard in reading. There is clearly room for improvement, especially when we consider that in Year 5 only 11%, and in Year 9 only 9%, of our very remote Indigenous students achieved equal to or above the national minimum standard in reading.
These are not results we can be proud of. Bruce Wilson makes it clear there are many factors contributing to poor education outcomes, factors that are beyond the school gate and, fundamentally, outside the control of schools. As the Chief Minister pointed out in response to my previous statement, we need to continue to work closely with communities and the Australian government to respond to factors such as housing, poverty, the timing of major events and the effects of alcohol and substance abuse, all of which affect school attendance and need to be addressed.
But there are things we can and need to do in education. We have developed a long-term strategy to turn these poor outcomes around. The strategy, A Share in the Future, is named after the review’s report and has been designed to implement the 51 recommendations made by Bruce Wilson across the elements of the public education system. The strategy, including the implementation plan for the actions over the next three years, was officially launched in Warruwi on 1 May 2015.
Commencing in 2015, the strategy spans a period of 10 years. Over the first three years alone, from 2015 to 2017 with the assistance of the Australian government, we will invest almost $190m in education to take action and provide our Indigenous young people with quality education options and a chance to participate fully in the economy in the Northern Territory.
The strategy focuses on outcomes, not on activities. We will implement programs we can measure. We will build on success and ensure we are using evidence to inform what we do. We are aiming high; targets have been set and we want our Indigenous students, no matter where they live, to achieve results equivalent to our non-Indigenous students.
The implementation plan outlining the actions in the first three years of the strategy focuses on addressing recommendations in the review across the early, primary and secondary years, student and family engagement, and the education workforce.
It focuses on five elements. The first is called Foundations and supports childrens’ early learning experiences, followed by Essentials, which ensures children can confidently move through the primary years of schooling into pathways, providing a strongly-supported program of pathway options for students to succeed in their secondary schooling. The next section is Engagement to ensure students, parents and the community can access and participate in wide-ranging educational opportunities. The final element is Workforce, which strategically plans to have the best and most experienced teachers in our most complex and difficult very remote areas, and strengthens the capacity of our Indigenous professionals and para-professionals to deliver quality education to students.
The benefits of a long-term strategy include the consistent and sustainable delivery of programs that focus on what schools can deliver and impact on, despite the many external factors that affect student learning. It is important the strategy is implemented in a measured and timely manner. We will evaluate it as we go along to ensure that this informs what we do. Our strategy is grounded in a strong and ongoing partnership with the Australian government. We have negotiated to refocus funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory on implementation of the recommendations of this review. These negotiations succeeded because we have a comprehensive long-term strategy for improving Indigenous education outcomes, and we provided a clear set of actions for the next three years.
I will now detail those actions. The review made it clear the focus needs to be on a manageable number of programs which we know will make a difference. We must concentrate on those programs that we know, from evidence, will work. Over the years, with all good intent, schools have tried numerous programs in an effort to try to turn around poor literacy and numeracy outcomes for Indigenous students. As Bruce Wilson noted, many of these programs had not been tested, yet we still kept delivering them without necessarily achieving the desired outcome. We need to provide evidence-based programs for teachers to deliver and develop a culture of tracking success.
Early childhood is the foundation, the stage where a child’s early learning experiences can define their educational outcomes. Over the next three years, $24.75m will be injected into strengthening early childhood learning and services to address the disproportionate level of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous children as they prepare to commence schooling. The importance of focusing on early childhood has been a priority of this government, and there is a range of programs already in place and achieving success.
Parent and family engagement in a child’s education is a key to long-term educational success. At a cost of approximately $23.8m, the successful Families as First Teachers program will be expanded over the next three years to an additional 11 remote Indigenous communities to operate in a total of 32 sites. Over 4000 adults and children are already benefiting from the Families as First Teachers program, which works in partnership with a range of early childhood education, care, health and family support programs to ensure children and their families participate in quality early learning programs and can successfully transition into preschool. The program encourages parents and their young children to learn and read together in a supported educational environment, and fosters confidence in parents to make learning a priority in their child’s life.
Families as First Teachers not only delivers quality early childhood programs, it offers a range of family support strategies. It builds parental knowledge of early childhood learning and development, as well as parenting skills, health and nutrition. Families as First Teachers is supported by the evidence-based Abecedarian approach in Australia. This approach is a set of quality teaching and learning strategies that, under the guidance of early childhood educators, is used to enhance literacy, numeracy and early learning through quality parent/child interactions and parent education.
Families as First Teachers is a key activity supporting the government’s Framing the Future’s strong society goal. I strongly support this program. I have seen it in action, and as I said when I delivered my statement at the previous sittings, the children in these programs will now be better prepared to enter the school environment. They will not be scarred and they will not be scared. They will not be ashamed; they will be confident and learning. Families as First Teachers is a vital component in preparing young children for school.
In remote communities it is important to have an integrated approach to delivering early childhood services, with family engagement at the centre of this service delivery. In the past, early childhood service delivery in some remote communities has been ad hoc and scattered, making it difficult for families to access complete services. In partnership with the Australian government, $25m has been invested to build child and family centres located at Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ngukurr, Palmerston and Yuendumu. We are resourcing the child and family centres with qualified managers to provide a more coordinated approach with co-located services.
In Maningrida, for example, the child and families centre offers early childhood education and care support through a Families as First Teachers program; a crche and a playgroup; child and maternal health services, including the Healthy Kids Under-Fives program; a public health nutritionist/dietician; healthy skin checks; and antenatal care. Rheumatic heart disease check-ups are available. A speech pathologist and a physiotherapist provide services through the centre. An ear and oral health clinical trial is being conducted and there is a foetal alcohol syndrome disorder communal project under way. Community members can also access a range of family support services, including the remote area family and community program, legal aid services, and child and safety wellbeing support.
The centre has a multipurpose training room, which is available for the community to use. Our investment in early years ensures that young Indigenous children are prepared and are able to engage in the former years of school. When they enter primary schooling we need to be providing the essential skills and knowledge for children to succeed at school. Schools will have clears plans for supporting students and encouraging families as children transition from early year programs into preschool and then through the primary years of schooling.
Over the next three years we are committing $47.6m to build on the gains made in the early years, including preschool education, and to make sure students have the opportunity to continue their learning through a consistent and ongoing approach.
Bruce Wilson identifies the need to have a system-wide approach to providing literacy and numeracy programs, particularly for those schools with students not achieving NAPLAN results to the minimum standard. Some $20m of this funding will provide staff to support schools to deliver this essential package. An amount of $19m will be invested so all schools in remote and very remote communities will put in place consistent English oracy programs and highly-structured literacy and numeracy programs to ensure a solid foundation for students in reading, spelling, writing and mathematics. These programs will be supported with intensive professional development to ensure all students are accessing high-quality learning. Our investment will include $3.2m to ensure we can adequately measure our students’ progress and provide quality diagnostic feedback to teachers and, of course, parents.
All students in remote and very remote schools will participate in benchmark testing in literacy and numeracy using the Australian Council for Educational Research Progressive Achievement tests – PAT maths and PAT reading – so we have a common way to measure how our students are progressing.
I have previously spoken about the Direct Instruction program, a model of literacy and numeracy learning that is achieving positive results in the Cape York Peninsula. Direct Instruction is an evidence-based English mastery program which groups students based on their current knowledge and explicitly focuses on improving their English language skills.
The program requires students to master a particular concept before they learn the next concept. This ensures that students have a proper understanding and a solid basis to build on their learning. There are early signs of success in Cape York, with student improvements occurring not only in literacy and numeracy, but also in student engagement and behaviour.
As I have said in this House, I have been to observe the program in schools in Cape York. I went there because I was looking for ways to make things better for students in remote areas. I was impressed with what I saw. As we went in and out of classrooms, students were not distracted from their learning. The intense level of engagement was incredible. This program, supported by the Australian government, is being delivered in 15 government schools in remote Territory communities because we believe it has the qualities to succeed.
We are mindful of the advice provided in the review’s report and we will monitor and measure the effects of Direct Instruction to ensure it is delivering improvements for our students. Direct Instruction provides the benefits of a highly-structured and scripted curriculum that ensures continuity of student learning, lessening the significant impact that teacher turnover and student mobility has in very remote locations. We know that, sadly, many Indigenous students do not attend school every day. The Direct Instruction model provides learning based on the individual level of each student and concentrates on students mastering each learning concept.
Weekly student testing and data collection systematically monitor the progress of individual students and enable them to progress from the point which they are at individually. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. The Department of Education has developed a professional development package and individual teacher support mechanisms, ensuring staff are provided with the resources, coaching and peer support to confidently deliver the program. The critical point is that students are provided with consistency in their education. It is imperative that programs are designed and equipped for success and can be delivered effectively regardless of other factors.
A number of remote communities in the Territory have a long history of bilingual education. The review acknowledges this history and represents a balanced account of the evidence from previous investigations. While the previous government removed support for bilingual schools, we have funded a new position to coordinate bilingual programs across the nine schools, delivering them to ensure the resources provided deliver high-quality outcomes.
We will continue to provide an additional $2.5m per year to our nine bilingual schools to properly fund the bilingual programs at Elcho Island, Maningrida, Millingimbi, Numbulwar, Yirrkala, Lajamanu, Areyonga, Willowra and Yuendumu. The review makes a number of recommendations for first language learning, and the department will work closely with relevant schools to ensure a coordinated approach is in place for language and learning explicit English literacy and numeracy.
We want to see a strong improvement in the number of Indigenous students who transition successfully from primary to secondary school and who stay engaged in their learning. This is a critical area of importance to our government, and we have committed $59.8m over the next three years to open new horizons in the secondary years.
Secondary schooling is the vital pathway to further learning, and we do not back away from making some hard decisions about secondary delivery for remote students. The review made it very clear that secondary education delivery in remote and very remote communities is impeded because of the factors I have already discussed. Poor attendance affects a student’s secondary education outcome, and we need to ensure we have a consistent and aligned approach to school attendance. We have been working closely with the Australian government to ensure we are working in a connected and complimentary way, and ensure the $7.7m committed to improving Indigenous student attendance is invested in the areas that will have the most effect.
A suite of attendance initiatives is operating in many remote and very remote communities across the Territory. In 2014 we saw an 11% increase in school attendance across the 30 remote schools which have attendance strategies. We are building on the success of this by connecting our 32 school attendance and truancy officers with the nearly 300 local community personnel on the ground in our regions, working with parents to encourage children to regularly attend school. The school enrolment and attendance measures provide support for parents who have not enrolled their children in school or are not ensuring their children attend school. Ultimately, we have legislative processes under our Every Day Counts initiative to prosecute parents if they fail to make sure their children attend school regularly.
Our attendance initiatives will be complementary and work in concert to address issues identified with students, parents, the school and the community. Getting attendance right will significantly improve secondary education outcomes. Currently, low numbers of students make it generally impossible to deliver a quality secondary education program in very remote schools. The data tells us clearly that unless students are prepared for their secondary years of schooling, they will disengage. They will just stop participating. As the review confirms, this is exactly what is happening, and has been happening for far too long.
The review found the average attendance of senior-year students in very remote schools is about 30% - and we cannot shy away from that – or three days in every fortnight. In number terms, it means that on any given day on average fewer than six students are attending each of the very remote schools offering secondary education programs. Imagine a high school where only six students attend, on average, every day, and trying to provide a full high school program for them. It is just not viable.
In total, there are 51 schools trying to provide a full secondary education program, with low enrolment numbers and very low attendance rates. The Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results for Indigenous young people across the Territory are confirmed in the review findings as having flat-lined, and have been doing so for some time.
There have been some improvements in the number of NTCET completions in Darwin and Palmerston schools. However, in very remote schools, the low number of completions demands we do better and we do it differently.
Bruce Wilson calls for a structural shift in the delivery of secondary education for remote and very remote schools. What does this structural shift look like? The Indigenous Education Strategy emphasises the need to provide students with options during and beyond their secondary years of schooling, and to provide parents with choices of secondary pathways for their children. Secondary programs in many remote schools do not equip a student with life skills or basic workplace literacy and numeracy. They do not provide a pathway to further education in training or employment. This is unacceptable, and we will change that. In the first three years of this strategy we will put in place meaningful and engaging pathway options to provide Indigenous students with the support they need to have a fulfilling secondary school experience, be it in the academic or the vocational stream.
A total of $9.5m will be invested to establish an employment pathways program to be delivered in regional high schools and selected schools in remote and very remote communities where there are sufficient numbers of students to make the program viable. The employment pathways program will provide high-quality workplace literacy and numeracy courses, vocational training, work experience and structured work placement, and programs in health, resilience and wellbeing, in addition to opportunities for paid part-time work.
In last year’s Territory government budget, $40.5m was committed for the construction of residential facilities for students attending regional or urban high schools. The Australian government has committed a further $9.4m towards constructing residential facilities in Nhulunbuy. I will describe what that will look like in planning and timelines.
Our intention is to commence with building a $20m residential facility in Nhulunbuy so remote students from northeast Arnhem Land can have access to a high-quality secondary education at Nhulunbuy High School. There are a number of factors that position this regional centre to be the first location in which purpose-built facilities are constructed. Potential numbers from across the region are high, and Nhulunbuy High School is delivering high-standard secondary programs with outstanding Year 12 results.
We have begun the process of building pathways from Yirrkala and Garrthalala to connect the curriculum and learning resources across these three centres. We will deliver a clear and attainable pathway for students to pursue a high-quality senior secondary school education close to their homes.
We know the mention of boarding facilities can cause anxiety in parents and students. The Department of Education has been gathering information and feedback as planning for the Nhulunbuy facility commences. The Yothu Yindi Foundation has been engaged by the department to facilitate a steering group of local people who represent the regional communities and clan groups. Each step of the project planning will involve input and feedback from representatives across the region.
The department has recently been involved in an intensive two-way workshop with around 40 key stakeholders from the northeast Arnhem Land hostel at Gulkula. The facilities at Nhulunbuy will be the first of our new residential facilities aligned to regional high schools and will offer a quality secondary education option for students in northeast Arnhem Land.
We will work consistently over the life of the strategy to build further residential accommodation for remote students in the regional centres of Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. It will not be easy to implement this model of secondary provision, but it will be done carefully with communities so that parents and students have a real choice. We will provide well-resourced and well-planned transitional programs to support students and families to engage with and access secondary schooling.
A sum of $12.7m over the next three years will support the establishment of a transition support unit. The unit will open its doors in July 2015. It will provide staff to visit communities and discuss secondary education options with students and their families. It will also have a team of support officers to provide case management for students throughout their secondary school journey, wherever they may be. The transition support unit will work with parents to plan the best secondary educational pathways for their children, and work with very remote students in Years 6 and 7 so they are prepared for and enrolled in appropriate schooling options in their secondary years. A delivery of regionally-based case management services will ensure students who choose to undertake secondary schooling outside their community remain connected to their families and the services available to help them complete their secondary schooling.
The support unit will closely monitor all remote students in residential accommodation and react quickly to the early signs of disengagement, and provide rapid support for students experiencing difficulties. It will also support the significant number of high achieving and potentially high achieving students from remote and very remote areas. Staff will work with these students and their families to assist them to obtain scholarships to their choice of some of Australia’s most esteemed boarding schools, and support these students, and their families, as young people who have completed the NTCET and make the transition out of secondary school to university or the workforce.
Helping to transition students is also about partnerships. A key partner for us in this strategy is the Australian Football League Northern Territory through the new state-of-the-art Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre. We have committed $200 000 per annum for the next three years to the centre to further develop its educational component to ensure it is complementary in developing remote Indigenous students’ skills and experiences as they transition from primary to secondary school.
This partnership will see 12- and 13-year-old students from very remote communities experience a one week residential program in Darwin. This program will build a raft of personal development and transitional skills, including visits to and sporting interaction with boarding schools. Our partnership commenced with the first week-long trial visit of very remote students on 17 May 2015. This saw the first 16 students take part in this fabulous opportunity. This will be followed by a further 16 week-long visits before the end of the year and a further 32 visits in 2016.
Our new initiatives rely on engagement with families and students. Consistent and appropriate engagement and support during all the stages of schooling will see us retain happy and engaged students who can achieve their potential.
The Clontarf Academy is a highly successful program in place in 13 schools across the Territory. There are currently 877 boys in the program. We will continue to support this program, including expanding its footprint across our regional high schools, including Nhulunbuy. The Clontarf program is based on a strong relationship that builds trust, commitment and strong engagement for young Indigenous men with secondary schooling. Young men in the program mature under the guidance of excellent role models, develop commitment to their schooling and sporting endeavours, and are assisted into further study or the workforce at the completion of their secondary schooling.
We are matching the Clontarf program with a high-standard girls’ engagement program, to which we have committed $4.4m over the next three years. This will be established and funded this year and will target up to 650 Indigenous girls and young women in secondary schools in Alice Springs, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, West Arnhem, Nhulunbuy and Darwin.
The girls’ program, in addition to all its valuable engagement activities, will provide a credit towards an NTCET and transition students through their school to further education, training or employment. It will be specifically aimed at young Indigenous women and have a focus on educational outcomes, health and wellbeing, and employment options beyond school. The program will incorporate outcomes focused on improving employability skills and be closely linked to the employment pathway programs established in each school.
The actions under the Indigenous strategy require a skilled and supported workforce. We have committed $29.81m over the next three years to achieve this purpose. The Chief Minister has set high expectations to increase the number of Indigenous employees in the public service from 8% to 16% by the year 2020.
Education has a major role in achieving this target, not only by improving education outcomes for students so they can actively seek and secure employment in their chosen field, but in its own workforce. The department is punching above its weight in the number of Indigenous employees. Currently 606 staff, representing 13.2% of the workforce, are Indigenous.
The Department of Education is soon to launch its Indigenous employment and workforce strategy 2015-20, which will aim to further build its Indigenous workforce to ensure there is a quality workforce in place in schools across the Territory. Under the guidance of a newly-appointed Indigenous employment and workforce coordinator, the workforce plan will deliver a clear direction to attract the right people and retain and develop our existing employees.
In conclusion, I have described this government’s strong resolve to maintain our focus and commitment to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students. The education of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory is a cornerstone of our collective future prosperity. Our 10-year strategy addresses all recommendations of the review of Indigenous education. The first three years of implementation provides a sharp focus on delivering projects which are measurable and have the highest impact on student learning and engagement.
The key areas of the efforts are:
early childhood education and development programs
early literacy learning
engaging parents and carers in their children’s learning and development from the earliest years
structured literacy and numeracy programs throughout the primary years of schooling, such as Direct Instruction
Territory-wide age benchmarks to ensure effective monitoring of students achievement in reading, oral English and numeracy
residential options and transition support to very remote students
workplace literacy and numeracy programs to prepare students for work
substantial new investment to upgrade the skills of our Indigenous workforce
a major teacher housing refurbishment program.
We have set ourselves an ambitious challenge. It will not be easy, but we are prepared, with a comprehensive and long-term strategy to commit to tackling this issue so we can ensure our Indigenous children can have the very best opportunity to live productive lives.
I commend the statement to the House. I am extremely proud to take the challenge before us to improve Indigenous education for those people most in need and who, for far too long, have been left to wither with no possibility for a real future. This program will not be, easy, but this government is committed to improving the lives of all Territorians no matter where they live.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I thank the Education minister for bringing this very important statement to the Chamber so we can debate the future of Indigenous students across the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that education is the key to opportunity for these young Territorians. If they are not armed with an education their adult life will be pretty tough and they will miss out on many opportunities. We know that for a fact.
It is very important to the future of the Northern Territory because it will mean, ultimately, we will pull so many people who are living in poverty and conditions that are hard to fathom in a first-world country out of those situations. Education is a key to that.
I first thank the department’s Mr Tony Considine and Mr Ken Davies, who recently provided me with a briefing on the Indigenous education review and some of the steps the government has taken since releasing this strategy.
Looking at some of the key findings and identified as constant themes within the review, much of this is not new. These matters have already been identified over the years. It demonstrates the challenges ahead because these have been well-known challenges within the education system for some time. It has been difficult to get on top of them, but it is important we do.
There is much work to do. There are elements of the government’s direction when it comes to education that the opposition agrees with, but there are elements which the opposition has huge concerns with. For example, the government’s cutting of over 500 staff from the Department of Education, with teacher and staffing resources cut from schools, as well as huge amounts of money cut from the public education budget under the CLP government. When we talk about delivering education outcomes, we know money is not the be-all and end-all, but resourcing education is extremely important.
Our students have the highest learning deficits in this nation and are starting from well behind when they get into school. The answer is not to have less support for those students. You need more support for them. You need to work with those students far more intensively if you are to get them up to speed. Yet under the CLP government, we seem to have this determination to cut funding and resources from public education. That is not a very good start when we all want to see improvements in the critical area of Indigenous education.
Education will play a huge role in tackling Indigenous disadvantage, just as health and housing will. If a child gets a good education, they will have many opportunities ahead of them in their life. In the Northern Territory too many Indigenous students are not finishing school, which is a great shame and is concerning and something we need to work a lot harder at overcoming.
Many of those students are dropping out far too early, which is again a disaster for them and their future. We have also seen clearly in statistical data – NAPLAN is only one measurement of the education system in different assessment categories, but we can see clearly there is a serious gap between the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions, particularly when you break it down between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. If you look at the data on students reaching national minimum benchmark standards, it is concerning that gap does not seem to be closing.
The results have been lumpy over the years to say the least, but we are not getting the traction we want or the rate of improvement we must see to get those students to a level of education that will create different pathways for them in their adult life. There is a huge amount of work to do.
I acknowledge what the minister said about the Australian Early Development Index, the AEDI, and the importance of looking at those assessment categories before a student enters their schooling. It is important students start their learning at home so, when they start school, they are ready. That is where, over the years, we have seen a fair bit of work put into, for example, the Families as First Teachers program. That program was introduced under Labor and is operating in many communities at the moment. It is doing a wonderful job working with parents, grandparents and very young children to start that very critical early learning in the home through family and preparing them for the important schooling journey. Labor is proud of that program and we are glad to see the CLP government continue it.
Attendance, however, remains one of the greatest challenges in the education system that we must overcome. When it comes to Indigenous education, you can see there are huge gaps when you look at the breakdown of attendance in very remote schools and remote schools, particularly Indigenous attendance. Too many students are not going to school every day, and that will make a huge difference in their lives. Going to school every day, or well over 80% of the time, will ensure a student learns what they need to in order to move forward with their education. Unfortunately, a long journey needs to be taken there.
Major changes were looked at in the Every Child, Every Day strategy and introduced to the Education Act at that time. I welcome the increased focus over recent years on attendance and seeing more resources going into communities to encourage children to go to school. The attendance rates are still nowhere near good enough. We need to see attendance rates catch up as quickly as possible, and a lot of work still needs to be done.
The focus should never be dropped in that area. It needs to be appropriately resourced. We must see attendance issues overcome; it is vital. We have seen that attendance in schools can improve due to something as simple as a strong principal who has a very good relationship with families in the community. There might have been some trouble in the community and attendance goes backwards. There are varying reasons as to why attendance can be all over the place. When you look at year by year results and see some schools go up one year then down the next it can be very frustrating. I strongly encourage the government to keep up the work on that because attendance is critical to ensuring more Indigenous students in the Northern Territory get through those vital years at school and finish their education.
We know other things influence attendance. Home conditions – overcrowded housing remains a major problem in the Northern Territory, despite the more than 3500 new or improved homes delivered under NPARIH. Many people living in remote communities are still living in extremely overcrowded situations, as well as in our towns.
We must always make sure we are investing in housing. It does not matter whether you are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, or where you live, if you do not get a good night’s sleep you will struggle to function the next day. If you are a child and are living in an overcrowded house, you cannot get a good night’s sleep, so how on earth will you manage to get through a day of school and learn what you need to? That needs to be looked at as part of this Indigenous education journey.
There are also issues to do with parents, especially if they are having problems with substance abuse. It is important that families get the support they need to ensure children do not miss out on the opportunity of education.
I touched on the Families as First Teachers program earlier. It is strongly emphasised within the Indigenous education review, which was a Labor initiative. We were very proud of it. To go into the schools and see it at work, to see the mums with the kids going through books, learning in an interactive environment, is wonderful. That continues in the home, and many students are getting into the habit of seeing school as a good and important place to be. When they are old enough, they will start that journey of being in school.
It was very pleasing to see – as part of the Indigenous education review – that there are moves to expand Families as First Teachers, because we believe it is an important program. The opposition has made it very clear that we see it as a priority to address those vital early years before a child starts their schooling and to make sure children are ready, are hitting those developmental key benchmarks, are healthy and ready to start schooling.
We will be working very hard to look at what more can be done in the Northern Territory because there is a lot more that can be done to ensure students in the critical early years get access to the health services, education and support they need to prepare them for their important schooling journey.
I was also briefed by the department about – and the minister has very much hung his hat on this – the implementation of the Direct Instruction method into Northern Territory schools. The minister has visited Cape York on a few occasions. I understood after the estimates process that some of those were paid for by the Education department rather than through his ministerial travel, but he has had a thorough look at the Direct Instruction model and has decided this is the direction he wants to take the Territory under the Indigenous education review.
I have visited schools to see that model at work. It is happening in some schools at the moment, with the view to expand it later this year. I believe it will cost in the vicinity of $22m over three years to deliver the Direct Instruction model in schools. I am still not very clear on what that $22m delivers. Is it purchasing licences and access to the program? What additional resources do students get access to from that funding? Does it equate to any additional staff or teachers? That was not something I was able to get any clear answers to during estimates. One thing is for sure, if you were to invest an extra $22m into a specific area of education, you would expect to see more resources as part of that, particularly for teachers and teacher assistants to deliver the vital learning we want in those schools. What exactly are we getting for that $22m for Direct Instruction in our Territory schools? That is something I will be keeping an eye on in the future.
The government has made it clear that for many children living in remote communities to complete their education journey they will have to travel to boarding schools. It is nothing new in the Northern Territory. We have seen models before where students, to finish Year 12, have had to go to a boarding school.
It is critical those families and students who choose to go on that boarding school path, are supported. If a student decides to go through that journey, we want them to succeed, or as many as possible to succeed. I heard one story out bush which concerned me where students were successful and secured scholarships. They headed down south to big boarding schools, only to return very suddenly because it did not work out. They did not feel comfortable and it was an overwhelming change for them. For whatever reason it did not work, they came back to their home community and were too shamed to go back to their local school. So they dropped out of school altogether. That story horrified me. To hear of young students taking a big step in their life, feeling success and securing a scholarship to go away to boarding school, then for something to go wrong, and they return home to say, ‘I am too shamed to go back to school’, was devastating.
Students who want to finish Year 12 and go to boarding schools are going into very different situations. Many local schools are experienced after working with students from remote communities for a very long time. We have some wonderful private schools in the Territory which many members of this parliament have attended. They do a great job.
It is important we make sure everything possible is in place to help students who go away to succeed, and if boarding school does not work out, that they do not drop out. We must make sure we do everything we can to keep them engaged in their education, because that is critical.
I have spoken to my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who comes from one of the first areas where the boarding school will be expanding under the CLP government’s Indigenous education review plans. She has further questions about how broadly the consultation occurred within the communities that will be impacted by those changes. I am sure she will raise these questions further with the minister.
I note the minister’s statement referred to the Clontarf Academy. Again, that is something implemented during the Labor government which we were very proud of. When I visit Clontarf sites, I see young Indigenous men at school, engaged in their learning, and proud to be part of the program and at school. It is a wonderful program. We have some very strong male role models working in the Clontarf program who do a wonderful job with young men, taking them through some very important life skills. One thing is sure, Clontarf is not all about sport; it is about life skills and education. Sport is a way to keep kids engaged in school, but it is not about producing elite athletes; it is about producing more Indigenous men who have gone through an education so they have more opportunities in their life when they finish school. I think they do a wonderful job.
I was at my local school, Dripstone, recently, meeting the Clontarf boys. It was great to see them and see what a diverse bunch of students they are. Some boys are from remote communities and some are local boys living around the Dripstone feeder suburbs. To see how proud they were and hear how they felt about the program and how it engages them in their schooling was wonderful.
We were also very happy to see the recent opening of the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre, another initiative started under Labor and opened under the CLP. We are very supportive to see many young Indigenous men from remote communities go to the centre and acquire life skills, but also to promote important healthy lifestyle messages and the importance of an education. It is about attendance; they have to attend school to access that program. It is good to see we are encouraging students to stay at school.
With regard to the girls program, the GEMS program has been cut under this government. We know there are moves at the moment, as part of the Indigenous education review, to reinstate a girls program. It is not just the boys who need help. We need to ensure girls going through school have access to programs which help keep them engaged in their schooling journey and help with life skills. I am glad to see there will be a focus on providing a girls program in the Northern Territory for some of those schools that are now having to do without it. We look forward to seeing that up and running as soon as possible.
The minister also referred to, as part of the Indigenous education review statement, the importance of getting quality teachers to schools. Teachers can have a huge impact on the journey a student takes. We all remember good teachers in our years at school and know what a difference they can make. It is vital to get the right teachers into the communities, particularly in remote areas, to keep kids at school. We have all heard stories about the difficulties of recruiting people to communities, but also getting the right person for the job. It is not about having an adventure in the Northern Territory for one to two years and then off you go. We need teachers to commit to schools and stay there to build relationships with the community, with the students, and ensure they are there for as long as possible.
I worry about some of the messages being sent to teachers to come to the Northern Territory. There have been cuts to education driven by this government, particularly public education. We have seen teacher numbers cut with over 500 staff lost from the Department of Education, which includes teachers and support staff in schools, who are critical. We want to attract the best teachers to the Northern Territory, but you need a government willing to invest in education, schools and jobs to do that. That is vital.
With regard to the implementation of the Indigenous education review, we would be keen to hear from the minister about reporting to this parliament as they implement the changes and how they are going. We want to make sure we can keep a close eye on it and report on outcomes. If there are improvements, great, look at them and see what you can do to further enhance them and drive them forward. However, if things are not working out the way they were meant to, then that needs to be looked at. It needs to be analysed to see where it is going wrong and what can be done to make it better.
We agree that improving the outcomes of Indigenous students is vital to the future of the Northern Territory. Ensuring we have good outcomes for all students in the Northern Territory is vital to the future, but we have a government that seems to have sent out some very strong messages since 2012 that education is simply not a priority for funding, resourcing and investment. We have seen, under this government, huge cuts to public education. Since June 2012 there has been over 500 full-time equivalent staff lost from the Department of Education. That is a fact.
There is now over 130 fewer staff in senior and middle schools in the Northern Territory. We have also seen the roll-out of a new global budgeting system to schools, where we have seen great difficulties and problems. A clear admission that there were problems with the initial roll-out of the global school budget funding model was how, late last year, the former Education minister, the member for Araluen, had to come in and find another $22m to put into that program. We are still hearing of problems within the schools.
Schools still do not have enough money to address those issues, and it is not uncommon to hear stories about, for example, support staff having to cut their hours and schools that made big cuts last year to meet their budgets this year. Schools have to do more with less.
I am glad that through the estimates process we were able to proceed school by school and see a breakdown of global school budgets and staffing figures, and see how each school is tracking. The roll-out of global school budgets was disastrous and there is still much more to come with issues around global school budgets.
It is also concerning to see significant cuts to government education under the CLP. This year alone about $12m has been cut from the budget so schools have to do more with less. If you go back to 2012 and look at it in real terms, there was about an $80m cut to government education in that time. That is quite a significant figure for a place like the Northern Territory. It shows that schools have to do more with fewer resources, despite the fact we have the greatest learning deficits and difficulties in the Northern Territory.
Our students are behind. This government’s answer to that is to get schools to do more with less. From our own schooling journeys we know when a student has problems and difficulties they need extra support, one on one instruction, for example. That makes a difference. It is very difficult to see that happening when there are fewer resources in our school system.
We are concerned about it, but we welcome the statement with regard to the Indigenous education review. I thank the minister for the briefings I have been provided with. I also thank the staff within the department, because my understanding is they have done a great deal of work and they continue to do so. They are passionate about seeing a change in this because they understand how vital it is to those students. A student who does not succeed in education will be very limited in their life opportunities. You have some really passionate people in that department working towards seeing more students receive a great education.
I believe everybody in this parliament wants to see Indigenous students succeed, and see more of them finish their education and go on to a life with more opportunities. On this side of the Chamber one thing simply does not sit well with us, that is the fact you have cut teacher numbers, support services and funding to schools. That will not help us see those vital improvements in education. It will be very difficult for many of these schools to achieve the improvements in education we need to see in the Northern Territory when there are fewer teachers and support staff, and less resources for schools.
I thank the Education minister for bringing this very important statement to the House. We agree that we all want to see vast improvements in the education of our Indigenous students across the Territory.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, education is important for our people, especially in the remote communities. I was at Willowra School the other day and 15 kids turned up. It was a cold morning. I was told there were usually 30 but some of the kids were in bed as it was still too cold for them to come to school. At least they turned up later.
During my visit to Willowra School I saw how important education is, especially for my people who need to have education to be employed, to talk to the world, to be confident within themselves to speak to people who have English as their first language. This is the problem with our people who are not confident enough to speak clearly so people can understand them. This is why most of our children in the bush communities feel education is not important. I encourage parents to get their kids to school to get the best education there is, so it is possible for them to stand up and be proud of themselves and to speak clearly and be understood.
I trained to be a teacher, but decided that was not what I wanted in life. There are 189 schools in the Northern Territory, and the total number of remote schools is 46. Education has always been important for me, to make sure we get a sense of life and are proud of who we are. I want to ensure our people encourage their kids to go to school every day, get their kids out of bed every morning to go to school, and for our children to understand that is the only way forward for Aboriginal people who are part of the Northern Territory.
The Giles government is doing its best to encourage my people, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to make sure education counts and we get our children to school every day. The member for Arafura would agree with me; if you do not have education in your life, you will never get anywhere. My cousin, Marie Ellis, has a strong view on getting kids to school. She wants to see kids educated to make them strong and proud of themselves.
I encourage Aboriginal people who are watching me speak today to get their kids to school and get them educated, because that is the only way we can make a difference for our people.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. I devoted more than half my life to a career in Indigenous education.
I start by addressing the first four pages. Once again we hear the incredible statistics about failure, and I challenge the House and the department, led by the minister, to start moving on. The statistical analysis continually belted out through the parliament and media has a serious impact on people’s self-esteem. It has a serious impact on parents, teachers and students. We know these figures and understand the ramifications. Let us move on and shift the debate into a new area.
As an infant/primary trained teacher, when you were encouraging children to write, one of the very simple standardised practice was the ‘who, what, where and why method’. If you put up the headers ‘who, what, where and why’ and then scaffold off from those markers you create the story. With the members of this House – it was good to hear the member for Stuart talk about education – I would like to challenge the ‘how’. How will we change outcomes? If the minister wants to say there has been no change in Indigenous education for the better since 1999, let us press the rewind button to 1979, then to 1969, because in this House there are members who are the result of very good educational outcomes. We have members who are skilled and educated in two worlds.
I refer to the member for Arafura. I would like to examine the ‘how’ in the member for Arafura’s life and an example of education in two worlds. He is an educated man culturally and an educated man in the western mainstream system, who has been elected by the electorate of Arafura to be a member of the Legislative Assembly.
What is the story in that educational pathway? Let us concentrate on what is different about then and now. It is not as simple as the welfare story. I do not want to get bogged down in the welfare story because we have heard that and it is on the Parliamentary Record well and truly. I support what the member for Port Darwin says when we talk about the welfare story, but let us go to the nuts and bolts of what is different now. Why are we not seeing those outcomes?
I could tell you a 35-year story. Perhaps we should go back to the 1960s and assess what was working then? Why was it working, why do we have members in this House who can tell a story about very good education outcomes, and why do we have real challenges today?
That is where I would like the debate to shift to. The minister has at his disposal amazing resources to start exploring this with departmental resources, with taxpayers’ funds, to look at consultancies, reviews and reports. Let us dig into that and identify the Aboriginal student in the 21st century. Let us analyse why the challenges are there today and why things are different than in their grandfather’s and grandmother’s time? That is what I would like to move on to. Four pages could be deleted from the statement. Let us shift the educational resources into exploring those differences. I can add my take on that. I would like to participate in that debate.
Getting down to tin tacks, the other element is your outline is of a 10-year strategy. I did not hear any reference to additional resources towards foetal alcohol spectrum disorder or about new, creative and innovative behaviour management or support and resources. I heard nothing about alternative pathways in education designed for students with higher support needs who do not fit into the mainstream system, particularly secondary-aged students who will not be attending boarding schools in town. What is there for those students? What do we do with the students who are expelled or suspended from either the hostel or the town school and return home? I am already talking to students on the streets of regional towns and remote communities who have already hit a wall when it comes to government policy.
What are we doing about community engagement? I did not hear much about strategies addressing community engagement, the rhythms of a remote community, their calendars, cultural context, sports, recreation, funerals and observance of very special cultural markers.
There is a lot of scope in resourcing when you look at these issues. I did not hear it in the statement, but I am sure in summing up you might like to address some of those issues. I listened intently at estimates and I heard a good explanation from the Department of Education about how there are existing initiatives to address foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I heard of a number of new initiatives which are planned, but there was no real budget appropriation for that.
The government commissioned the Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Select Committee and its report, which was a great move for this parliament. The report is excellent. It presents the latest information for any government to make a difference. In 2017 approximately 8000 Aboriginal children will be turning five years of age and entering the formal education system, yet we see in Budget 2015-16 by the CLP government a cut to preschool education by $12m. That is a serious concern for Territory families and parents, as it should be for this government.
As we see in the demographic of young Territorians in my electorate, under 25-year-old parents with children under five years are represented above the national average. We have to prepare for the influx of children, including Indigenous children, who will have different needs. As the FASD report tells us, up to 50% could present with higher-support needs. If we do not see a continual and specifically targeted investment now and for the future, then schools will continue to struggle.
School attendance is always thrown around and addressed with political rhetoric, but let us seriously look at the appropriation made by the federal government in relation to an attendance strategy. It does not acknowledge these kids coming into our mainstream, regional and remote schools with poor attendance records who generally present with higher-support needs. I will generalise about these kids and put them into two classes: higher-support behavioural and higher-support emotional.
As we bring these kids in, they are putting a lot more pressure on the schools and education system, our teachers and programs. The Commonwealth government has partnered up with you and we are seeing this program roll-out. You are talking about the improvements but we are not seeing the same level of resourcing to address higher-support needs students. You only have to go to regional and remote schools and talk to teachers to understand this dynamic.
That brings me to the next point; often there will a higher-support need to be addressed through an alternative pathway in the transition and induction process for that student. I talked to teachers recently in regional and remote areas, and said, ‘Anecdotally, give me a number out of an average class size of around 25, where we could zone in with an alternative pathway program to support those kids which would normalise your class and reduce your work from a 90% crowd control to a 90% teaching load.’ The numbers were quite surprising. They were small numbers; less than five in most cases where I asked that question – two or three and maybe four, although, some said; ‘If number three is supported through that type of program, then number four can stay with me’. Teachers are realists; they have a go and need to be supported. This is one way we can support this higher-need cohort. If anybody is interested in the FASD report, the numbers showing what is coming are critical and alarming.
The minister needs to look at alternative pathway programs to address his NTCE deficits. Once again, the statistics are confronting. They have an impact on students’, teachers and, no doubt, the parents’ self-esteem.
What are we doing about alternatives to secondary-age programs? If we have students who have missed vast areas of their education through their early and primary years, what will we do to re-engage them? There are many opportunities. The minister did not mention the Vocational Education and Training space in his statement. I would love to take you back, minister, and debate in the House how we can do that, how to achieve those outcomes in the secondary area using alternative pathways, specifically with school industry partnerships and Vocational Education and Training.
Parent engagement did not feature in the reforms we heard about in this statement. The Parents as First Teachers program is excellent. I support it and thank the minister for its continuation. However, when it looks as if we could face federal government cuts, with other states and territories, of $80m to health and education over the next 10 years, these programs will be difficult to sustain. When you talk about those national partnerships and the specific development of programs, then the federal partnerships are critical. I hope you are engaging at that level to make sure the Territory is not disadvantaged by the Commonwealth in its pull back of funding for health and education in the states.
Teacher numbers and the budget cuts are important in this debate. The member for Wanguri put that very clearly in the estimates process, and continues to challenge this government because that is the reality. The efficiency dividends of this government’s budget over the last three years have been significant in all areas. We present a clear alternative – we had a budget step-out plan, but it did not involve savage cuts to education. That is a clear difference between the Labor and Liberal parties. The member for Wanguri clearly articulated how, over those years, this has impacted on our schools, and defeated any improvement in outcomes.
The minister knows that. He is the minister in Cabinet who has been rolled regarding the efficiency dividends. He has delivered these cuts. He knows the truth and he has to try to work with it, and, basically, wear it. That is not an easy job. We know the level of these cuts and the effects these cuts are having. The minister is in a very difficult position in improving outcomes with the budget strategy being imposed on him as a Minister for Education.
I would also like to hear more about the professional development of teachers. Minister, there is word across the regions now that there is no professional development occurring with teachers gathering and talking about teaching practice and methodology. Improving outcomes is a challenge. We have to professionalise and support our staff. That is an area in Indigenous education where you can do a lot of specialised work. That is a topic I am picking up as I travel about, and I share it with you in good faith. No doubt departmental people listening to this can explain the importance of teachers’ professional development when dealing with classroom practices and methodologies.
I am watching with great interest the implementation of Direct Instruction. The Direct Instruction model reminds me of the standardised curriculum 30 years ago. A standardised curriculum, when I started under the Commonwealth Education department, was to try to keep continuity in the curriculum and address staff turnover, but essentially it was to address cross-cultural contexts. Many of the schools I started teaching in did not have English as a first language, so a standardised curriculum presented a good model to build on. You had the basics and then you could scaffold off that. It provided good outcomes.
To me Direct Instruction seems to be a move back to a standardised curriculum. However, I am concerned about how standardised that has become because it loses a lot of creativity. Young teachers who are now implementing the Direct Instruction model need professional development about scaffolding. Sticking to a script is okay, but sticking to a script does not address that love of learning, that element that is difficult to articulate to professionals, parliamentarians, parents and students. It is an old school concept that needs to be addressed. The way to do that is through professional development.
The Direct Instruction model is costing a lot of money. It could be a deficit model; however, I am prepared to give it time. I am supporting schools that have undertaken the trial and I am keen to meet with teachers. I have been invited to look at that model closely in the classroom, which will take place, hopefully, in the second semester of 2015.
There is an interesting point with the Direct Instruction model. Statistically it relates to poor attendance. As the new concepts are introduced, if a child misses significant Direct Instruction lessons there is a compounding effect that can be defeating in regard to educational outcomes. That seems to be one of the unique qualities of this model that can be dealt with in other ways. The minister will probably be able to report back to the House on critical benchmarks met along the way to see if it is making any difference.
For bilingual education there were a couple of brief paragraphs, with the minister talking about supporting bilingual education with $2.5m over nine schools, or just over $300 000 a school. I am interested in how that money is appropriated because from my experience over 30 years the critical element for any bilingual program is a teacher fluent in the first language and English. That is the challenge. Thirty years ago we had the most amazing dynamic staff across our bilingual schools who were fluent in their first language, often three or four first languages and, of course, English, both written and spoken. Those dynamic teachers led that bicultural and bilingual movement. Backed by literacy production centres and community engagement, we had those programs delivering effective outcomes.
I am keen to hear what is new in that space. You have an appropriation toward it, and I would like to debate that with you in the future. I have run out of time, but I hope you have a few points and take them in good faith. I assure you the opposition has a clear alternative in this area and we will continue to debate it positively. We look forward to more information, even if it is a 20-page statement dropped on the desk for opposition members to work through on their feet. We are up for the challenge, we hope you are, and thank you for this opportunity.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, for a number of decades remote Indigenous education outcomes have been below national standards. It was clear that they had not improved even though both Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments had increased funding by large amounts. Literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students in very remote communities in the Northern Territory are the lowest in Australia. I have made clear many times in this Assembly my commitment to achieve better education outcomes for our Indigenous students. I am proud to say that I am part of a government that feels just as strongly. I will be talking about the Country Liberal government’s review into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. This review was undertaken by Bruce Wilson, and it is titled A Share in our Future.
It was made clear that Indigenous education outcomes were well below standard. The minister talked about a quote from the report. I will repeat it now to make sure we all know how much we need to take a different approach:
The minister received the report from Mr Wilson in May 2014. Instead of rushing out and throwing money at the problem, the Minister for Education gave his department time to properly consider the report and come up with strategies to implement recommendations in ways they believed would deliver the best outcomes and the best chance of success.
The department came up with a 10-year plan for reforming remote and very remote education. As the minister outlined earlier, the strategy is made up of five elements: Foundation, which supports children’s early learning experience; Essentials, which ensures children can confidently move through the primary years of schooling; Pathways, which provides strong support programs, or pathway options for students to succeed in their secondary schooling; Engagement, which ensures students, parents and communities can access and participate in wider-ranging educational opportunities; and Workforce, which strategically plans to have the best and most experienced teachers in the most complex and difficult very remote areas, and strengthening the capacity of our Indigenous staff to deliver quality education to students.
Politicians quite often are accused of only looking at short-term outcomes and always being worried about the next election. With this strategy, we have done the opposite. We have set out our plan and targets in detail for the next 10 years. I look forward to seeing the results of this strategy. I took great pleasure in joining the minister and Mr Davies from the department for the launch of this strategy at Warruwi School in my electorate.
After more than 11 years of no improvement under Labor, it is time for all of us to take responsibility for the future of all our children. Our children are our future, and we must make sure they are given all the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in life.
One of my concerns for our remote communities in west Arnhem is the need to target kids who are not getting any support. I want to see that change. We need to start looking at policy we can implement to tackle this issue so kids can have a good education and a better life.
I thank Mr Wilson for undertaking the review. I also thank the Education department for its work in developing the strategy. I also acknowledge the minister’s strong commitment to improve education outcomes for all Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House on the Indigenous education review’s implementation. There are a number of issues I will talk about on this subject, but a good deal of it will be devoted to my own electorate which, as we heard from the minister, will see the construction of a boarding facility commencing in September.
I have listened to what other members had to say on this subject. I have to correct the member for Arafura in his comments about how this government is not driving an agenda based on elections or electoral cycles. It is quite the opposite. We have a boarding facility and a $20m investment going into Nhulunbuy very soon which is completely at odds with the recommendation of the Wilson review that these recommendations be implemented with bipartisan support over a 10-year cycle so it is beyond electoral boundaries. I do not see that happening in my electorate with these current changes, but I will return to that.
As a parent of school-aged children, a school teacher for a number of years – all of my teaching was in the Northern Territory – and someone who lives – and has done for 25 years – in a remote area, I have seen quite a bit during my time in education. After a couple of decades of CLP government not investing in secondary area education in our remote schools – not one Indigenous child graduated with an NTCET because there was no secondary education, there was only post-primary. That is not to say there were not children from those communities not going to boarding schools, perhaps in Darwin or down south. But under the CLP government for more than two decades, not one child from a remote Indigenous community graduated from Year 12 because Year 12 was not on offer in their school.
Labor was in government for 11 years and one of the first things the first Labor Education minister, Syd Stirling, former member for Nhulunbuy, my predecessor, did when he became the first Labor Education minister in the Territory, was to address the incredible deficit in education in remote Indigenous schools. Over 11 years, whilst Labor still had a lot of work to do with the federal government – and the former Labor government in the Territory worked with the Howard government as well as the Labor government that came after – there were some real steps forward: the investment in infrastructure in these remote schools, including accommodation for teachers; and investment in curriculum and consultation with communities about what was important to them. We did not always get it right but in the relatively short space of 11 years, Labor delivered significantly to secondary education.
The new CLP government – well, not so new now, as it is coming up to three years in office – has struggled to deliver to remote schools. I appreciate the steps they have taken in moving forward with the Indigenous education review, but there are many who reject the recommendations of that review and the Wilson report.
I attended a consultation session in Nhulunbuy quite late on a Friday afternoon when most people are not that interested in attending community consultation sessions. About 15 or so attended, predominately teachers and school council members. Earlier in the day there had been quite a large gathering at Yirrkala School where community members participated in a discussion and made it very clear to Mr Wilson and the Education department bureaucrats with him that they were very unhappy about some of the proposals in the draft document. That included compulsory boarding facilities and that secondary education not be offered to Indigenous kids in the bush – that they should be given no choice and sent to boarding facilities.
It is no small wonder that families and communities were outraged at the proposal. I visited Numbulwar last year for the first time and learnt it had not been consulted. Nobody went to Numbulwar to talk to the community face to face about the draft report and recommendations. The people were not given any opportunity to participate yet the community’s kids, in particular their secondary-aged students will be impacted by the recommendations now that Cabinet has adopted some of the recommendations.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to attend a consultation meeting out at Gulkula, the site of the annual Garma festival. I was lucky enough to discover this meeting was on. I was sitting in the minister’s office preparing for a briefing on the boarding facility proposal and changes to delivery of Indigenous education as it pertained to my electorate. At the start of that briefing I was advised a meeting was coming up on Friday 28 May.
I had not being invited to any other meetings held prior to this. I see that as a deliberate strategic move by the government. You do not want the local member there. For heaven’s sake, she might say something you do not want to hear; she might try to derail the project or offer an alternative view. I said I would be grateful to receive an invitation to that consultation meeting. I received it a day or two before the meeting was due to be held.
I could not help but wonder if there was some consternation about whether or not I should be sent an invitation. That is disappointing, if that was the case. Nevertheless, I was pleased to receive one. I attended that Friday. It commenced about 9:30 am and went through to 2 pm. There were no more than 15 or so people there. I have no idea who invitations went out to so I do not know if there were people who were invited or should have been invited and could not come.
I found at that meeting a sense of trepidation and fear. A number of hard-working public servants had been tasked with enforcing the will of the executive of government, to proceed at all costs – we are talking big costs of $20m – to get a boarding facility under way on the campus at Nhulunbuy High School, with the view that Nhulunbuy High School will become the regional secondary education centre. You would no longer be able to do your senior secondary education – that is Years 10, 11 and 12 – if you were currently doing it on homelands, such as Laynhapuy or Marthakal homelands. You would not be able to do senior secondary education down the road at Yirrkala. It appears that Gapuwiyak will be a part of this as well. Beyond that we are not sure which other communities would have to send their children to Nhulunbuy High School to receive senior secondary education.
I notice the language of the government has changed slightly, because they realised at the outset they had the language and the message all wrong. They have backpedalled now to say, ‘No, we are not removing anybody’s choice. There will be choice’. They are quite right when they say children have always had the choice to attend boarding schools in Darwin. I have had a number of constituents over the years who have sent their children to Darwin. I have constituents who send their children for boarding and senior secondary education in Melbourne, Sydney or Townsville, all with varying degrees of success. Any family, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, that sends their children away, for whatever reason, faces challenges with homesickness, being away from family and country; especially my Yolngu constituents because their children’s connection to country is so critical for them.
People have been told they still have the choice to use boarding facilities intrastate or interstate. They will have a new choice: they can send your children into Nhulunbuy High School into this beautiful 40-bed, potentially 80-bed, facility, depending on how the first phase goes. They will have the choice to raise and educate their children on country; however, they will only have post-primary education.
People interpret that as gammon education. We know resources under the CLP have already been stripped from our schools, with more than 500 positions gone. This includes Yolngu teacher assistants, who are critical in classrooms with providing the bridge between a non-Indigenous teacher and the students. I only have had to visit the homelands in my electorate over the last 12 or 18 months to see the decline in resources. It is sad to see how these schools that were once quite vibrant places, where students were well-supported with teachers – keeping in mind these kids are English second language speakers, and have suffered – trying to look after the entire gamut of a primary school-aged class with varying ranges of ability.
What concerns my constituents and me, and what was very evident at the meeting at Gulkula recently, is people not feeling they have been consulted. They feel they are being told. They were never told explicitly, ‘Sorry, but the plans to invest federal government money in a boarding facility at Garrthalala homelands’ – one of the Laynhapuy homelands, which was running a successful secondary education program with philanthropic support through a Rotary Club in Geelong which assisted in building a small boarding facility, as well as the SHEP program delivering senior secondary education – ‘sorry, but the money has stopped’. Year 12 students were graduating; children were boarding there, coming from other homelands such as Dhalinybuy, Wandawuy and Gan Gan – and possibly one or two other homelands; I cannot remember them all. That program has been allowed to wither on the vine because the resources have been removed.
Nobody told local people that with the change of government at the Territory level and federal level that boarding facility would not proceed. Nobody consulted with them to see if they would be happy to send their children to a boarding facility in Nhulunbuy, a school not on their country but on somebody else’s. At that meeting at Gulkula people were incredibly polite in raising their concerns. Yalmay Yunupingu, who is a teacher with a Bachelor’s degree and a linguist, spoke very eloquently at that meeting. She raised concerns that NAPLAN was being held up as the only evidence why senior secondary education would not be conducted in their schools in the future.
You can imagine how Indigenous students and their families feel when they are told time and time again, ‘You are failures’, ‘This is not working’. Bruce Wilson described it as a ‘human tragedy’. ‘Kids at Yirrkala and on homelands, you are a human tragedy because your NAPLAN results are not very good.’ As Ms Yunupingu explained, NAPLAN results are but one indicator of success at a school.
Children for whom English is not their first, second, third or even fourth language are required to sit the same test that students in Darwin or Melbourne sit, without any consideration that English is not their first language. Being told that they are a human tragedy and failures, you can imagine, does not do a great deal for their self-esteem.
Ladders are published that have red lines on them that highlight that Baniyala school, Gawa school or other remote schools are not doing well. These communities and children are simply ranked and told, ‘You are lousy; you are not doing at all well here.’
I have talked about Yalmay Yunupingu. I want to talk a little about her husband, the late Dr Yunupingu, who had a vision for Indigenous two-ways education. Very recently, on 2 June, it was the second anniversary of his passing. I was unable to attend that ceremony, but I understand there were some 100 Yolngu people who attended Yirrkala school to participate in it. I will share a few words from one of the speakers at that ceremony, Trevor Stockley, a retired teacher who has returned to Yirrkala where his son is teaching, and was a contemporary of Dr Yunupingu’s who spoke at this ceremony. He taught with Dr Yunupingu. I obviously cannot read as he can in language, but he has translated it into English, and I will place it on the record:
It is true: consultation on these incredible and very significant changes have proceeded without real and genuine engagement. I was at the homeland of Borawuy, also known as Wandawuy, last week for an overnight visit. It was purely coincidental when I contacted the community and school to see if people were out there that …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: It happened that at the time I was planning to travel to Wandawuy, about a two-hour drive from Nhulunbuy, with my electorate officer, Sarah, we discovered ahead of our visit that the Learning on Country program had a special community event planned for last Thursday morning.
The Learning on Country program has been in operation for more than a year, probably closer to two years now, and is just what it says, learning on country. It is about kids being educated on their country. It features a curriculum with literacy and numeracy, but encompasses that two-way sharing and learning of knowledge about their community. We participated in a walk that took us about two hours around the community of Borawuy.
What was particularly special was seeing perhaps 25 kids ready for school first thing in the morning – hair brushed, shoes on, doing their routine exercises, sitting down in lines while their Yolngu teacher, Wapit, explained to the children what was happening on the day. The kids were then joined by a couple of Yirralka Rangers, Ian Hutton and Napuhuy Wunungmurra, and a number of elders from the community. There were parents, fathers, and it was an amazing experience to be led on this important walk around Wandawuy community for a couple of hours where we stopped and talked about particular plants – what their uses were for ceremony, food, and medicine – but also about the seasons, about the law associated with some of the places we visited, and about the shark story from the waterway that surrounds Wandawuy community.
At the conclusion of the walk was shared with us a story which is very special to that clan group, about the shark. Then we celebrated the end of the walk with a barbecue that had everybody helping to prepare the food.
I was struck by how powerful the Learning on Country program is and the jobs it can lead to within homelands. There is a limited job market in homelands, but one of the biggest employers of Indigenous people is the ranger program. They have a vital role in protecting the environment, but with that you are protecting Yolngu law, culture, language and the things that are sacred, and passing it on to younger children.
The other thing happening at Wandawuy, as it is at a number of homelands in the east Arnhem region under Lirrwi Tourism, is developing a niche market in homeland tourism. This is what people at Wandawuy are doing in preparing these walks, quite apart from the knowledge sharing and the education those children are receiving. I saw Wali Wunungmurra recently, the former chairperson of the Northern Land Council. We spoke about education and he said, ‘Define for me what quality education is’. What quality education is for the Attorney-General and his two daughters may well be different to what my idea of quality education is, and different again for Mr Wunungmurra, as well as those homeland families.
I see the Learning on Country program preparing students for pathways into work that, should they choose, allows them to remain on their homeland. Different parts of the Territory refer to homelands as outstations, particularly in Central Australia. Regions are different, as to how many people live on these homelands and outstations. I can assure you that in my electorate, homelands are regarded as important places and there is a strong feeling that – and I have heard people say it time and time again about their children – when they go away, they grow away.
If older children from homelands are required to get their quality NTCET education at a regional high school facility in Nhulunbuy, there is a fear amongst people that those children going away will disrupt the social fabric of the communities, the family connections and the family connection to country. People, not surprisingly, are starting to see this as a move by government to close down homelands by stealth, to starve them of resources so they will eventually have to move away.
The member for Fong Lim, in opposition, loved talking about urban drift. He thought it was wonderful. He said urban drift is a great thing. He described homelands, outstations and some remote communities as black holes, miserable places. That is not so.
It is not too late for the government to put the brakes on with this boarding facility and to stop, step back and think, ‘Let us start listening to these people, start talking to them and genuinely engaging and take these plans out of an electoral cycle’. Twenty million dollars is a lot of money to spend. I have put it to the Education minister on more than one occasion that what it is about first and foremost is an economic stimulus package for Nhulunbuy.
I am sure there are building companies and contractors in Nhulunbuy who would be delighted at the prospect of tendering for work on a $20m project that would employ many people and stimulate our local economy. But is it really the best thing for educational outcomes in northeast Arnhem Land? Even the Wilson review said these boarding facilities should be on a trial basis. Investing $20m into a community to build a boarding facility that has not been consulted on widely is not a smart thing to do.
From what I have seen in the time I have lived there, and especially in the time I have been the local member, things happen best and are successful and sustainable when they come from a grassroots level. I spoke at the meeting at Gulkula recently about how some of the Aboriginal organisations and initiatives that have been successful have come about at grassroots level.
Lirrwi Aboriginal tourism corporation has been built up over a number of years. It started at Bawaka community and has now grown to take in a number of other homeland communities. Its success is underpinned by the fact that the family at Bawaka and their extended family have ownership of it. They have had good support in running that business, but it is theirs. They have their own board and Yolngu chairperson. The Yothu Yindi Foundation, started by Dr Yunupingu, is an incredible organisation with where it is now at Gulkula, running one of the biggest Indigenous festivals every year, and foraying into education and other matters, an organisation that evolved over years from grass roots.
The takeaway liquor permit system in Nhulunbuy did not come from the government. It came from grassroots level from a group of strong women at Yirrkala, predominately Marika women, who wanted to change what was happening with alcohol abuse and misuse in the community. It has worked and has been sustainable because they embraced it and worked with stakeholders to see it evolve.
Yolngu have a lovely metaphor that they use time and time again. It has to do with the lippa lippa, or canoe. It is about people sitting in that lippa lippa. To get across the water everybody needs to be working together and rowing in the same direction, not against one another but with one another. Right now that lippa lippa – that is, the boarding facility and Indigenous education across the homelands in my electorate – is off course; it is at risk of tipping over and everybody falling out.
Consultation has to be genuine and it has to be right across the homelands to the people who are affected by it. When I was there last week nobody at Wandawuy knew about this boarding facility, and nobody had been there to sit down and have a meeting with them. I put it to the Education minister that he needs to stop and rethink this process. There is a view at the moment of ‘build it and they will come’. The minister is at risk of building a white elephant because families do not want to send their children to a boarding facility.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, before closing debate I will read into Hansard page 18 of my statement which I inadvertently missed out. I apologise for that. For Hansard it starts after page 17, where I said:
What I am about to read was not read.
… develop quality leaders and build performance potential while supporting and valuing our people. Indigenous educators and support workers in remote and very remote schools fulfil a crucial role in supporting Indigenous students and non-Indigenous teaching staff. This element of the strategy focuses on actions to make sure that Indigenous employees in our schools have the same professional development opportunities as other staff. We are partnering with Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, and strategically planning the professional development pathways for our Indigenous staff. This partnership will enable our staff in remote areas to access high-quality professional learning. They will be supported by a dedicated regional learning coordinator to assist them in negotiating their career pathways.
We acknowledge that our remote teacher workforce sometimes works under difficult conditions and we need to ensure that people moving to remote areas to work in our schools have safe, secure and comfortable accommodation. It is my firm belief that by providing this we encourage good teachers to stay longer and provide greater continuity for students. We have committed $25m for the construction of 10 new dwellings and the refurbishment of 144 existing dwellings over the next five years as part of a teacher housing refurbishment and replacement program. Under this strategy, work has already commenced on the refurbishment of 16 houses across Ngukurr, Ali Curung, Wooliana, Milingimbi and Maningrida. New kitchens, new laundries and better bathroom amenities are the focus of the upgrades. We want our teachers to stay and we want them to feel valued.
That is what I missed out from the second reading, and then we went into the concluding comments.
I thank everyone for offering their support and their comments in regard to the Indigenous education strategy. It was hard to listen to some of the rhetoric, but the constant was the fact that we should be looking for a bipartisan approach to Indigenous education. The members for Barkly, Nhulunbuy and Wanguri spoke about the need to put the politics aside and ensuring we provide what is right to improve education for our students.
At the same time, they spoke about the conspiracies and not being invited to a meeting to talk about the ‘human tragedy’, as the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned. The member for Barkly talked about the human impact it has. That is hard to take when you know about the scare campaign and tactics employed by Labor over the last few years against this government over what we are trying to do with education.
Have we been faced with extreme budgetary restrictions because of the budgetary system we have in the Northern Territory and the position we were left in from the last government? Yes, absolutely, without a doubt.
I look at the Education department today and see a fantastic vehicle run by dedicated people. It is an efficient system; it is a very efficient government department.
Some of the results we are getting in education today astound me, given there is a big efficiency drive now in the department. I said to the member for Daly earlier, I wonder if we had not peeled back the layers provided by the previous government, the layers of bureaucracy, whether we would have understood just how efficient the Education department could be in the Northern Territory?
I was thinking, how do you describe what we inherited? To me it was a little like a circus tent that had the lights replaced; the tent was white, it had been repainted, every globe on the outside had been changed, the signs had been repainted and the tent looked a million dollars – but inside the crowds were getting smaller and the show was of a decades-old quality because there had been no investment in improving the show.
There was no investment in driving teacher quality or the product being taught in our schools to ensure the educational outcomes were improving. Using the analogy of the tent, the show was becoming less and less interesting for the audience, in this case for the children.
There was plenty of money thrown at it. I argue that every school I visited in remote areas was well-resourced and the teachers were passionate, but the results were not getting any better.
Sadly, the approach the former government was taking in education was the wrong approach. I do not want to be too critical, because I do not think there is anyone on the other side with intentions that were anything other than honourable in wanting to improve education. There were sparks of brilliance in some of the schools I visited, but not all of them.
How do you develop a program that will provide those sparks of brilliance in every school? It starts with the teachers but also with the program the teachers are using to teach. You need to engage children, that is why some teachers are far more successful than others.
Those teachers who are successful are people who can inspire someone, people who can stand at the front of the class and get those children involved in their own education. Find out what fires them up because if someone is fired up you know what? They will go and do the job for you. Someone who is fired up – whether it is on the football field, a classroom, or job – if you inspire somebody, they will chase their dreams.
But when you have a system you have to modify – we did not have to; we could have sat back and thought the previous government did the best they could. ‘Look at the money they are spending in education, what are we going to do about it?’ If they could not get it right, we are not going to be better; let us keep doing what they did.
I could not do that, so we slowly started to unpack what was being taught in our schools, how they were being resourced and the excessive bureaucracy we had in the Department of Education. I remind people that at a time when the cohort of students grew by under 200, the department grew by 700 or more; there was too much bureaucracy.
I start to see the picture slowly turning in people’s minds, whether they be from school councils, or they are teachers or parents. There has been a lot of rhetoric over the last few years, and I will pick up on what the member for Barkly said earlier, that when you continue to talk down something people are involved in, whether it is teachers or students, they rightfully feel hard done by. They are part of a system you are telling them has failed.
That is exactly what has happened in the last few years with Labor’s attack on this government when all we are trying to do is improve things. Our sole focus has been to improve the outcomes of students in our classrooms. I asked a couple of years ago, if the previous government had left the Territory in a better financial position would we as a government have been forced to find as many savings as we did? The answer is no.
I put it to you like I put it to the member for Daly outside earlier, until we had to peel away the onion we did not know what was there. There is a heart like a golden nugget, and the education system in the Northern Territory is robust and full of passionate people. Over the last few years we have developed a solid framework to provide a solid education into the future, but it is continually bashed.
When talking about remote education and the results, you cannot gloat about the past or the results. It was raised a number of times, and it may have been member for Barkly – forgive me if it was another member. You raised NAPLAN as if we are using NAPLAN results as the only thing to judge results in remote communities. That is wrong because I, like you and others, do not think NAPLAN is the sole measure of whether a school is good or not.
There are many people I have worked with over the years that I formed the strong opinion that a solid education is made up of many things. The curriculum is but one; the quality of the school and the infrastructure are other things – the quality of the teachers, the pedagogy, and, of course, the outcomes. If a child feels secure in their environment that is a sign of a good school.
If you have a good school community, a good solid school council – there are so many ways to measure a good school. The member for Wanguri said – I think even the member for Nhulunbuy – press pause on this whole thing, talk to these people and have something in place that can be measured. That is exactly what we are doing. We want a system that can be better measured, but not like NAPLAN every year, or every two years for kids sitting it every second year. We want something that is measured weekly, even daily in some cases. The Direct Instruction model provides instant feedback into the classroom so teachers know that a child has fallen through the cracks. They know next week that the lesson needs to be revisited.
I also like the system because it is not dependent on somebody’s age. We, for so long, had a system in place where kids just rolled through and because they finished a year, next year they would go to the next class.
With Direct Instruction it does not have to be like that. Children only advance when they have learnt the lesson. They only advance when the teachers know they are ready and will understand the next lesson. It is a model, and I have said in this House many times, I was never wedded to a particular model. I am not like Lynne or Gerry, who are ex-teachers. I have never taught in a classroom. Those guys are experienced in the classroom, I am not. I am not wedded like someone wedded to a political party. I just know what is right and wrong, good or bad. What I have experienced is a scattergram approach to education in the NT for too long. There are too many schools doing it their own way – I am talking remote schools – and too many inconsistencies.
When you consider for one moment how transient our society is, especially our remote society, if you do things differently in various schools, what chances do those children have to keep up and stop from falling through the cracks? It is nearly impossible. If we use the same system in schools, lesson A becomes lesson B, becomes lesson C. No matter where that child ends up, whether it is in this school or that, the approach is consistent. These were the things we looked at to provide a consistent approach to education across the Northern Territory.
It is not about, as Labor would put it, saving money. Although, savings measures were applied right across this government because of the big need to get this budget back in order. But it has never been my focus as minister. My focus has been trying to break down education and understand it at its core to better understand what the needs are to improve it – to break it down to a structure that I understood, as someone from outside education, and to understand why people become wedded to certain methods of teaching or a particular program.
Why are some people so argumentative or emotional towards a particular way of doing something? You can only put that down to experience, the fact that person has experienced something in their life that demonstrates something clearly. Well, hello; I had the same experience. It was when I visited north Queensland and I saw Noel Pearson’s academies. I saw for the first time Indigenous children engaged in learning. The behaviour issues were not, as somebody on the other side mentioned, taking up 90% of the teacher’s time. The behaviour was not an issue in north Queensland because the children were engaged.
I asked the question there, ‘What is your policy on discipline because whatever it is, it is working?’ They said they look at a lack of discipline as a lack of engagement, and they used the program to engage the child therefore there was not a discipline issue. The child was engaged, interested in learning and being inspired by their own learning. Their teachers were inspired by the results from these children and that is what brought them back time and time again, teachers who had left the system only to come back a couple of years later, because they had gone into mainstream and realised that it was not all it was cracked up to be. What was really fascinating and engaging was what was occurring with Direct Instruction.
It is just one method of teaching, but I have also put it in the program – as the opposition has asked for – that we regularly test the system. If we got two or three years into this program and it was not working, I would be the first to stand up and say, ‘Here is the sword; drop it.’ We would not continue with something that was going backwards, but I honestly do not think it will. The longer we run this program, the clearer it will become. I think there will be other more urban schools lining up to take on some of these methods.
You have to remember that this was never about duplicating exactly what was happening in north Queensland here in the Northern Territory. It was looking at the best parts of what they do there and we do here to make sure we can make a program robust enough, which will meet our critical needs, that is Territorian and is not just somebody else’s program. That was important to me.
While we are focusing on writing and mathematics; for the majority of the school day things will always run as they have. Teachers will still have the opportunity to demonstrate their flair and real passion for education. It will not be as controlled as Direct Instruction.
I am prepared to make a deal with the opposition that we stop rubbishing our schools and systems, start supporting what we are trying to do in the Northern Territory, and stop with the rhetoric. The member for Nhulunbuy said this is a pseudo way of closing down homelands and outstations. Not once have we talked about closing down schools anywhere. The only one who ever spoke about closing down schools was the Labor opposition.
Last year they continually talked about us closing down schools and cutting the guts out of things. It is wrong, and we proved them wrong time and time again.
This brings me back to my final point which is – the message is finally getting through to the general public. They are over the rhetoric. They are starting to understand that the castles have not fallen down, that children going to public schools are getting a decent education and education is improving in the Northern Territory. Our results and attendance rates are going up, and we have great passionate teachers.
For goodness sake, give me one thing, that is, a tick for trying to improve something I am passionate about, which is remote education. If we do not get this right and fix this mess we have – and I am not just talking about education, I am talking about all the remote issues across not only the Northern Territory but also across Australia – these kids will be another generation lost to more passive welfare and a life without real opportunities. It starts in the classroom. We can give these kids a great education. It does not matter where you will live in the Territory, you can get it.
Secondly, let us start to look at other ways we can support our communities so these kids can have a real pathway, not to just training, but to real jobs, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory.
I am passionate about Indigenous education. The easy thing would have been to give up and say, ‘No, it is too hard’. I will not. We all should take a bipartisan approach to this, get on and commit to this for the next 10 years.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Defence and the Northern Territory
Continued from 26 March 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I contribute to this important statement about the Australian Defence Forces and the work they do in the Northern Territory. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House because, as he is well aware, the opposition stands united with the government in supporting our Defence Forces.
So often when we speak about Defence Forces in this House, we speak about the strategic and economic benefits and importance of Defence in the Northern Territory. We do not stress enough the importance of the social element our Defence Forces play in the Territory. Those men and women serving in the Defence Forces and their families bring a wonderful element to our community. That is something I will touch on later in this statement.
The Northern Territory has had a long-standing and proud relationship with the Australian Defence Forces. As the Chief Minister said in this statement, the Northern Territory’s relationship with Defence started in 1824 when HMAS Tamar transported Royal Marine sailors and civilians to establish Fort Dundas on Melville Island.
We stand in parliament on a site that was bombed during World War II. Darwin and the Top End were at the front line of the defence of Australia in World War II. Throughout history our strong Defence presence and history has helped build some of the character of the Northern Territory.
Resilience is often the word that comes to mind when people speak about the people of the Top End. Everything people endured in the Second World War with the bombing of Darwin and later Cyclone Tracy helped strengthen the Territory’s famous resilience – going through hardship and uncertainty. Many of us here, like many people in the community, have strong relationships, ties and family histories that date back to the Defence Forces.
I have said in this parliament before that I do not think I would be standing here today if it was not for my grandfather serving in the Australian Army during the Second World War. He drove trucks for the Army and saw plenty of destruction during that time and the bombings here.
It is those stories and that history of my own family which bought my father to the Territory, where he met my mother who was serving in the Air Force in Darwin.
Look around this parliament. Here we have had reservists from the Defence Forces, and I have heard other members of parliament read their family histories of the service their relatives have given to the Defence Forces.
We all stand united and firm in the belief that our men and women who serve in the Defence Forces do an incredible job; they make incredible sacrifices for this nation. We have a long history where the ultimate sacrifice has been made for the protection of this country, and today we stand firmly with them to keep supporting them in the future.
Looking at that military history, the Territory children of today feel a strong sense of support for Defence Force personnel, not just because they live with them – we have many Defence families in the Northern Territory – but because it is something we see for ourselves and the role the Northern Territory had in the defence of Australia.
As children growing up we used to play on the gun turrets at Casuarina Beach, and you also see them at East Point. We have military tunnels in the city, and if you go through Charles Darwin National Park you will see plenty of military sites. There is the Adelaide River War Cemetery, and if you drive along the Stuart Highway you will see what is left of the old air strips.
We see that history around us. We need to preserve those sites and ensure they are taken care of so future generations understand the sacrifice the Defence Forces made on the front line defending this country in the Second World War.
Many of our personnel serve in deployments. They still face the possibility of serving this country and protecting it or training other nations. It was not long ago that we deployed forces to Timor Leste, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are seeing more worrying activity in those parts of the world.
Families understand that as part of signing up they are likely to be deployed to tough and trying environments overseas – that is the reality of signing up – and it makes your heart go out to these families even more when you know the incredible sacrifice they make on a personal level.
I have no doubt Territorians appreciate the Defence Forces and the work they do, but if you go beyond the appreciation, the reality is, they also bring some very important economic benefits to the Territory. Defence presence plays an important part in our economy and figures significantly in the number of people we have here. Going through the budget books you see one-tenth of Australia’s Defence Force lives in the Territory, around 4900 people. That equates to 14 000 people when you include the families of serving members. Two-thirds of people are from the Army, with one-fifth in the Air Force and the rest of the personnel in the Navy. Some 3% of the total Defence reserve lives in the Northern Territory. However, this has dropped since the peak of 7234 people in 2009-10, and we have seen somewhat of a decline with the relocation of the 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment.
Defence spends a huge amount in the Territory every year. We saw that increase by 10.6%, or $144m, to a $1.5bn total in 2013-14, so we are talking about significant expenditure in our economy. Defence spending accounted for about 6.9% of the Territory’s gross state product in comparison to 1.9% of the Australian gross domestic product. Again, you can see what a vital role Defence plays in the local economy.
Some significant projects are coming up, which means we will see further expenditure in the local economy. We want to see these important Defence projects occur, but also see local people and businesses benefiting as much as possible.
We are seeing the $470m upgrade to the RAAF bases at Tindal and Darwin to support the new Joint Strike Fighters. Also, if you look through the budget books you can see in the pipeline numerous projects are being considered by the Commonwealth, including base developments of Darwin, RAAF Tindal, Robertson and Larrakeyah Barracks, the East Arm hard and barge ramp project, the refurbishment of health facilities at Robertson and Larrakeyah Barracks and facilities to support the US Force posture initiative.
One thing we have become very used to, particularly us Darwinites, is the sound of the jets roaring over during Pitch Black. I remember as a child how often at the netball courts you could not hear the umpire’s whistle on a Thursday night when we had exercises in town. I have grown very fond of seeing the exercises here. I am in awe of the technology and skill of the personnel involved. It is also good to know we are playing our part in the important role of making sure our Defence Forces are ready and are able to do the essential training and preparation they need. When I hear the roar of the engines I do not get too upset. I tend to watch the planes fly over.
It plays an important part of our local economy too. When exercises of this size come to town it can also make a significant contribution. In 2012 that contribution was in the vicinity of around $25m to the local economy. I applaud the Defence Forces for Pitch Black. I was with the member for Nightcliff last year at the Pitch Black Open Day. That has become a wonderful community event. It opens the RAAF Base for people to see these magnificent planes, jets and jet fighters, show the kids around and have a chat to the personnel involved. It is a wonderful thing they do. When you look at how many people attend, it goes to show how popular it is with locals and how much people appreciate the services of the RAAF. I am looking forward to attending it and seeing it for many years to come. I am sure it inspires many young people to go down the career path of joining the RAAF or the Defence Forces, which is wonderful.
Last time this statement came before the House, it was around the time when the government had announced the appointment of the Defence Advisory Board, as part of their work in ensuring the Territory gains as much as possible from strategic Defence investment flowing through to businesses. Those sorts of initiatives are something we welcome. We look forward to hearing more about the work that board is doing and the outcomes it is achieving. As I said before, we want to ensure the community benefits as much as possible from these big projects and that jobs flow on to Territorians and local businesses.
An area where we have seen some significant expenditure over time – and Defence is playing a huge role in this – is land release. Through Defence Housing Australia, Defence makes a very large contribution to the local housing construction and maintenance industries, as well as for local contractors able to secure Defence housing work. There are around 2000 Defence housing properties. I very proudly represent the two Defence suburbs of Muirhead and Lyons where many Defence families live.
My husband works for Defence constructing houses, so he always pays great interest to the work happening. He spends a lot of time in Katherine at Tindal, with the redevelopments and housing construction there. There is significant housing work happening, which is great for local businesses. It is great for the families because Defence personnel who come here have quality housing to live in and raise their families. When that stock is disposed of, local people can purchase it. I do not think that is a bad thing.
We welcome what Defence brings to our community socially. In Muirhead and Lyons we have a large number of Defence families. To see the couples, parents and their children, and what they bring to our local community, is wonderful. Wanguri school is a fantastic example of what Defence families bring. There is a large number of Defence children attending that school; it has been great for other children to get to know more about what our Defence services do.
I have never seen any school’s Anzac Day or Remembrance Day assemblies like the ones at Wanguri school. They get the mums and dads who are serving involved. It is a wonderful assembly and an example for the children. They learn a lot more about our military history and the sacrifices mums and dads in the Defence Forces make. It is also good because the students with parents who are serving get plenty of support from those around them.
Socially, Defence has also been a very healthy contributor to our local sporting communities. I saw plenty of the Defence girls in my football days who joined the club, and netball as well, when they came to Darwin. You meet some great people. The only shame is that sometimes they are only here for a couple of years and then they are off to their next deployment or posting, but they are a wonderful part of our community; there is no doubt about that.
With the recent commencement of the Marine Corps and the rotations in the Top End, we have seen wonderful benefits to the community, aside from the strategic and military benefits. They have gone above and beyond their duty to participate in the Territory, to support our Defence Forces and go into schools. We saw them at big community events like the City to Surf and the footy to support the Thunder. It has been wonderful to see how enthusiastically they have embraced the Territory, just as we have happily embraced their presence here. They have made a fantastic contribution and it is ongoing.
Since this statement was made I have picked up the shadow responsibilities for Defence support. It is an area in which I am very much looking forward to doing more work and seeing what we can do to further support Defence Force personnel and the development of Defence investment and strategic work in the Northern Territory. We have a very long, proud history of supporting the Defence Forces in the Territory. We have been on the front line of this nation’s defence. The Territory will continue to play a very important role in the future of the defence of this country, but also in the strategic investment in Defence and the development of our forces.
Territorians are very welcoming of the personnel who come here. They make a wonderful contribution to our community. It is vital we continue to strongly support Defence and ensure positive flow-on effects from strategic Defence projects and investment are maximised for jobs, local businesses and families.
I thank the Chief Minister for making this statement. The Defence Forces are critical to the future of the Northern Territory and we will continue to do what we can to support them.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I too support the Chief Minister’s statement on our Defence Forces. I feel that my contribution will be similar to the member for Wanguri’s, but in a slightly different context ...
Ms Fyles: Different suburbs.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Yes, different suburbs. I have only wonderful things to say about Defence’s contribution to the Northern Territory, particularly Palmerston.
Our contemporary Defence Force has had a long and close connection to Palmerston over the last 23 years. Many Palmerston residents will remember that in 1992 we were given an opportunity that changed our culture, growth and prosperity in the Palmerston community forever, with the Army coming to Palmerston. It was a very exciting time and one that was met with quiet caution by some quarters of our community, as we did not know what type of change it would bring. It is safe to say that 23 years later we can happily reflect that the change has been positive in every way.
In 1992 1st Brigade was established and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment moved from Holsworthy Barracks to Darwin, making it the first post-war combat unit to move to Darwin. I can remember my dad taking my sister and I on a big bicycle ride from Gray to Robertson Barracks to see what was being developed. It was a very exciting time for our community and one we can proudly reflect on.
The 2nd Cavalry Regiment took its engagement with the community very seriously and worked hard to earn its social licence in Palmerston, which has very much set the tone of Palmerston’s bond with the Defence Forces over the last 23 years. That relationship has continued to this day.
Many Palmerston, Darwin and rural residents will also fondly remember the 1995 Freedom of Entry march in the city of Darwin. It was something many of us will remember because it had never happened before. I was so young; I cannot 100% remember my feelings at the time, but there was certainly a feeling of excitement. It was almost like a new chapter in our history.
We have seen 1st Brigade soldiers actively involved in peacekeeping in East Timor and the Solomon Islands and, of course, in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few. As a community we have farewelled and welcomed back thousands of Defence personnel over the last 23 years, and have mourned the loss of those who never returned; lest we forget.
As 1st Brigade has grown, so has the number of Defence families in Palmerston. I am proud to say the people of Palmerston have welcomed that growth over the last couple of decades. For our community, that meant an influx of young people, children and families, and the infrastructure improved and grew with it. We saw the building of Defence childcare centres, suburbs and houses, increases in school numbers, and additional sporting teams and clubs. Our community blossomed and grew as a result of that.
It also facilitated the development of key infrastructure, including the Palmerston RSL. In 2007 the RSL moved into the Palmerston Sports Club, which has been fantastic for our community. It is right in the centre of town and I do not think there is a single person in Palmerston who does not know where it is. The Palmerston RSL is a pillar of strength in our community. It very diligently prepares ANZAC commemorations in a way I believe other cities are jealous of. The Defence connection in Palmerston has reinvigorated the people of Palmerston’s commitment to ANZAC ceremonies.
In Palmerston we commemorate the start of the day with the gunfire breakfast at the Palmerston Sports Club. It is amazing to see how many people attend, even though it is at 4 am. The numbers increase every year and it is no surprise that our young ANZACs – our new war veterans – are proudly represented there. The gunfire breakfast is followed by the dawn service, which is attended by thousands. That number is growing yearly, particularly this year, being the centenary. It was astonishing to see the number of people gathered around the Palmerston Cenotaph. It was a truly humbling experience.
We have high a participation of community groups and schools in the dawn service, the morning service and the march. The dawn service is followed by the RSL’s breakfast at the RSL where hundreds of Palmerston residents join in a gathering which is quite unlike anything else. It is a tribute to our Defence community, the RSL and the people of Palmerston.
At the morning march you will see many of our schools, our Defence personnel and now the Marines, who have been a wonderful addition to the Palmerston community. The Marine Rotational Force has been the next chapter in our defence expansion in Palmerston and they, just like the soldiers at 1st Brigade, have made a wonderful contribution to the Palmerston community. They have earned their social licence to be there and have been welcomed with open arms.
I was thinking back to what the member for Wanguri said about growing up in the Territory. Our history goes past the Defence involvement with Palmerston. Each year, we gather to commemorate and remember the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942. When you grow up in the Northern Territory, you walk on the beach at East Point, play in gun turrets and have this wonderful opportunity to interact and be hands-on with our military history. That is a constant reminder of the battles we have fought and those we may very well face in the future.
Exercise Pitch Black is, for me, as a born and bred Territorian, a very exciting time and one I have loved ever since I was a little girl. When I went to Kormilda College, right across from it on Berrimah Road was a business. I am sure it is still there. There is a car with a dummy bomb sticking out of it because during one of the exercises it fell from a plane and landed in that person’s business. No one was injured and it is a funny urban tale now, but like the member for Wanguri, for me, the jet noise and helicopters are all part of being Territorian.
The presence of Defence in Palmerston has seen many different areas of the community flourish. That includes the Army Cadets. I was a member of Army Cadets from Year 9 right through to my first year at university. It is a wonderful recreational activity for young people. The way cadets in Palmerston got to be part of what 1st Brigade was doing was really special. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment formed a really strong relationship with the cadets in the late 1990s and that has continued, even though 2nd Cavalry are no longer in Darwin.
On an everyday level, my office is right next door to the MVR so we have army trucks, cars and all sorts of things coming in and out of our car park. It is wonderful and funny at the same time to see massive camouflage painted vehicles with L plates on the front. It is fantastic to see that Defence integration in our suburbs and our community. I do not think anyone can say they have driven down the Stuart Highway and not come across a military convoy or something similar that has not taken their attention.
I remember one time I was here on university holidays and I was meeting my parents, but some of my family had gone to Litchfield for the day. My sister, cousins and I thought we would meet them later. By the time we had reached Batchelor at the rail crossing, the Army was doing an exercise and had taken over the whole of the town. We drove into Batchelor and were met by six ASLAVs, camouflage soldiers with rifles and the whole works. We were pulled over, asked for ID and interrogated briefly before we were allowed to join my family for our picnic in Litchfield. Some of those memories are ones I cherish the most. It is great that Defence can go into a little town like Batchelor and run such an important exercise that is embraced by the community.
The RAAF open day is always a day on families’ calendars. It has not changed much except the technology is a lot more hi-tech. It is an event we all know, love and remember.
In Palmerston – going back to the Northern Territory’s military history – we have 16 Mile camp, a relatively new establishment located in Johnston next to MacKillop College. It is really fortunate because MacKillop College is such a wonderful school. It houses many recreational clubs and groups, including scouts and dukes. The 16 Mile camp is utilised by young Territorians, and so represents a very special connection with our community. The camp was first occupied prior to the Japanese raids but has remained very important.
I commend the previous government for the walk they established. They did very well with the erection of silhouettes of soldiers in the bush – you can still see the gun pits, a lot of memorabilia and remains of the camps. It is a wonderful piece of the Northern Territory’s history literally in the backyards of the people of Johnston. I am really pleased our community groups have access to that. Every day people who walk their dogs interface with our history and Defence connection.
Durack and Durack Heights are major suburbs in my electorate. That was a predominantly Defence Housing Australia stronghold for many years. As a result we saw an influx of Defence family students going to Durack Primary School. That Defence presence made a huge impact on that suburb. We are starting to see that change slowly now, due to the expiration of the DHA 10-year leases, but Durack traditionally was very much a Defence stronghold in the Palmerston area. As a result, Durack Primary School has had a Defence school transition aid for the entire time the school has been there.
The Palmerston Senior College is now an independent public school and takes that responsibility seriously. It wanted to come out this year and show that it is an educational institution which belongs to the community. The students and the teachers planned a wonderful Anzac Day centenary commemorative event on top of their usual ceremony, which they do very well. They did a large amount of fundraising to support a project for an Anzac garden and a memorial sculpture dedicated to the Anzacs. They also had exhibitions and a wartime experience display that members of the public could enjoy. I thank Bev Crawford, the Defence transition mentor at Palmerston Senior College, for her contribution to that. I also thank the students. I was very pleased to support them with their Bunnings Anzac barbecue, which raised money to go towards their memorial garden and sculpture.
I mentioned the Marines rotation. In my first year of being the member for Drysdale I approached the Marines and asked if we could foster a relationship between them and Gray Primary School. I thank Lieutenant Colonel Puglisi for welcoming and honouring that relationship. Three years later, Gray and the Marines still have a relationship. The Marines visit Gray Primary School every Friday and do a great deal of mentoring work with the Year 5 students, which is having an enormous impact. The kids think the world of the Marines. They are such good role models. They do all sorts of things together, from sports to reading, to other literacy-based activities. It is having a very positive impact.
When I say the Marines have earned their social licence, they have come into Palmerston with open arms. They run the breakfast club program at Moulden Park Primary School. This year we have also seen them go to Rosebery, so they are not shy in their community engagement. The way they engage with locals on Anzac Day was fantastic. It revived the way we engage with the military and brought the people of Palmerston closer to the meaning of the USS Peary memorial. It has been a lovely recognition both ways between the two cultures and contributions to Defence in the Territory.
The Kids Brigade Child Care Centre is also in my electorate. A couple of years ago we did a backyard blitz with ADF personnel and the Marines. That was great. These are just some of the examples of how Defence does such a fabulous job in our community.
This year, for the Centenary of Anzac, the RSL also held a youth vigil, which was supported by our Defence Force. It was a wonderful tribute from young people, including cadets, to the Anzacs.
Whilst the Defence presence in the Northern Territory – especially in Palmerston – has changed, we continue to welcome those changes and embrace what Defence offers to the Northern Territory. It started in Palmerston with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and they are now gone. That is not the end of our connection with the 1st Brigade. The Chief Minister, in his statement, mentioned the launch of the Strategic Defence Advisory Board, which is another great initiative that ensures the Territory is actively pursuing opportunities for Defence industries and support.
I was also pleased when the Veterans Support portfolio was announced, and I commend the Chief Minister for recognising it, and minister Chandler for his support of the ‘Bring Them Home’ campaign. It is pleasing to see that fallen soldiers who are buried in Malaysia will be repatriated to Australia.
That was all I wanted to say on Defence other than that the Centenary of Anzac is at the forefront of our minds. The Chief Minister’s Anzac Spirit Study Tour, which sent Amy Chittick, Juliette Parsons, Jack Lake, Stevie Pocock, Robert Lee and Corporal Cynthia Gilchrist over to Gallipoli for Anzac Day was one of the many Centenary of Anzac commemorations our government is supporting.
In conclusion, I thank the Defence Force for its long-term vision for and contributions to the Northern Territory. Palmerston has long benefited enormously from having Robertson Barracks and that close connection with Defence. I cannot imagine Palmerston without it. We would be a completely different place. I hope that in the future we can continue to have that close symbiotic relationship because the people of Palmerston very much value and appreciate their contributions. We respect enormously what they do. They have a job not many people put their hand up for, and we cannot thank them enough for having the courage, strength and leadership to do what they do every day. On behalf of the people of Drysdale, I thank our Australian Defence Forces, particularly those stationed at 1st Brigade. We look forward to further enhancing that connection between Defence and the Palmerston community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, as my contribution to the Chief Minister’s statement on Defence, I preface my remarks by reading from the Tennant & District Times newspaper from Friday 27 June 2014. The article is titled ‘Barkly communities reap rewards from soldiers’ stint’ and was written by the owner/editor Jasmin Afianos.
That was last year. Those welcoming ceremonies took place and there were also ceremonies to farewell the soldiers of that incredible unit, the Australian Army 6th Engineer Support Regiment, working in remote communities as part of the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program (AACAP). I was invited to visit ‘Camp Brit’ as it was called and toured an incredible army camp; the sort of military base you see on the national news about Afghanistan or Iraq with the overseas deployments.
I will never forget the tour of the hospital. It had a full surgical ward that was administering to a number of children in emergency situations while the unit was camped – independently, self-sufficiently – on Kurundi station just south of Epenarra’s boundary.
It is a great example for the Chief Minister, the government, and parliament to look at as a creative partnership between Australian Defence and regional and remote Aboriginal communities. It works really well.
There was surgeon on that team. I talked extensively with him, as did my wife Dawn, about the history of the school at Epenarra and the community we moved to, lived in and loved. The surgeon took a great interest in the Indigenous culture and said he was going to come back. He wanted to come back and work in Indigenous health.
I bumped into him this year in the Tennant Creek supermarket and the first thing he said to me was, ‘I told you I would come back’. That is a surgeon we recruited back to the Northern Territory who came through that AACAP program.
It was amazing to see the women’s welding program. Anybody that knows the Alyawarre people at Epenarra, knows they are very strong in their culture but very shy, so for those women to enrol in and work through a welding program to produce work for families in the communities was outstanding. This came about due to the great relationship with the Australian Army.
It is good to hear about that highly sophisticated presence in the Northern Territory. We should also be looking at these creative projects that can come about when we have input from the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Army, and partnerships with the Northern Territory government. The infrastructure alone was phenomenal. To see that in action with local people working with those soldiers was incredible. For me it was a dream come true. We are talking about eight months; it was a very long-standing relationship, with communities being mentored and receiving education and awareness programs that do not come in that form every day.
The Canteen Creek community was involved in a civil works project that laid bitumen road. It created excellent dust suppression, as well as links to the government-funded airstrip and connecter road that is three years late but will take place, fingers crossed. The project had a drastic reduction in budget 2015-16; however, I will stay positive because this is a positive story.
Minister for Local Government and Community Services, I call for your help, because the infrastructure is outstanding; however, we have hit a bit of a lull. The wind has dropped and we are having trouble moving forward with a community centre and a workshop. There is a state-of-the-art workshop and beautiful community centre in the middle of Walungurru community but now no real plans of how they will operate.
I am asking the minister for Local Government to please come and visit. I will give you a ride out there; I will take you personally. We need to find that partnership model. I suggest the Barkly Regional Council would be the logical partner, but we need to get that infrastructure into community life, functional and active.
The Epenarra men are famous for their motor cars and their bush mechanics. This workshop is now ready to not only deal with the community but also offer opportunities for training, employment and regional economic development.
Chief Minister, it is a great story. I would love the Minister for Local Government and Community Services to come and look at how we can progress this infrastructure. The infrastructure in the school was very easy to incorporate into the Education department operations. That is a great example. It has students working in there every day and it is a good story. However, we are now looking at incorporating the community centre and workshop. The civil construction work at Canteen Creek was outstanding and has really influenced that community with aspirants who want to work in that field. We have some very keen local people, so let us make sure we get them engaged in this airstrip when we finally see it get off the ground.
It is good to share stories in the parliament. The member for Drysdale brought back some great images of Kangaroo ‘95 for me. At that time the principal of the Borroloola Community Education Centre – we had the orange people take over the town. They took over the McArthur River Mine airstrip and then Borroloola. Then the Australian regular Army came in to save us. We had pitched battles going on.
One I will never forget was a rodeo weekend in my back yard. We had the Calvert Hills mob visiting with all their trucks, dogs and belongings, and then the Australian Army pursued the orange people – essentially crack SAS officers – right through my back yard with my wife in the middle of it, guns blazing, armoured personnel carriers charging and soldiers screaming. The SAS went over the back fence and through a rock retaining, which you would not believe possible. I would have broken my neck if I had gone near it in the dark. These guys disappeared as they were pursued by our Australian army. It calmed the town of Borroloola like I had never seen it before. I have been associated with that area for a long time. I have never seen so much social calm as Kangaroo ‘95 produced, where we had Australian soldiers strolling through our local supermarket with automatic weapons hanging off their shoulders.
It was a great partnership. It shows a creative way to look at defence. I say to the Prime Minister, with ranger programs and programs on country, let us look at Defence Force appropriation. Not only does it give our service personnel that expert training in the field to hone their skills, it also partners with regional and remote communities that can deliver outcomes like the Wutunugurra AACAP program or even better. There are unlimited possibilities when we look at appropriations with existing budget lines. For the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister and everybody down the food chain from there, let us see what can do in Defence to push outside traditional boundaries.
It was good to hear the member for Drysdale talk about the 17 Mile heritage camp. That was something I was privileged to be involved in as the previous Minister for Lands and Planning. As we accelerated that land release right through Palmerston east and set up Johnston stage 1A and1B, Johnston stage 2, the master plan suburb of Zuccoli, and then continued that record land release, the heritage values came to the fore in that area. It was great to see how the developers, government and the department worked together to create what the member for Drysdale rightly described in her contribution to the debate.
It is a fantastic area that reflects our WWII heritage, an area that is back to back with a new high school – Mackillop Catholic College – where students can be part of that incredible history and the residents, too, can share that open space with the added heritage value.
I congratulate the CLP for continuing with the record land release program in Palmerston initiated by the previous Labor government. It is good to see they were wise and continued that program. It was a positive outcome when you can consider the heritage and cultural values, the residential outputs and the modern urbanism.
I will give a very interesting example of dealing with Defence. At that time we were also exploring the possible use of Commonwealth land. There is some significant Commonwealth land adjacent to Berrimah Farm. As a government and the Department of Lands and Planning, we were negotiating with Defence about the possibilities of releasing that land for development of the Northern Territory. The negotiations were very complex and are ongoing. I urge the Chief Minister to continue that great work of the previous Labor government because some of that infrastructure is quite aged now and Defence is not so interested in some of it.
There are other areas that are highly sophisticated technical installations. One example of that is the very sophisticated signal and communication infrastructure located on the Howard Peninsula. The Australian Defence Force was very concerned about the building of the Darwin Correctional Precinct, a modern correctional facility in the tropics featuring a lot of metal and wire. The reason for that is the ventilation in the infrastructure for Corrections. It was a very sensitive series of negotiations. I thank the Australian Defence Force because in the end, the Labor government was able to deliver the $567m Darwin Correctional Precinct. The $567m figure is clearly visible on budget papers from last year. When that figure shifted off the CLP government’s budget papers, it gave them quite a stimulus kick in regard to telling the story of an improved fiscal position.
That $567m Darwin Correctional Precinct incorporates a highly-specialised forensic mental health unit – it is a brilliant, open security residential unit that underpins the current minister for Corrections’ Sentenced to a Job program – and a purpose-built main area that supports rehabilitation and training. It delivers the most amazing efficiencies to save the government money in the future, because it is purpose-built. The old Berrimah prison was way past its use-by date. It needs to be bulldozed and I question any minister who is continually spending money on razor wire and more bars in a facility that has a new purpose for the Northern Territory, which is to be released as new land.
One thing never mentioned by the Chief Minister when he rants and raves and tries to cut the one liners – and one of the reasons that people do not believe you anymore, Chief Minister – is the prison’s public-private partnership. When Territorians hear about this billion dollar figure, you have to be straight with them. You have to start telling the truth, because Territorians demand the truth, and the truth is that the public-private partnership was negotiated over 30 years and it delivers a partnership that takes care of repairs and maintenance of that facility for 30 years. That is good value for Territorians and the best way to engage in mega infrastructure projects. That is exactly what the Labor government did.
The Chief Minister tries to run down the previous Labor government in a cheap shot manner in Question Time. That is $567m for a correctional services precinct, not a prison, and I encourage anybody to look at that precinct. What is relevant to this debate are the sensitive negotiations that went on with the Department of Defence that allowed us to build in that area. I thank them for that, because they understand this outcome is about trying to turn around the lives of the most disadvantaged Territorians. That is a clear alternative the Labor government is presenting – trying to turn around the lives of the most disadvantaged Territorians.
When you talk to our highly specialised correctional services officers, who have had experience with some of the most serious criminals across our nation during their service in other states, they will tell you the Territory needs to have a clear focus on rehabilitation, training and ways to address offending behaviour. We have a host of people here who should not be in gaol; that is the clear difference. We have a host of people in the Northern Territory who need support networks before they end up in gaol. Now we are seeing the gaol overflowing. The minister has carriage of that portfolio and the lives of the most disadvantaged Northern Territorians.
It has been good to talk about Defence. I conclude my remarks with what we need to revisit. We had very extensive cadet programs and NORFORCE programs in places like Borroloola, Ngukurr and Tennant Creek. This represented a period in the 1990s when the Australian Defence Force came in and built infrastructure. They were so confident. We have lost momentum there.
When I was running juvenile diversion students through the Katherine rural college, I bumped into the Australian Defence Force, which was putting through soldiers into the NORFORCE training programs, targeting Indigenous recruits from the regions and remote areas. It was sensational to see their outcomes. They took an Army approach and delivered Army outcomes. It was highly disciplined and those young soldiers rose to the occasion.
I talked extensively with officers at that time about implementing some of their strategies into the juvenile diversion youth who we were working with in the rural operations program. We did that and you could see it worked, but it was nowhere near as powerful as what the Australian Defence Force delivered. They have the opportunity, and that program needs to be revisited. We need to get engaged with cadets and with NORFORCE. We need Aboriginal communities supported because not only is this a real outcome for communities, this is a real outcome training, employment and for our nation. If we are creative with our Defence budget and start to look at people on country who can deliver outcomes in Customs, biosecurity, Immigration and Defence, then we will achieve real partnerships.
I believe the Indigenous people are ready for it. Let us see, Chief Minister, how we can progress it.
Mr CHANDLER (Veterans Support): Madam Speaker, as Minister for Veterans Support and a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army Reserves, I have an understanding of some of the challenges that veterans face, and I welcome this statement. I also have many Defence families in my electorate and I have often had opportunities to talk to them about their experiences.
The Chief Minister previously referred to the challenges faced by Defence members and their families. As a former Defence member I understand that an unavoidable part of service life involves moving interstate. That is exactly what brought me to Darwin in 1985. Between 20% to 30% of our Defence population rotate in and out of the Territory each year.
I am committed to helping Defence members and families get the most of their posting to the Northern Territory. The Territory has a unique lifestyle and the government wants to ensure postings here are as easy as anywhere else in Australia. We want to ensure Defence families understand services are available in the Territory, whether they be health or education services, sporting activities or that all-important shopping experience.
Already this year I have had the pleasure of attending both the Welcome to Tindal and Welcome to the Top End Expos. These important events are facilitated by the Defence Community Organisation (DCO) with significant support from the Northern Territory government. Both events were a tremendous success and I was privileged to spend time at the expos meeting both newly-arrived and existing Defence personnel and their wonderful families.
The Northern Territory government agreed to enter into a formal partnership with the Defence Community Organisation to conduct the 2015 Welcome to the Top End Expo as a pilot event for a potentially larger expo in 2016. This would see the expo opened up to other members of the Northern Territory community, in addition to the Defence community. Feedback received from many of the stallholders and the estimated 2000 visitors who attended was very positive. In particular, the choice of venue was highly praised, and thanks should be given to the Darwin Convention Centre for its support and preparation for the event.
I also thank the Northern Territory government agencies which exhibited at this year’s expo. It was particularly pleasing to see MVR represented and the facilities they provided for driver’s licence and registration changeovers were innovative, and very well received by our Defence families.
The Defence Support Division in the Department of Business is continuing to explore ways to further enhance our relationship with the Defence communities, such as meeting families at the Defence community centres to hear about their experiences of posting to the Northern Territory. The information gathered during these visits provides valuable feedback which can be used to develop further ways in which the government can support the Defence community.
The Northern Territory government was proud to support the recent Defence Community Organisation National Families Week function at the Territory Wildlife Park. I enjoyed attending this event and spending time meeting Defence families in the relaxed environment of the Wildlife Park to hear about their experiences of living in the NT.
I take my hat off to Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife staff for the way the Territory Wildlife Park is looking today. It is much improved on what it was even just a few years ago. It was a fantastic event and the park looked splendid. The day was a great success, with 543 Defence family members in attendance. This represents the highest attendance rate for this event so far.
One of the important sectors of the Defence community is our veterans. I have taken up the challenge of meeting with veterans and veteran organisations to better understand the issues affecting them in the Territory, and listen to how we can better support them.
Veterans have a range of unique support requirements. Many of these requirements are covered through federal government initiatives, but the Northern Territory government wants to ensure our veterans have access to the same full range of services as veterans in southern states.
In August I will attend the quarterly Department of Veterans Affairs NT Consultative Forum, where I am looking forward to learning more about the issues facing our veterans. In addition to this, the Northern Territory government Defence support unit will maintain representation at all future DVANT consultative forums to further strengthen the government’s links with our veterans and the organisations involved in supporting them.
The Chief Minister recently spoke in this House about supporting a campaign to repatriate the body of Corporal Reg Hillier, who was the sole Territorian killed in the Vietnam war. Corporal Hillier remains buried in Terendak Cemetery in Malaysia, along with 23 other Australian servicemen. One additional soldier remains buried in Kranji cemetery in Singapore, bringing the total number of servicemen from the Vietnam conflict still buried overseas to 25.
The campaign to return the 25 servicemen to Australia has been given the name operation Bring Them Home and has been strongly led by Mr Bob Shewring, the Vice President of the Veterans Association of Australia Northern Territory branch.
I recently met with Hon Michael Ronaldson, Minister for Veterans Affairs, to outline the Northern Territory government's support for the campaign and seek his agreement in making joint representations to the Malaysian and Singapore governments for their assistance to enable these repatriations to occur.
It was very pleasing that on 25 May Hon Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, announced that the Commonwealth government would offer to repatriate the remains of all Australians interred at Terendak and Kranji cemeteries, which of course includes Corporal Reg Hillier.
I thank the Commonwealth government for their assistance in making this important initiative a reality. I also congratulate, as I know others have, Mr Bob Shewring and others involved in the campaign to bring home these 25 Australians tragically taken in the service of our nation.
Defence members, families and veterans are an integral part of our community. The demands of military service can result in very special and unusual experiences, such as the opportunity to experience life in the Northern Territory. It can also deliver special challenges, as I was to learn when I first arrived in the Top End.
As minister for Veterans Affairs I am keen to work with these groups of people to understand their challenges and help them make the most of their time in this unique part of Australia.
The world of the Defence Force has changed since I was involved. It has been evolving ever since Australia had a Defence Force. Even in the few years since I have been out, I see the difference in housing and other accommodation on bases. I see the conflicts increase around the world and the one thing we can do as a community is always ensure our veterans are supported in any way we can.
On a recent study tour, I could not get over how in the United States they honour the past and support their veterans. Most of their museums and monuments are manned by the national park service who are all rangers and many of them are ex-veterans. What was more interesting was to learn how many veterans offer up their time as volunteers at these monuments around the country, whether it is the Arlington cemetery or the USS Intrepid, which is an aircraft carrier docked in the Hudson River in New York, hosting aircraft from all different eras right down to a Concorde. There is even a space shuttle on the main deck.
The most fascinating thing was to see how many veterans were there every day giving up their time to tell stories about their experiences in the defence of the United States. It made me think how we honour our past and how important Anzac Day is to Australia. When you start to marry up some of the issues many of our veterans face today – I am talking about the psychological issues. I thought about what they do in the United States. I wonder how much it assists those veterans with their state of mind to be able to tell their stories over and over again to tourists who come through. It must not only be a benefit to the attraction – that is the monument or museum – but also for those men and women who can relate their stories. What does it do for them mentally, how does it help them? The twinkle in their eyes clearly demonstrated they were enthusiastic. I might have been the thousandth person the veteran had told that story to, but I was a new person and they were telling me that story as if for the first time.
It made me think of the time we had the President of the United States in Darwin and how he stood by the gun of the USS Peary. I weighed that up against some of the monuments and museums in the United States that honour the past and veterans’ service. We can do so much more in this country. I wonder about the day when we can have not just one but a number of museums all interrelated and have some of our veterans working as volunteers and recounting their stories.
The USS Arizona has seven-and-a-half million people go through the gates every year. Many of them, interestingly enough, are Japanese. They are intrigued with Pearl Harbour and their country’s past, and wish to learn more about what happened. That same armada bombed Darwin 67 or 68 times. Yes, the Bombing of Darwin is now a day of national significance which we all should be very proud of, but at the end of the day, what could we do better to honour the past and in some way capitalise on the potential tourism?
What could we do in Darwin to improve our museums? How can we deepen interest in our past that would better attract people to the Northern Territory? We could put veterans in these museums to talk about their past. Of course not everybody would want to do that. There are people who do not want to talk about their past, but when you see the twinkle in someone’s eye, when you are told a story that could have been told for the thousandth time, that is doing something for them just as it did for me. It recounted a time in history they were part of, and were proud to impart. As a society we need to learn how to better support our veterans, and that might be one way we could do it.
I commend the statement to the House, and as the Minister for Veterans Support, I am honoured to talk about our veterans today.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I have heard many speakers talk tonight about things that have happened in the past and I will be doing the same thing, but my first connection with the Territory in a Defence capacity was that my father-in-law was a gunner on aircraft in the Royal Australian Air Force. He did multiple flights in and out. He does not remember which airstrips, but definitely some around the Top End. When my mother-in-law passed away, he then moved up here and spent his last ten or so years living with us. He loved it so much from when he was here during the war.
While I did not live here my connection goes back many years. It shows how far Defence goes back, as well as how that connection continues.
The other connection I have had with Defence directly is when we had the Daly River Mango Farm. We used to get regular visits from what I called the secret squirrels. These were people from some part of the armed forces who used to wait until we were on our own and give us some instruction on what sort of suspicious activity to look out for, especially during the Wet Season living in such an isolated place.
When doing the weather for the weather bureau, we were given big charts of aeroplanes to identify. I thought I had gone back 30 or 40 years to what they used to do in the war. If someone asked me to identify an aircraft in the air, I would have Buckley’s hope of doing that.
Prior to that, I had an experience when we were living in Nakara. This was a sad experience, but it highlighted to me how isolated people can be in the Territory and how I felt for some of the Defence people who rotate through the Territory and do not have their family here. There was a couple living across from us and the father was killed. The mother was with Coastwatch near Perth, so the two kids were left on their own. We were the only people who knew them. We had only known them for about 12 months. I had to go with the pastor and tell these kids their father had been killed. At that time I realised how hard it is for people in the Defence Force living so far away and not having family with them.
I heard Adelaide River mentioned by the member for Wanguri in regard to the graves there. Going there on Anzac Day this year was probably one of the best Anzac Days I have ever attended. It is a very moving place to experience Anzac Day. If anyone has not taken the opportunity to go there, I recommend it. It is a terrific experience and makes you think about how bad things were.
When we had the commemoration of the 70th Bombing of Darwin we recalled the last bombs ever dropped on Territory soil, which was at Adelaide River. That is an important thing for people to remember. We always commemorate the first, but we also need to commemorate the last.
In economic terms, Defence is one of the biggest contributors to the local economy after oil and gas. Many people do not realise that.
We have 1% of the Australian population here in the Territory, but almost 10% of Australia’s permanent armed forces, which is another interesting figure.
In my electorate this year, I think next month, is Exercise Talisman Saber, which will involve an invidious invasion of my electorate. The Labor Party does not have to worry about trying to take over Daly; the Army is going to do it for them. That will involve almost 30 000 personnel from Australia, the United States and a number of other countries.
The member for Karama was there where there was an amazing display of Indigenous servicemen. I do not think anyone has touched on – I may have missed it – the input the Indigenous people made in the service, especially in World War II. There was a fantastic display for six weeks. It was opened about three weeks ago; I am sorry I do not have the dates here. It is worthwhile having a look.
The display is from the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. It is on loan, with many pictures and paintings depicting the Indigenous involvement in World War II and other wars. It is worth visiting. I do not believe it will be displayed anywhere else in the Territory, so if you have the opportunity, go to Bachelor. It is a pity it is not late in the week, I could have told you to then go to the markets on the Sunday. They were last Sunday, so you dip out on that.
We have the Defence of Darwin experience in Darwin at East Point. This is consistently rated as the best visitor experience in Darwin. It is a fantastic display. If people have not been there, I would like them to go there. I encourage people to visit and hear the stories it tells, not only of the military, but of everyday Darwinians who lived through the bombings.
There is a hell of a lot to the military in the Northern Territory. It is not just what the personnel do, it is also what people can see of them and their contribution to the economy, along with their involvement with Indigenous communities.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank everybody who has provided a contribution to this Defence statement that was brought to the Chamber some time ago. There was a range of comments.
The member for Daly mentioned the population base of the Defence Force in the Territory, where the Territory is 1% of Australia’s population, but it represents about 6% of the population here from a Defence point of view, and contributes more than 6% to the gross state product of the Northern Territory’s economy.
There are a couple of key points which will be very prominent in how we move forward with Defence. Most notably, there will be the Defence White Paper due in the middle of this year, setting the strategic direction for the next 20 years and what that means for northern Australia. Whether or not all of those elements will be implemented in time, we will wait and see, but it will provide a roadmap of how the Australian government wishes to see Defence Forces here over time.
The North Australia White Paper will be released later this week, both in Canberra and Cairns, and will also set forth what the nation will look like in the future, how strategic investment will find its way into northern Australia and what that means for the Northern Territory. Combined with Defence, that will be very important.
There is no doubt people understand the changing nature of the geopolitical dynamics of the world and the tilt towards Asia. It is something that stands firmly in hand with Australians, the Australian government and Defence. As Territorians, we have a role to play in ensuring we provide an environment that is conducive to welcoming more Defence personnel from Australia and from foreign soils, and the activities and actions in place to deliver the strategic defence and humanitarian response requirements throughout our region. That is just not in relation to defence but other major Australian activities, most notably border protection through Customs operations.
There were some comments about NORFORCE and what that means from an Indigenous point of view. I have always been a great supporter of NORFORCE. I would like to see an expanded roll-out of it.
I remember when the Intervention started in 2007. For those couple of months that Mal Brough was in charge of the intervention before Jenny Macklin took over, there was a keen interest in expanding NORFORCE across the Northern Territory and significantly increasing the number of participants.
That is history, but I put the call out that NORFORCE can provide a great level of economic activity and add strength to the defence of the Northern Territory, albeit on a regional basis.
There has been much talk about investment opportunities coming to the Northern Territory and what that means from an economic point of view. I spoke in the statement about the Strategic Defence Advisory Board and how we are seeking to utilise that board for attracting investment, and operational opportunities for some of those investments, to the Territory and to Territory companies.
Historically, Canberra has been very poor at allocating those contracts to companies in the Northern Territory. You do not have to look far to see some of the service requirements for the ships that could have been handled in the Northern Territory but were sent interstate. It is not limited to Defence; there are many other federal government agencies which undertake that.
The Defence hub here was struggling for a long time but we now have some good investments outside of the wire which are now delivering services, plus what is happening inside the wire. They are providing jobs to Territorians for non-uniformed personnel and civilians, which is good for our economy.
The Strategic Defence Advisory Board had its first meeting in March this year and its next meeting will be in October this year. They will continue to take a proactive approach to representing the Northern Territory’s position with the federal government and Defence in Canberra, seeking additional economic opportunities whether they are economic from a contractual or other point of view, such as the development of additional training areas to support the Canberra class amphibious assault ships, which are looking for training grounds right now.
That is just one opportunity. I could talk about the economic impact of the expansion of Tindal Air Base to accommodate the joint strike fighters; how the project managers are advancing their consultations with the community for the 2016 works program to ensure local companies, particularly in Katherine but also in other parts of Territory, will get some of those contracts; what it means for the expansion of the roll-on roll-off barge facility at Robertson Barracks, and the like.
I was listening to the member for Wanguri talking about the US Marines. Before we talk about the Marines, we have to pay our compliments to the Australian Defence Forces and the work they do in the Northern Territory and Australia. Too often we go straight to thanking the Marines for their work and do not stop to think about the hard-working Defence Forces here.
There is a lot of discussion at the moment about the downsizing of NORCOM and its role in the Northern Territory. While they may be strategic Defence positions undertaken by Canberra, I have had an opportunity to speak with Defence Minister Kevin Andrews about some of those mechanisms
It is important we send a clear message that it is not about the number of people who work in the positions; it is about making sure we have key leadership criteria. Good people like Brenton Smythe continue to be employed in these roles and lead a strong area of command to ensure we have the defence of Northern Australia, the protection of some of our key economic assets, whether they are oil, gas, personnel or otherwise.
Some of the commentary about the downsizing of NORCOM is concerning. The movement of tanks to South Australia smells of political opportunism by the federal government, but I am assured that is not the case. It is more about appropriate management of strategic Defence assets and the ability to respond to the needs of the nation. I would hate to think the politics of South Australia are being put ahead of anything else, particularly because I do not believe South Australia has any concerns about an invasion from the penguins of Antarctica.
Defence will continue to grow and prosper. With the Marine rotation there are 1150 this year, rising to 2500. We are already seeing a permanent basing of some equipment to support the logistical supply chain and management, which is a smart move. A small number of Marines are here on a 12-month basis to make sure the administration, management and maintenance of many of those logistical challenges are being met and the relationship with the Australian Defence Force continues.
I would like to see an increased presence from the US Marines and US Defence to work more closely and strategically with the Australian Defence Force in the Northern Territory. If that means locating a few additional US Defence here to work closer with Australian Defence, so be it. That is something I would welcome with open arms.
We heard statements from other members in the Chamber about different operations that occur, whether it is Talisman Sabre or others. There is a growing opportunity for increased operations and cooperation with an expanded role in terms of nations, whether that is in operations or training opportunities. We can open our arms as a north Australian partner to provide support. Without going into too much detail, there has been a range of Defence training operations in the Northern Territory over the last couple of years. Some were public, some not. Those activities are welcomed by Territorians. It is an opportunity for us not only to get economic benefits, but to share skills, abilities and expertise with the Australian Defence Force and Territorians.
I will be very keen to provide updates from time to time about how things are progressing from a Territory point of view in regard to Defence – without breaching Defence or commercial confidentiality – and sharing that with the general public and parliament as much as possible; as well as providing updates about some of the investment opportunities so Territorians know exactly where things are up to.
I commend the statement to the House. I thank all contributors for their comments in regard to Defence within the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table a travel report for the member for Arafura pursuant to paragraph 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination. I also table the election report for the Blain by-election April 2014.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Barkly.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in bringing this matter of public importance to the parliament, it is important to note this has been of great concern to the community of the Northern Territory, Northern Territory environment groups, Northern Territory lands councils, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, the NT Farmers Association, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, and Northern Territory pastoralists. Recently it has been subject to very stringent scrutiny by the Northern Territory Supreme Court.
This is definitely a matter of public importance, and it relates to shared concerns across the community and stakeholders regarding the CLP’s allocation of water – a critical resource owned by Territorians, and a natural resource – that has now become a failed process that risks future economic development, detriment to the environment, and abuse of one of the most fundamental of all natural resources.
I will quote from Australian case law and a summary in regards to water:
That is from Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 6) [2013] NSWLEC 73. I could go on and quote from further case law studies; however, in relation to this matter of public importance for Territorians, what we see is water being allocated in vast volumes outside of the nationally accepted water allocation framework. The framework is set out in the agreement on the National Water Initiative to which the Northern Territory is a signatory. Critical water allocations are now in the CLP’s hands based on politics, not best practice science.
Alarm bells began ringing when the CLP took government. It scrapped Labor’s initiatives, the Community Water Advisory Groups and the draft water allocation plans, and started handing out water licences with complete disregard to the proper processes. The CLP cited economic development as the agenda. It was a one-liner; it did not stand up, the community did not accept that position, the environment groups challenged it, as did the Lands Councils, the North Australian Indigenous Land Sea Management Alliance, Northern Territory Farmers Association, AFANT and the pastoralists. Finally, the Supreme Court has now overturned that process.
That is a very important note to make in a matter of public importance. The CLP government has been politicised by its own hand, and that relates to the first mega water licence handed out to a CLP candidate. The minister in question spoke recently after the Supreme Court decision, and I will quote from the Katherine Times article by Stephanie Zillman on 12 June 2015, and the story is titled ‘Negative water licence ruling ‘quite small’ issue, says minister’:
The minister might live to regret that statement. I can run through the list of stakeholders and communities that are very interested in this issue which are not labelled opponents or people creating political hay.
To quote from the Katherine Times again:
There is a lot of correcting to do here, minister. We can both learn lessons in this debate. The lesson that must be learnt is to use correct science and not cheap politics.
The issue between the Labor and the Liberal approaches to the allocation of water is quite distinct. The minister and the CLP government continue to carp on about economic development, making quite shallow promises and very quick decisions. They kept changing the nature of the process to fit their agenda and politicised this debate because there were more CLP-aligned individuals that emerged who received water allocations.
I will quote from an article ‘Water Rights in Never Never Land: Tina McFarlane denies reports Stylo Station sold for $4m’ by Bob Gosford on 10 June 2015. To give some background to the House on Labor’s approach, I quote from Mr Gosford’s article:
No small matter, minister, for stakeholders, residents and the community in general.
Let us look at the CLP’s approach to water licences. I am quoting from Mr Gosford’s article where he talks about:
This is a matter to be revisited, and this is why we are speaking about this tonight in the parliament.
The CLP changed the game plan when they talked about their new and improved modelling of the Tindall aquifer. They started to create stories to try to justify their decisions when major stakeholders in the Northern Territory and the community were saying, ‘Stop. Get a hold of this. This is a finite resource. This is a serious issue. Do not rush into this. We all support economic development but do not rush into this. Take the time to get it right.’
The CLP has mismanaged a critical Northern Territory resource: water. There has been no transparency in the process. Water licences have been allocated outside of best practice science. There has been a rush for economic development, completely ignoring important stakeholders, communities, the public and the national water allocation process the Labor government signed up to.
The CLP process has only been the supported by those who have been receiving water licences. There was a groundswell of opposition about the way this was conducted from day one when this government took its place in 2012.
In relation to agriculture, the CLP government has over-allocated Top End water resources, issuing more than the recommended water licences in the Oolloo Dolostone, Katherine Tindall Limestone and Mataranka Limestone Aquifers. The alarm bells started ringing when the CLP government commenced handing out water licences in 2012 with complete disregard for proper scientific processes and the nationally accredited scheme.
The minister now retreats to the Our Water Future Discussion Paper: A Conversation with Territorians – in reality a dry argument, with him having already over-allocated a series of NT water licences. The minister defines CLP policy as:
The court decision represents a damning judgment against the CLP government; however, it is a win for the fishing sector, farmers, pastoral producers, traditional owners, environmentalists and, importantly, the Northern Territory public, because the minister now has to reconsider management of our precious water resources.
This is where we as the opposition offer a positive alternative. This is in good faith to the minister because it took a number of years and the Supreme Court to take you back to the drawing board. That is where you should be and you would do well to pay heed to Territorians. Minister, you have been handed an opportunity. Community and stakeholders are now looking for a transparent, sustainable, accountable and scientific approach to reassess the licences issued.
The Supreme Court decision provides the minister the opportunity to reassess, to look at proper analysis of water allocations based on science. We are talking about 68 ML that have been brought back into play, and are to be properly managed, positively and transparently. We want to see the review of water allocations over the next 12 months based on science. It would not be hard to judge that time frame around politics when you have the opportunity to bring Territorians with you as we go into an election. This is an opportunity.
Minister, you have been copped with a bad lot, because there are some heavyweights on that side who have dropped you right into this. You now have the opportunity to gain back some credibility; that trust deficit the Leader of the Opposition talks about, because this issue will not go away. This is about our precious water resources, and I have not even moved into the Barkly, the Wiso basin or Central Australian regions where those community groups and stakeholders are watching this very closely.
This is a positive step. This is what the opposition is putting forward tonight. It is an opportunity to get this right. We talk about bipartisanship. It should be bipartisan if we are talking about this precious, finite resource called Northern Territory water.
This issue will go to the next election. It is already on the agenda, clearly and squarely, and the minister has the opportunity to right the wrongs of minister Tollner. The legacy you guys have is that nobody trusts the Chief Minister or believes a word he says. The member for Katherine would have been the Chief Minister, but history will tell that story.
There are people in the Northern Territory who are depending on the member for Katherine to turn this around. They are really focused on this issue. This also relates to the bigger issue of hydrological studies and the management of Territory water. I will go to the depths of politics and remind people the redistribution has been dropped. The member for Katherine faces a couple of very serious issues in an election campaign – issues about the sale of TIO, hydrological fracturing for the exploration of oil and gas and, of course, this debate about water allocations.
The Katherine Times article shows the minister saying, ‘It’s a small issue. It’s not something we have to worry about.’
I would like to remind the minister that we offer that alternative. The Supreme Court has made a determination and there is now an opportunity, through your retrospective water paper and your conversations with Territorians, to do the right thing on behalf of Territorians who have the right to this water. I encourage the minister to also revisit traditional owners, their cultural connections with land, sea and water and the strategic Indigenous reserve, which is scientifically framed and looks at conservation, as well as future economic development. There are enormous elements to this debate that we can get right together on the floor, and the minister has carriage of it.
The epic debate about developing northern Australia, with the Prime Minister now articulating these opportunities, includes a $5bn investment over the next decade. One would suggest, as a grassroots Territorian, that we better get water right if we are talking about the development of northern Australia. At the moment Territorians have lost confidence and faith in this government. Frankly, nobody trusts the CLP.
Remember the Supreme Court decision was a bonus and took us back to the starting line. The Supreme Court decision has given the minister the ‘get out of gaol’ card. I hope it is used wisely.
This matter is of great concern. It is a definite matter of public importance. The issue of politicising water licences and the CLP-aligned recipients of them is resonating in the community. There is a lot of documentation about that. It is not a good look, and if you then amalgamate other issues the CLP is dealing with at the moment, it paints a picture of ‘not to be trusted’.
We can talk about travel, the Chief Minister and his behaviour as the first minister of the Northern Territory, but if you link this issue – critical, natural water resources – you have a trust deficit, to coin the phrase from the Leader of the Opposition. You had an opposition that had an alternative. You had a Labor government that was working through a defined process that was bringing the community with it.
The CLP scrapped it with a defined agenda based on a one-liner: ‘We support economic development.’ However, that tied to CLP-aligned members and candidates loses all credibility. There is no credibility left. The public knows it, as does the Northern Territory opposition, and we come here tonight to offer a clear alternative. I hope the minister takes Territorians with him to address the injustice of what has been done.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to this so-called matter of public importance around the Water Act and water issues in the Northern Territory. I am extremely disappointed that the opposition has chosen to once again waste this parliament’s time talking about this topic in this fashion.
Rather than focus on the real issues, those opposite are using this parliament to grandstand and try to score cheap political points. This parliament has debated water up hill and down dale. By my reckoning, we have had at least 18 questions, two ministerial statements, one censure motion, a number of motions raised by the opposition in General Business and Lord knows what else. No one could argue that we have not had numerous robust debates about water in this Chamber already, but, again, here we are, having another debate about water in this MPI.
MPIs, according to standing orders, are allowed a time limit of two hours, so we are about to spend another two hours of this parliament’s time discussing a matter that, as I said earlier, has already been debated up hill and down dale. I am advised that when you take into account all the costs, including staff, travel, salaries and operational costs, running this parliament costs in the order of about $20 000 per hour. This exercise is about to cost Territory taxpayers about $40 000 for the two hours it will take to complete this debate. The member for Barkly is spending $40 000 of taxpayers’ dollars to grandstand and try to score cheap political points. Or is it that the taxpayers will shell out this $40 000 for tonight’s effort so the member for Barkly can hear the sound of his own voice?
The opposition knows only too well that water allocations have been managed the way they are currently under the Water Act since 1992, but, in over a decade of government, the opposition never once raised any issues with water allocations or how they are managed.
To come into this House and raise this as a matter of public importance is hypocritical and an absolute disgrace. Where was the member for Barkly’s concern about water when he was a member of Cabinet in a Labor government? Did he raise this issue the Supreme Court ruled on with his colleagues then? Did he say, ‘I am concerned about the way the minister is considering appeals under the Water Act?’ Of course, he did not. But let me move on.
As the opposition is aware, not one of the 18 licences issued by the controller was revoked as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. Putting aside all the rubbish politics the member for Barkly wants to spew out across this Chamber, the Supreme Court provided clarity around the interpretation of section 30 of the Water Act in relation to the process that I, or any other minister who is in charge of water, must adhere to in consideration of a review of the Water Controller’s decision.
The court’s decision related strictly to the process ministers undertake in conducting the review of the Water Controller’s decision. It did not, and does not, despite what the member for Barkly would have everyone believe, relate to consideration of broader issues associated with water allocation policy. The decision related to the administrative process used by ministers in reviewing the decision of the Water Controller after the issue of a water extraction licence. It is an administrative procedure.
Some members in this House, hopefully all members, would know that administrative procedures are dealt with by courts for clarification on a fairly regular basis. Guess what? This was no different.
The same process has been consistently applied by all ministers since the inception of the act in 1992. It just so happens this is the first time this process has been the subject of a judicial review. I am sure those opposite are aware this decision could have easily involved them when they were in government, had that matter been taken to the Supreme Court for review. Of course, that was unlikely to happen because there probably were no licence decisions to review under the former Labor government, simply by virtue of the fact they made none.
What I will do today, rather than scaremonger to try to create hysteria as those opposite are doing, is reassure the 18 licensees that they have some certainty in this process. The court’s decision simply places the licensees back in the position they were in prior to the review. I now need to reconsider the review of those decisions. It is important to note the court’s decision does not call into legal question the broader operation of the act, the means by which water licences are granted under the Water Act, or the application of government policy in respect to water resources via the Water Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity. As I have said in the past, I welcome that decision and input. It is important to reassure Territorians today that this decision will not, and has not, hampered my resolve when it comes to water allocations being handled in a swift, responsive and open manner. The use of water in agriculture and horticulture goes hand in hand. These industries are key drivers for economic development in the bush. This government is using the water allocation planning and licensing framework to underpin sustainable use of the Territory’s water resources. It is as simple as that.
This sensible approach is a stark contrast to those who sit on the other side of this House. Despite governing for more than a decade, they were nothing short of incompetent with this issue. They left Territorians hanging, with no direction. There was a policy vacuum. An audit in April 2013 revealed a backlog of 75 water extraction licence applications which Labor never bothered to process. Their gross incompetence is astounding. That was comprised of 49 applications in the Katherine region, 22 in the Darwin region, along with four in the Alice Springs region. Nine of those applications had no action taken for more than eight years. Those applications sat for more than eight years without the former government even having the courtesy to contact the applicants and let them know the status of their water licence applications.
There is no way in the world I will accept the sanctimonious rubbish that comes from the member for Barkly and those opposite about water. They have no credibility in this area whatsoever. For eight years the Labor government sat on its hands ignoring those requests, and the best interests of Territorians. Those opposite left their constituents in limbo. How dare they raise those concerns here today? It is unbelievable. During a reign of more than 10 years, very few licences were issued by the Labor government. Why? Because members opposite had no backbone, there was no level of decision-making and no leadership in this field whatsoever.
Worst of all, they have no idea how to facilitate or run a diverse economy. They have no idea how to engage with the primary industry sector and work with farmers to see their sector grow and flourish. Let me make this clear for the House; since the end of April 2013, 189 applications have been accepted by the department, out of which 115 licences had been granted as at the end of last month. Processing is also underway on 38 of these more recent applications.
There will be no more holding Territorians to ransom, no more thinking we are above the people who voted us in to represent them. We are following due process, as outlined in the Water Act, unlike the Labor government when it was in power, which decided to ignore the Water Act and not deal with 75 water licence applications sitting somewhere in some office gathering dust or behind a filing cabinet.
Under Labor’s inertia there was simply the warehousing of water with no impetus provided for Territorians to develop economically. Labor cared so little about this matter that from 2005 to 2012 there were five separate ministers responsible for water. Let me name them for the record: Marion Scrymgour, the most junior minister in the Cabinet at the time; Delia Lawrie; Len Kiely; Alison Anderson; and how could we forget Karl Hampton, another very junior minister in their Cabinet.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in 2012, I am pleased, and proud, to say I have been the one and only minister responsible for the Water Act. Let me remind those opposite that it has only been under this current Country Liberals government that water reform has been firmly on the agenda. We have stepped up, are being strategic and exercising leadership. We are making decisions. Those words fall foul of the intent of the opposition and the way it would carry on business. We have cut the shackles that Labor left on water allocations and put this important matter on the agenda. This government is proud to optimise the use of the Territory’s water resources, providing stewardship and direction.
Since the Country Liberals government came to power, the amount of water released to support agricultural and horticultural production has more than doubled. I want to make that point; we have released water, not so it can drain away, evaporate or disappear into some ether, thereby wasting it. This is about horticultural and agricultural production and increasing the opportunities for NT farmers, and growing our economy. That means the area that can be irrigated for the production of crops in the Northern Territory has doubled, all in about two years.
There is currently a total of 407 GL per year licensed for extraction in the Northern Territory. Not all of that water is being extracted; only a fraction of it is - that is what is licensed to be extracted. That is the point the member for Barkly and those members opposite will not get.
Under Labor that figure sat at just 180 GL per year. As I touched on before, water is the key driving force of productivity for land across the Northern Territory. Our water future must be underpinned by responsible management principles and practical solutions that will further develop the north.
For example, water trading should be smooth, transparent and low cost. Make no mistake, water is the Territory’s biggest and most precious natural resource. This government is open in its desire to drive water reform and ensure our water is managed responsibly, unlike those opposite, who put their blinkers on and hold Territorians back. It was reckless mismanagement, nothing less.
Every government in this country knows water resources must be managed as best they can. The economic and social returns coming on the back of an overarching NT water policy are potentially enormous. These issues are simply too important to ignore or to make light of in politics, member for Barkly.
That is exactly what those opposite did when they were in government, yet they have the gall to raise this ridiculous matter of public importance. The discussion in this Chamber about water is ad nauseum because it is so repetitive.
I listened to the member for Barkly and I heard spewing forth the same rhetoric we have heard time and time again. There was nothing new. The only new thing is the Supreme Court decision, but that is just an excuse for the member for Barkly and those opposite to regurgitate all the same old claptrap they have been carrying on about for the last two years. It is a disgrace! You should be ashamed of yourselves!
If those opposite were seriously interested in this issue they would have asked what benefits farmers in the Northern Territory might get as a result of being allocated water from sustainable limits set by science.
The most important component of the water story for those interested in developing our Territory is water extraction licensing. That is the allocation of access entitlements for our water resources and the benefits that will flow from that. The Department of Land Resource Management considers the best information, data, records and modelling available from reliable and reputable sources before providing advice to the Controller of Water Resources, who then makes an informed decision about a licence application. This process ensures I, as the minister, am not involved in the decision-making process around water licences.
That being said, we all know the Territory legislation is outdated and we need to have more contemporary legislation to underpin water resource management. A legislative review of the Water Act will follow the development of the Northern Territory water policy to underpin that water policy direction.
The Country Liberals government remains committed to protecting the Territory’s water resources with the release of the Our Water Future Discussion Paper: A Conversation with Territorians. The member for Barkly touched on that before. This discussion paper is one of the most important documents driving the Territory’s social, cultural and economic future. We are serious about protecting our natural environment. We need to strike a perfect balance between northern development and sustainable water use.
Water is finite, a precious resource, and it is vital that government manages it responsibly and in a sustainable manner. Every Territorian is a stakeholder in our water future, and that is why we have asked Territorians to get involved in the conversation and help shape our policy.
The policy paper is the first overarching strategic water plan in the history of the NT. Despite all that rhetoric from on the other side of the House, they did nothing while they had 11 years in government. We have come into power and completely changed the face of water management because we recognise the importance of both economic development and having a strong overarching policy.
Six community forums were held across the Territory during May and June in Darwin, the Darwin rural area, Katherine, the Douglas Daly region, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Did the member for Barkly or any other members opposite attend any of those water forum meetings? I suspect the answer is no. Did any of the members opposite go to the water forums in Katherine? No, they did not. The only thing they did was have insiders there talking to the media and causing strife. That was the only representation from the opposition.
For the benefit of those opposite who could not be bothered turning up to these meetings, the discussion paper provides a framework for water planning with three main goals in mind. What we would like to achieve in the future is water for a prosperous economy, safe secure drinking water and healthy catchments, aquifers and aquatic ecosystems.
The Country Liberals government remains committed to the development and adoption of an adaptive water policy that supports economic growth. We are also protecting and enhancing our unique and envied lifestyle. The development of the strategic plan will provide the Northern Territory with best practice reform which recognises the value of water and the resources required for efficient management of those water resources, good water stewardship, sustainable development of water resources, protection of water quality and the role of water in public health. The best model for the efficient and effective regulation of public water supplies and sewerage services must be a key consideration in water policy development.
We are very proud to be leading our way on this. The member for Barkly talked about science. I will finish by asking the member for Barkly a question: you compared politics to science; how much science went into your dodgy decision to grant Stella Maris to your union mates?
Mr McCarthy: Tough guy.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Do not come and talk to me about politics and science. How much science went into that, member for Barkly? Tell me the answer.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for raising this very important matter of public importance on water resources. Hopefully, I can calm the room a little after that outburst from the minister.
He embarrassingly ran out of time, but he mentioned wasting time in this parliament - about a Labor opposition coming wasting time raising points in this parliament that Territorians want us to raise. Water allocation is a very important issue. That is what we do; as an opposition we bring the voices of Territorians who cannot have their voices heard in here, and the minister responds in an appropriate manner, hopefully.
Usually the member for Katherine, the Minister for Land Resource Management, who is in charge of the water resources allocations, is quite good at giving information. Normally, he is quite calm. Tonight he has obviously taken his angry pills and has an issue with us asking what Territorians want us to ask.
He has brought up wasting time and the cost to taxpayers of having this MPI debate in this House. I ask the minister if he could give the information that Territorians, the opposition and I are looking for: how much did that Supreme Court case cost Territory taxpayers because the minister stuffed it up? That is what I want to know, as do Territorians. I am happy for the minister, the member for Katherine, to give us that cost and see how that cost compares to us raising what Territorians want us to talk about.
Later this week we are expecting the Commonwealth government to release its long-awaited white paper on developing the north. This should be a time of excitement at the possibilities, as well as a time of optimism. Instead we have three years of a sloppy, self-indulgent government which looks set to blow that opportunity. Can they be trusted to advance the development of north Australia in a way that benefits all Territorians and protects our long-term interests, including the security of water supplies? Territorians approach the future with increasing caution and scepticism about the CLP government’s approach to both governance and regional development. It is now clear that it is not what they say, it is what they do which defines this CLP government.
Territorians can see the CLP government for what it is: a government for mates; a government that talks up cutting red tape as code for reducing standards and managing for the here and now, not the long-term best interests of the Northern Territory.
The CLP has fumbled its planning for the future, and Territorians are now staring down the barrel of a flattening economy after the INPEX construction boom. There is no better example of this government’s sloppy approach to government than the scandalous way it has approached the management of our most precious resource, ground water.
The CLP government has shown real disregard for its responsibility to govern for all Territorians - future Territorians, not just those mates with development plans.
Many of us, especially Territorians living in regional and remote towns, have been looking for the opportunity a joint government approach to developing the north could present for the Territory. Instead we have a government that stumbles from decision to decision and loses credibility every day under the leadership of Adam Giles.
Instead of having responsible government working with the Commonwealth on new opportunities for the Northern Territory, we have the disappointment of a government constantly tangled in controversy and poor administration, and one that has failed to demonstrate a properly balanced and responsible approach to development issues, whether they be related to urban planning in Darwin, the development of a new port, critical infrastructure like the new Palmerston Regional Hospital or the develop the north agenda.
One of the clearest examples of this government’s slapdash and blinkered approach to regional development has been this mishandling of the management of one of our most important natural resources: our precious ground water, water resources necessary to underpin both our domestic and commercial development needs. I remind you of the importance of that resource.
In the Northern Territory about 150 GL of ground water provides about 90% of the water we use. Irrigated agriculture and horticulture accounts for about 47 GL; the pastoral sector and cattle production accounts for about 23.5 GL; mining accounts for about 17 GL; urban and industrial use is 48 GL; and rural living is about 8.5 GL. Water use is fundamental to our current wellbeing, let alone our future wellbeing. Water is the lifeblood that sustains our whole environment.
Andrew Campbell from the CDU’s Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods made clear the importance of water to us all in his 2014 Eric Johnston lecture, ‘Busting the Myth that in the North, Water Currently Goes to Waste’. Professor Campbell made this point very clearly: all water is used and any additional extraction will have an impact. He stressed that connectivity is crucial in these systems.
The important thing is that Territorians have confidence that all potential impacts, as well as benefits, are well understood and properly considered in water allocation decisions. Territorians look to the minister responsible for the wise use and long-term protection of our water resources. They look to the minister to act properly and in the best interests of all Territorians, both now and in the future, whatever the future might bring.
Regretfully, the recent decision of our Supreme Court has demonstrated that the current minister responsible for the Water Act, the member for Katherine, has totally misunderstood his role in ensuring the protection and wise use of our water resources on behalf of all Territorians. The Supreme Court tested the question: had the minister failed to ask himself whether the decision under review was a decision that should have been made? The conclusion was yes, he had failed to do that.
In the Supreme Court judgment there is reference to the important public interest aspect of these decisions, quoting previous judgments that have concluded: in Australia, water and rights to use water are of critical importance not just to those who are immediately interested in particular water rights, but to society as a whole.
In his speech on the first day of the Twelfth Assembly, his first speech as the minister of the Crown, the member for Katherine talked of the importance of what you do with the win. Well, now we know what he had in mind: disbanding local water allocation committees; disregarding draft water allocation plans; scrapping proposed strategic Indigenous water reserves because they stand as a barrier to immediate investment; making new arrangements for allocation of water rights; fast-tracking benefits for landholders, including some high-profile CLP supporters; and the selective use of water and rainfall data to support higher water allocation. Some called this retrofitting of data to fit an outcome.
More recently the minister came to the Assembly and announced a new engagement with Territorians about water policy. Too little, too late is a common response from sceptical Territorians. This government has already marked out its approach to water allocations in the Northern Territory. Now you seek to dress up your flawed approach with a cloak of community engagement nearly three years after coming to government. Part of this minister’s modus operandi has been to continually distance himself from water allocations made by his agency. Though he has admitted to private meetings with the beneficiaries of some of those decisions, he was been unwilling to be open and transparent with Territorians about the purpose and content of those meetings.
He has gone on about the independence of the Water Controller and his water allocation decisions. Now the Supreme Court has found the minister failed in his statutory responsibility to make a merit based review of those decisions requested under section 30 of the Water Act.
The Supreme Court has found him wanting. I contrast that finding with a separate Supreme Court review of water allocation decisions under our government. At the time, the court found a proper process, overseen by our minister and our government, had been followed in determining and reviewing the water allocation decision that did not suit the applicant: CLP candidate, Tina McFarlane.
In his first speech in this Assembly as government minister, the member for Katherine said:
We know what he meant by that remark. He has shown his style; that is, sit back and let others do his dirty work for him - a classic backseat driver.
This is a man who would be Chief Minister, but he could not get that process right either. Now with a Supreme Court decision before him, the minister knows what he has to do to fulfil his ministerial responsibilities. He now has the opportunity to conduct a proper merit-based review of the water allocation decisions, as Territorians have every right to expect of him.
The member for Nelson nailed it in a previous debate on water resources when he said water should be given out for what is required, not for speculation. The member for Nelson has also highlighted the need for people obtaining water allocations to demonstrate they are using this valuable resource for its intended purpose: to bring land into production and help create jobs for local people. Water allocations are not a device to enhance the value of property for a middle-man entrepreneur.
One of my concerns about the way this minister and this government have approached water allocation is their dismissive attitude to concerns about water allocations’ impact on environmental flows in our rivers and streams. Again, a quote from the minister in his speech in government:
If that is the case, why has AFANT been at the forefront of community concerns about priorities used to underpin this government’s water allocation policy and the retrofitting of data to justify the preferred outcomes?
Why did we feel it necessary in 2013 to take the extraordinary step of calling for an immediate halt to this government’s flawed water allocations? Why did AFANT call for the government to re-establish a water planning process consistent with the Northern Territory’s national water initiative commitments and best practice planning?
Why does the CLP believe Territorians deserve less than that? What are the potential cumulative impacts of water allocations – whether it be ground water for agricultural production, mining or fracking – on our treasured Territory lifestyle, and recreational fishing, which has direct expenditure of around $100m per year?
I also mention the broader cultural value of our water bodies and waterways, whether they are the beautiful springs at Mataranka, the mighty Daly River, or the awesome Roper River. I sincerely hope that, in his expected merit-based review of water allocation decisions, proper and respectful consideration is given to the cultural, as well as physical, values of our water bodies and waterways, including Indigenous cultural values.
In previous debates on water policy in this Assembly, the Chief Minister has inferred that, while in government, Labor locked up water. This is simply not true. We charged local water allocation committees with developing draft plans that were on the cusp of finalising plans for greater use of ground water allocations, but our focus was sustainability, real production and real jobs, with an eye to potential risk and liabilities. We also had an eye on the need to consider water use in all of our industry sectors.
The Commonwealth inquiry to develop north Australia touched on this in its Pivot North report with a key recommendation that large-scale extraction of water from river systems and aquifers in northern Australia which may impact on the environment and the fisheries industry and other activities should be preceded by scientific investigation. Tellingly, the NT government’s own submission to the Commonwealth inquiry and discussion paper on northern development highlighted the need for dedicated funding.
The minister needs to review his decisions, as the Supreme Court has said. I have asked the minister if he could answer a question, by way of someone else contributing in this MPI, about how much the Supreme Court cost Territory taxpayers, instead of whingeing about the opposition bringing on issues Territory taxpayers want to know about, issues they are talking about because water is so precious, not only to the Territory and our agricultural industry, but our fisheries. It all connects. You changed the way the allocation is made, you changed the formula and now you need to change it back.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I am not wasting this parliament’s time.
Mr Tollner: Never!
Mr WOOD: Never, that is right. There is the member for bias.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I will make a few points about water allocations in general. I listened to the minister’s speech, and whilst I understand there was a backlog of water licences, maybe he needs to put it in perspective. Yes, there may have been a backlog, but I will give you an example of why that happens. A certain farm in Mataranka was offered some water. It was never used, so the water advisory committee, which might be defunct, it might not be – I have no idea at present – said, ‘Let us see if you can use that water then we will allocate you some more’.
That was reasonable. It is like saying to a young child, ‘I will give you this much, see if you can use that properly and if you can, I might give you more’. Water is a precious resource. What did the CLP do? It ignored all the sensible controls – there is nothing wrong with having some controls – and gave the person about eight times the amount of water. If the government thinks that was terrific, I would like to hear the minister for Primary Industry tell us what crops are being grown. That water was allocated about two-and-a-half years ago and there were promises crops would be grown. That is good. If crops were grown I will congratulate the people. Have crops been grown? There were promises of that happening.
If the Crown has given someone a large amount of water for nothing, at least the Crown can say, ‘Look what we have done! This person is now growing umpteen hundred hectares of a crop.’ I would say, ‘Fantastic!’ I am not against what the minister was saying. It is great that horticulture has expanded. Unfortunately, one of the downsides is we have too many diseases making it difficult for many of our horticultural growers to expand.
You can make grandiose statements about, ‘The CLP is making the world go’. That is fine, but it is foolish if you do not have proper regulations and controls over how it is all meant to work. I will not get onto that issue specifically, but the minister raised the point of how water licences had been held back. If you are saying that, let us come back to parliament and show us the benefits of a number of water licences, including the first one you handed out, because that was the controversial one.
I am concerned the government, with its new water strategy – which I find difficult to understand considering they have just handed out stacks of water licences – has a paper called Our Water Future Discuss Paper: A Conversation with Territorians. That is fine but this should have happened a couple of years ago. It is talking about not wasting water and having problems with how much water we should use in Darwin, and trying to reduce the amount by 25% so the government does not have to spend money on infrastructure building new dams. That is fantastic! I do not have a problem with that, but do not plant sweet potatoes down the middle of Tiger Brennan Drive and tell me you are fair dinkum. Water hungry plants in the middle of a road do not fit in with our water future.
It is good you have this, but I am cynical because when you say you have handed out all of these water licences, did you hand them out as part of a conversation with Territorians? No, because you scrapped the water allocation committees. I was on one, and I asked a question in 2014 of the minister.
I asked him what had happened to the Water Advisory Committees. I said it is now two years – this is on 18 February 2014 - since the Howard East Water Advisory Committee had a meeting. Here we are, another year and a bit on, and we have not even been informed. This is the cynicism that annoys me:
Then he said:
I asked the minister, ‘Where is it?’ That is the leadership. I cannot form a government committee. I have no power to do that. That was a ridiculous answer. What do we have now? No Howard Springs advisory committee!
I will give you a classic example where we could have had some useful input from an advisory committee. The prison is developing 37 ha of land. They want to clear it and put bores down. That is fantastic. There was a question asked of me at that meeting by one of the people there, ‘Will that water allocation affect Howard Springs?’ It happens that Howard Springs is in the Howard Springs aquifer and the prison is in what they call the crustaceous area, which is separate from the aquifer.
That is the type of the thing the local advisory committee could have had input into and asked questions like, ‘Would the bores impact on the water levels of Howard Springs?’ But we do not have anything. You scrapped Dr Mac. You said his time was up. It might have been up, I do not know. He did a lot of work. There was a pretty good group that worked together with local pastoralists, traditional owners and scientists. It was an important committee. The member for Daly was pretty cranky about the closure of that, not just me.
The member for Daly made a statement saying he was very disappointed. Where is the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee?
I note that in 2015 the minister made some statements about water. He talked about how he was developing catchment water advisory committees, and he said:
I do not know whether they were actually made defunct. No one has ever said to me that my position on the Howard East aquifer Water Advisory Committee has become defunct. No one ever sacked me; no one sent me a letter and said, ‘Thank you for your work’, and no one told – Elaine Gardiner had resigned at that time - Chris Makepeace, Darryl South, Lawrence Ah Toy, David George, Nigel Browne, Donna Jackson, David Kenyon, Kate Peake, Mark Smith, Melanie Bradley, Plaxy Purich - a pretty good range of people. Did anyone ring them up and say, ‘You are sacked. We are not having you anymore’? Why do you think I am cynical about the whole thing?
It was the same with Mataranka; many local people were on that committee, traditional owners and scientists, and the same with Dr Mac.
The minister went on to say:
And here he is asking me to establish one:
Of all the licences the government has handed out, how many Water Advisory Committees had valuable input into that process? Can someone tell me?
The minister said in his statement on 24 March this year:
That is good because they are still revising the Alice Springs water allocation plan and there has been a meeting of the Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee convened for 26 March:
I do not know what the respective committees are. We did have a Mataranka Water Advisory Committee:
We still do not have a Howard East Water Advisory Committee. This is like a dog’s breakfast. We have given out these licences, and now we think it is good we start discussing them with the community again. We really do not know where we are. Then we put out this paper titled, ‘A Conversation with Territorians’. I cannot see the logic in this. This is a good paper – do not get me wrong – but it is like my desk; it is all over the place. I am concerned …
Mr Tollner: Just like your thinking, Gerry. You are all over the place, mate.
Mr WOOD: No, your planning process is all over the place ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I am sorry I mentioned planning, Mr Deputy Speaker. I digress, and I might not have the time.
The government has lost its vision. It is focused on one part of that vision, that is: we have to get as much growth going as possible. I understand; I am not against the development aspect of what they are trying to do, but it must be balanced. Even though this document is titled ‘A Conversation with Territorians’, so far the conversation has been only with the minister and his department; that is about it. Unfortunately, time has moved on and we should have had that conversation some years ago.
That does not mean that what the Labor Party ran was necessarily perfect. I heard complaints about how some of the licences were slow to proceed. It is like then going to the other extreme of the equation instead of trying to find a good balance. That is where this government is all over the place.
We need those Water Advisory Committees. The people I mentioned are all representatives. Chris Makepeace was in the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT; Darryl South was NT Nursery and Garden; Laurence Ah Toy owns Koolpinyah Station; I was a member of the community; not an MLA; David George was Power and Water Corporation, an expert; Nigel Browne, Larrakia Development Corporation; Donna Jackson, Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation; David Kenyon, Limilngan-Wulna Aboriginal Corporation; Kate Peak, NT Horticultural Association; Mark Smith, horticulture; Melanie Bradley, Environment Centre; and Plaxy Purich, Litchfield Shire. This is a good cross-section of people who had relationships with the water in that area.
I am passionate that we make sure the Territory moves ahead, but let us not stuff it up in the process. Let us make sure we have a conversation with Territorians. One way to do it is to get these Water Advisory Committees, regardless of whether they should have been operating two years ago, going now and encourage people to be part of that conversation, because at the moment it seems very hollow when you see nothing much has happened.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. I listened closely to a few things the members for Barkly and Nelson said.
The member for Barkly suggested this government’s decisions on water are:
I do not know what rock the member for Barkly has been living under, but to suggest the previous government acted on best practice science is a complete joke.
Anyone who believes that taking 20% of the recharge from the previous year’s rainfall is science has no clue about science. That has nothing to do with science; it is an arbitrary figure that somebody has pulled out of the top of their head. These friends of ours on the other side like to suggest that is science; you pull some arbitrary number out of your head and say it is based on science. It was not.
The member for Nelson knows that Darwin, Howard Springs and Palmerston would not exist if that rule applied to the Howard Springs aquifer. We are taking more than 20% of the recharge from the previous rainfall in that aquifer.
It is lunacy to suggest that 20% is the maximum sustainable amount of water you can take out of these aquifers. I understand there is pressure on the Howard Springs aquifer, but we are taking probably 100% of the previous year’s recharge and then some on top of that from the Howard Springs aquifer.
Similarly, the member for Barkly is from Central Australia. To suggest you can take 20% of the recharge sustainably from Central Australia – it would not water the horses in that area. For years we have been mining water in Central Australia, and doing it in a way that has kept people alive and communities prospering.
So this idea that Labor’s policy was based on best practice science is just mumbo jumbo. Prior to coming into this place, I was the federal member for Solomon. It was my privilege in that position to be nominated as a member of the Northern Land and Water Taskforce. That was some years ago; it goes back to around 2006 or 2007.
We did a lot of travelling across north Australia. There was a range of experts – Joe Ross from Western Australia. There were representatives from the Northern Land Council, with John Daly and a range of other stakeholders. Bill Heffernan was chair of that taskforce. We went right across north Australia looking at waterways and underground water supplies. It quickly became apparent that broad-scale farming would never be a commercial option in most of north Australia but there were opportunities to look at smaller sections. People were talking about mosaic farming at that time and finding areas where there were good soils.
We lost government at the end of 2007. You talk about no politics in this. The federal Labor government, under Kevin Rudd, was elected and that Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce was maintained but all the people on the taskforce were removed and replaced with Labor’s people, which included people from the Environment Centre, the Environmental Defenders Office and a range of fellow travellers. Lo and behold, that taskforce reported there was no ability to take any extra water at all from anywhere in north Australia and, if you do, everything will die. It was a pretty predictable response from the people they put on that committee. That is fundamentally how the agenda has run for Labor over the years. It is all about denying people access to water.
This is not about politics, member for Barkly, this is about a difference in ideology. The people on your side of the Chamber believe water is a privilege not a right. They believe the public should refrain from accessing water, and that water is best left in the ground and the rivers, and left to rain on the earth and flow out to the ocean. On this side we want to see water used for development. We want to see farming and a range of things that have water uses. For that reason, the government has been quite unapologetic about the issuing of water licences and making water available to Territorians and businesses that want to use it.
It has been interesting listening to this debate because there has been an overwhelming theme coming through. This is all about that horrible lady in Mataranka named Tina McFarlane who we know the Labor Party does not like. She had the audacity to stand for the Country Liberal Party at the last federal election. As far as they are concerned, that is a reason for her to be cut off from all government support, make sure she is denied everything and sent to the wall. Of course, if you own a property, water is crucial to the development of that property. Labor, for years and years, denied the McFarlane’s access to water. I think Lindsay and Tina McFarlane’s fight for water went on for eight years. For eight years they were desperately trying to get water onto that property and Labor constantly denied them access.
I look at some of the water allocations and see 5800 ML has been granted to the McFarlanes on Stylo Station, which is some 15 000 ha. I look at some of the allocations that have occurred in the past. For example, in Mataranka – we will not go into the names of places and identify people – there is a 1000 ha property that has 4780 ML water. That is 1000 ha compared to the MacFarlane’s 15 000 ha. A 900 ha block gets 5368 ML of water, compared to the McFarlane’s 15 000. But for some reason the McFarlanes are the ones Labor likes to target.
What has happened since the McFarlanes were granted that allocation of water? For a start, people are interested in investing in that land now. I understand that Tropical Forestry Services has made an offer and there are discussions about whether the sale will go through for that portion of the McFarlane’s property to Tropical Forestry Services.
I am hopeful the deal will be done. It is a sizeable portion of the McFarlane’s block on the western side of the Stuart Highway. TFS - a little background here – or Tropical Forestry Services, has spent $250m in the Northern Territory since 2009, and more than $150m in the last couple of years.
At the end of the planting season this year, there will be 4500 ha of sandalwood plantation operating. Each hectare is worth $1.6m in returns to that company every year. That is based on pharmaceutical sandalwood oil being valued at around US$4500 per kilogram, so 1 ha of land with those trees returns about $1.6m, which is incredible.
In Katherine and the Douglas Daly they have more than 40 full-time employees with 140 employees during peak planning and trimming and pruning. Tropical Forestry Services provides huge benefits to the Northern Territory. I have been to the plantations to the west of Katherine; and it is amazing to see what they are doing with those sandalwood plantations.
That company picking up a substantial chunk of the McFarlane’s property would, one would imagine, spur on a huge amount of investment in the Mataranka region, and create a huge number of jobs.
I hope I am not speaking out of school, but the money paid to the McFarlanes would allow them to fund further subdivisions of their land on the eastern side of the Stuart Highway and see more people and opportunities become available in the Mataranka region.
None of this would have happened under the previous Labor government, because for eight years they denied the McFarlanes a water licence. All of a sudden we are now looking at tens of millions of dollars being invested in Mataranka, with dozens of jobs, and opportunities in the future for other people to purchase in the Mataranka region. What can possibly be wrong with that? The only thing wrong is that Tina McFarlane had the audacity to stand for the Country Liberal Party at the last election.
If they were really concerned about these things, they might like to explain what they did with Mick Pierce when he bought a block in Katherine. Mick Pierce was a former candidate for the Labor Party. He ran a couple of times in the late 1990s and early 2000s for the Labor Party in Katherine. He bought a block of a couple of hundred hectares at the farms in Katherine, was immediately awarded a 2000 ML licence, walked away only a short time after that and sold the block for a considerable amount of money. Do we make issue with that on this side of the Chamber? No.
Do Labor members acknowledge they have done what they accuse the CLP of doing with the McFarlanes? They allocated a water licence to a bloke who stood for the Labor Party. Of course they do not. This is not about objectivity; this is about trying to label the Country Liberals as a politically corrupt organisation.
I am proud to be part of a government driving development, making water available for Territorians and creating jobs. I congratulate the minister for the decisions he has made, and I support the government in releasing more water across the Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I offer the opposition’s condolences to the Toyne family on the death of Phillip, a great Australian and a great contributor to the Northern Territory.
Phillip Toyne passed away on 14 June 2015 after a long struggle against bowel cancer. He was 67. He leaves behind his wife, Molly Olsen, and three children. Phillip was the brother of former Labor Attorney-General and Health minister Peter Toyne. I spoke to Peter and passed on my and the party’s condolences, thoughts and prayers to the Toyne family.
By any measure, Phillip Toyne was an extraordinary Australian. For a significant part of his life he lived and worked in Central Australia. Although trained as a lawyer he was a school teacher in the Territory, initially teaching at Haasts Bluff in the late 1970s. Later, in the early 1980s, he worked as lawyer and advocate, particularly for Pitjantjatjara people.
During a 2012 ABC radio interview Mr Toyne said he was drawn to Indigenous culture after spending a gap year travelling around Australia:
This initial encounter had a deep effect on Phillip and led to a committed life of service.
In 1985 Phillip and his colleagues successfully lobbied the Hawke government for the direct grant of title to the traditional owners of Ayers Rock, now Uluru. He described how false rumours were spread at the time suggesting that tourists would not be allowed to visit once Indigenous owners took over.
As has already been publically noted, Phillip Toyne’s life was one of continuous achievement. That was nowhere more evident than in his advocacy for the environment. From 1986 to 1992 he was the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. In 1989 he was instrumental in helping to establish that uniquely Australian environment organisation, Landcare, along with Rick Farley who was formerly the head of the National Farmers’ Federation. It speaks volumes to the character of Phillip that he was able to help form Landcare in 1989 when he was head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and that one of his closest collaborators was the head of the National Farmers’ Federation, Rick Farley. As many have noted, it is probably not a partnership you would see happen in the current political climate.
Phillip also served as Deputy Secretary for the federal Department of the Environment, and, as President of Bush Heritage Australia, developed further environment policy for the federal government.
Former NT government minister and Northern Land Council Director, Jack Ah Kit, said this week:
The Territory is a better place for the work and life of Phillip Toyne. A public memorial service will be held for Phillip in July.
I also want to place on the record the Labor Party’s deep regret at the passing of Mr Dougal Brett from Waterloo Station on the weekend. Mr Brett was a young man, a good husband, and a father of three small children. This is a tragedy for his family and is also a tragedy for the Territory. Mr Brett was a well-regarded Territory cattleman. The cattle industry holds an important place in our past and future. Cattle have been worked here for more than 100 years. They form a crucial part of our employment and economy.
Mr Brett was a son of the Territory. He was a decent bloke and was prepared to have a go. I would like his parents, wife and children to know their husband, father and son, held an important place in this magnificent Territory of ours, and his passing causes us all a great deal of sadness.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk about a few of the young residents in the rural area, not necessarily constituents because they are under the age of 18. One over the age of 18 is Damien Shaw, who is the captain of the Humpty Doo Volunteer Fire Brigade under the NT Fire Service Management.
Last night I attended the Darwin Rotary Club’s presentation of the Volunteer Fire Fighter of the Year Award and the Professional Fire Fighter of the Year Award. Damien Shaw was awarded this very prestigious award for his dedication and commitment to firefighting and community service.
He did not start with the Humpty Doo brigade; he started with the Koolpinyah brigade and moved to Humpty Doo. He has spent countless hours fighting fires, doing controlled burns, doing the very successful and popular Santa runs, and helping and encouraging many other young people to get involved with community service.
It was good to see his work, dedication and commitment to the community rewarded. I wish him well and congratulate him on his very prestigious award that Rotary Club has set up.
The other two young people I would like to acknowledge this evening are both involved in BMX racing, which has been around for many years and is a very popular sport across the Territory, Australia and the world.
The first young fellow I acknowledge is Luke Taheny-Grubb. He is 12 years old; he is in Year 7 at Taminmin high school, or he might be in Year 8 now. When he gets older he says he wants to be an architect and a professional BMX rider. He is aiming to be in the Olympics in 2020, and I think he will get there.
He has been racing since he was eight years old and has been placed every year at the NT Titles, except one year due to an injury. I am sure if any of us know about BMX riding, the way they throw themselves up in the air on those bikes I am not surprised they get injured. He has won two NT titles and two club championships, and he has been runner up. He says his idol is Caroline Buchanan, who is an Olympic medallist in the sport, for her achievements and good sportsmanship.
He sought sponsorship from many people in the rural area, and I was happy to support him. He has been racing not only in Darwin but elsewhere. He has raced at Satellite City, the Three Round Series, the Satellite City Thunder, he has been first cruiser for eight to 12 year old boys, he went to the NT Titles in Alice Springs, he has been in the October Jingili Round Series and Senior Club Champion. He has many points and has done a lot of hard work.
He won the 2013 Coromal Caravans Open at Jingili, the 2013 Tropic Thunder, the Jeep Series Jingili, NT Titles in 2013 and was runner-up club champion. He is a dedicated young sportsperson. His father looks after him well and supports him. I am pleased to support him and I wish him well. I am sure he will get to the Olympic Games in the year that he is aiming to, because he is dedicated. I am sure he has his mind set on bringing a gold medal, or some other medal home, not only to Australia but to the Territory.
The other person I wanted to acknowledge is a young fellow by the name of Jayden Walker. He has also been involved in the sport of BMX since he was eight years old. They get involved in this sport at a very young age.
He is now 15 and aspires to be a racer at the elite level of the competition. He has attended many interstate race meetings over the years, including the Australian Titles in Shepparton, Cairns, Mount Gambier and Brisbane, and he has represented the Territory as part of the NT team and qualified as dynamic representative.
He has raced also in the NT Titles at Satellite City, Jingili, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, with fantastic results, receiving an NT Plate at all events. He is currently No. 1 in the cruiser class and NT eighth in the 20-inch class after a crash in the final. I think that has something to do with the size of the bike.
He said to me with the benefit of the roof over the track at the Jingili BMX Club, they were able to train and prepare for the upcoming Australian Titles in Brisbane. They went there in May. They drove over in April to get some early track time and get familiar with the course before they competed.
He also is a very dedicated young sportsperson. Many people think of BMX as just riding pushbikes, but those who know the sport know there is a lot more to it than that. They have to be very fit and agile to do the things they do. He has done an enormous amount of work and achieved a lot through his BMX, including the 2014 NT titles, the Tropic Thunder Dash for Cash, Race 4 A Plate Round 3 series, and Track Attacks. I wish him well and know he will achieve bigger things, not only in the Territory but across Australia.
To both those young fellows, well done, congratulations, and I am happy to keep supporting you because I know you really love your sport and want to take it further, not only for yourselves and your family, but for the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Tony Moran, who sadly passed away after a battle with cancer in May this year.
Tony could have been a character in a Banjo Paterson poem. I was fortunate enough to have known Tony, and since his passing I continue to be amazed at the huge amount of people whose lives he touched and whose lives are now less for his passing.
Tony was a character, a great mate, a hand up when you needed help, a great teacher and a great Territorian. He had expert horsemanship skills, great expertise at handling cattle and took a great interest in training and mentoring staff. Well regarded by industry, he was the teller of tales, and a larger than life character. As Territory old timers would say, Tony was a man you would be lucky to have in your stock camp.
On 25 May 1981 Tony began to work as a stock inspector for the then Department of Primary Production. On Tony’s recruitment to the department he was asked about his relevant skills and experience with the cattle industry in general and stock handling in particular. I understand he was told, ‘Oh, it will also help if you can fight a bit’. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then.
In the 1980s, with the BTEC program in full swing, his work as a stock inspector saw Tony working on most of the Northern Territory cattle stations, helping eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis from our cattle herd.
During his time as a stock inspector Tony was based at Lake Nash, Borroloola, Daly Waters and Katherine. I first met Tony when he was based at Daly Waters and I was a police officer stationed at either Maranboy or Mataranka, I cannot quite recall, but it was certainly in the late 1980s. Tony took over managing the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries’ Kidman Springs Research Station in August 2005 and stayed there until earlier this year.
Always up for a cup of tea or a rum, Tony told a great yarn and was a font of knowledge of all things outback.
I will recite a poem written by Tom Stockwell of Sunday Creek Station. Tony’s sister, Trish Geraghty, has kindly given permission for me to read this poem tonight.
The Northern Territory, and the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, has a lost a bright light in the passing of Tony Moran. I extend my and the people of Katherine’s sincere condolences to his family and many friends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk on two very different subjects. One is marriage. I find it very disappointing to see our four members of federal parliament line up in support of so-called gay marriage, which for me is a contradictory term.
I find it hard to accept they look at marriage as something simply to do with love or equality. Marriage is something more than that. It is a very special relationship between a man and a woman that has been recognised over thousands of years as having a special place in many cultures or religions.
In many places it is blessed by a formal religious or civil rite which is held in high regard, with lots of celebrations as the new couple begin their new phase in life.
In Western society it is based on love and romance, but in other societies or cultures a partner is selected by others and a dowry is required or, as in Aboriginal society, one is promised to another person usually of the same skin group. By the very design of a man and a woman, they are able to join together in a sexual relationship that not only creates a loving bond between one another, but also creates a family which brings much joy and even more unity to that bond between husband and wife.
They create a child, and just in case you have forgotten, that child is made up of 23 chromosomes from mum and 23 from dad, with the sex chromosomes defining whether the child will be a girl or a boy. Having babies also enables the human race to produce the next generation, but over the last few years we seem, in our so-called enlightened Western society, to have certain groups who believe they should also be classified as married if they live together, even though they do not fit the description I have just given.
They believe people of the same gender are married if they live together, presumably if they live in a sexual relationship, which, by its very nature, does not produce children.
They might love one another, but so do others who live together, such as brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, brothers and sisters, widows and widowers, none of whom are living in a sexual relationship. They are living together for companionship and security. Are our federal members trying to say that they should all be allowed to be married? After all, Bill Shorten’s private members’ bill proposes replacement of the words ‘man and woman’ with the term ‘two people’ to define who can be legally married.
Some may say, ‘Who cares? The roof will not fall in if we have gay marriage’, but sometimes the roof may fall in slowly as our society wanders all over the place like a headless chook, with nobody believing anything except what is on the latest iPhone.
It seems we have a society that is driven by a few people who want to attack marriage by trying to be part of something they could not be part of up until now. They are the ones who have the ear of the media or the talk shows. Their views are continually publicised and supported by the so-called media experts until people believe this is the popular way to go and must be right, and people like me who hold views against gay marriage are just bigots, homophobic or worse – old.
Our four federal parliament members just go with the flow. I find it amazing that Bill Shorten’s deputy, Tanya Plibersek, claims that marriage equality is a matter of legal discrimination. It can only be discrimination if two same things are treated differently. In this case, a relationship between a man and a woman – that is, of two different genders – is not the same as a relationship between two people of the same gender. They may pretend to be the same, but they are not the same. A lemon and an orange are both citrus fruits but no matter how much the lemon tries, it can never be an orange. If the government brings down a decree that all lemons will now be oranges, the fact remains that the orange and the lemon are not the same. There is no discrimination.
Some will say that marriage fails, that there are many breakups and that two men or two women can do the same job. By what standard do they base that argument? Marriages fail but that does not mean that marriage is at fault and, therefore, we should try the latest modern new age popular alternative – gay marriage. If the supporters of gay marriages are saying marriage is the failure, why do they want to get married? Marriage failure may mean some people made the wrong choice, had a violent partner or were ill-prepared for what was ahead of them. It does not make marriage a failure. In all of this, have we forgotten about the right of a child to know its mother and father?
The reality is that people live together for whatever reason. I support the idea that Phillip Ruddick recently presented on Q & A, which was similar to an idea pushed forward by a Liberal MP I knew in the early 2000s. It looked at a way of giving a relationship where two people resided together a legal basis. People who live together should be able to legalise that relationship which can enable financial and social benefits that may come from the recognition of that relationship. Whether the relationship is sexual or not would be irrelevant, and of course it would be purely a voluntary agreement. That way, the state can legalise what it wants and can leave marriage alone.
I am married to a wonderful and very forgiving woman. I look back on my parent’s life together, and my grandparents. I look at the Aboriginal side of my family and see the extended family of nanas, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces and nephews, and see a family that goes back over thousands of years all because of a relationship between a man and a woman.
That relationship, marriage, should stay the centrepiece of our society and give security to a family. That relationship highlights that we are designed differently for a natural purpose which no other relationship is designed for, and that relationship should remain and be supported.
Our members of federal parliament should stand up for something that has stood the test of time and protect marriage, not diminish or dilute it with something that it is not. Many people who are not Catholic look to the new Pope Francis as a breath of fresh air. I do too, and think he is a man of vision and of the people who has a strong faith and speaks the truth.
I finish with a number of his quotes this year when he visited the Philippines and Italy. He said:
He went on and said:
I have not thrown my support behind marriage as we know it just because of what the Pope said, but because I can think for myself about it. I agree with what he says, not simply because I am a Catholic, but I believe what he says is right. He is a wise person and what he says makes good sense.
I will quickly talk about something completely different. This is about the state of Gunn Point Road. This is a letter I received today and it is addressed to Hon Gary Higgins and Hon Peter Chandler.
In summary, the viability of his business is threatened by the state of Gunn Point Road. He is asking is for that road to be upgraded so he can continue to expand what is a very successful business.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I give a big shout out to the Minister for Arts and Museums tonight on behalf of the Northern Territory arts community.
I talked briefly at estimates and alerted you to the Take Action to Protect Australian Arts from Deadly Cuts campaign, contact at freehearts.com.au. I will quote from their document. I hope you use the considerable resources available to you to make sure we speak up, stand up and are heard in Canberra on behalf of the Territory arts community.
I quote:
This is what I was talking about at estimates. This is about cuts in the federal budget, back to back with Northern Territory government cuts, and what I have argued as being the Northern Territory government’s missed priorities.
We are talking about small to medium enterprises right across the Territory. Community arts organisations are now facing drastic cuts, the closure of their operations in some cases and thousands of jobs being lost. When the CLP government talks about economic development in the regions, you can be sure in the regional or remote communities, in most cases, the art centres, the small to medium businesses, are the most powerful economic drivers in the community and will be the bodies most affected.
Barkly Regional Arts in Tennant Creek has been a key producer. The evidence of its output and programs, its input into the community, is quite evident and has been over a number of years. It is now facing serious cuts and job losses, and the ability to support arts activities as well as the wellbeing of the community, including our festivals, will be troubled.
I hope you will use the considerable resources at your fingertips to engage with Senator Brandis to acknowledge the concern of the small to medium businesses in the arts sector across the Northern Territory. Make contact with the Australia Council and lobby on behalf of Territory artists, the Territory arts community and the small to medium arts and cultural centres which represent the dynamic cultural identity of the Northern Territory. That is who we are, who we represent and what we want to promote.
I could continue talking about the benefits to Indigenous, regional and remote communities and the big end of town such as Darwin, but time is running out. We need to make contact by 18 June. I urge you to lend your privileged position as a minister in the Northern Territory government, and make contact with your Liberal colleague in Canberra to get behind our arts community and back them up. We need these changes reversed. In your case the cash is there. It is about the priorities of the appropriation. We must listen to the constituents. It is in our interests and is our duty to do so.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the lovely students from Year 5/6 at St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary School in Humpty Doo. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
SENTENCING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Continued from 30 April 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House, and I thank his office for recently providing me with a briefing on the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill. Most of that briefing was spent discussing the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill, which we will be debating after this. During that briefing a fraction of the time was spent on this bill because whilst it is very technical, it is relatively straightforward. The opposition supports this bill and I will be relatively brief in my comments.
This bill, I understand, gives effect to the reform proposed by Justice Hiley, who has identified anomalies in the Sentencing Act. The minister, in his second reading speech said:
The ambiguity identified by Justice Hiley concerns the use of the words:
- … in respect of which it proposes to fix a non-parole period …
This is in section 57(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act.
Those words allow section 57(1)(b), when read in conjunction with section 53, to be interpreted in two different ways. The removal or lessening of that interpretation is what is important here.
These amendments allow for more flexibility in the sentencing of offenders who have previously been ordered to serve a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period by ensuring the court will, when imposing an additional sentence for the new offence, fix a new non-parole period which is appropriate, having regard to the combined effect of the old and new head sentence. It will, as the minister said in his second reading speech:
- … permit the application of the totality principle in sentencing and promote a fair and just total sentence.
In amending sections 53 and 57 of the Sentencing Act there are impacts on the Youth Justice Act, which is why provisions need to be consistent. As such, sections 85 and 87 of the latter act are amended to maintain consistency across the two acts.
I confess I have not read the 135 or so pages of the Sentencing Act, but I have perused the sections pertinent to this bill, and due to my briefing and subsequent conversations with a couple of lawyers, take it that sentencing is a very complex and technical area of law and the anomaly this bill addresses has been an annoyance for some years. While this anomaly is now resolved, I have it on good advice that sections 53 to 65 of the Sentencing Act, in the words of one lawyer, ‘Drive everyone nuts’. Perhaps that means further amendments are to come.
I am more confident of bills such as this when I see change driven from within the judiciary as opposed to the executive of government, which is known for its interference in sentencing with its mandatory sentencing regime. I commend Justice Hiley. It provides clarity – and makes the deliberations of sentencing and the requirement to fix a new single non-parole period where a sentence over 12 months for a subsequent offence is imposed.
Ultimately this bill removes ambiguity, closes a loophole and ensures that in this case, as per the second reading speech of the minister and the explanatory statement, sentencing provisions are clear, concise and promote fair and just sentences for those found guilty of a criminal offence.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting that while the minister brings this bill before the parliament to get an important part of the Sentencing Act sorted, he still fails to get the House in order for the growing number of people who are sentenced for crime and find themselves locked up in prison. You need only to look as far as the Australian Bureau of Statistics data for the March quarter, which shows that for the first time the Northern Territory’s imprisonment rate has passed 900 people per 100 000; the national rate is 194 people per 100 000. Western Australia has the second-highest imprisonment rate behind us.
I read an article yesterday by journalist Neda Vanovac on this subject. She interviewed the CEO of NAAJA, Priscilla Collins. I will quote from the article. Quite rightly, Ms Collins is calling on the government:
- … to invest in alternatives to prison, such as diversion, rehabilitation and therapeutic programs and justice reinvestment.
‘All they really have is the lock-em-up approach’ …
Mss Collins told AAP:
- She said mandatory sentencing laws took power away from magistrates to hand down appropriate sentences.
Ms Collins went on to say: :
- ‘They’re talking about a tight fiscal budget: well, if you want to address the budget, reduce your incarceration numbers’ …
- Ms Collins said the community did not understand that jailing more people did not improve safety.
You need only look at the weekend’s news or the NT News this morning to see that crime is spiralling out of control.
Mr Chandler: Rubbish.
Ms WALKER: Someone over there said, ‘Rubbish’. That person is clearly living in a parallel universe. I believe that was a member from Palmerston, where crime is off the radar.
I want to raise in this issue of sentencing and how we deal with offenders the bizarre announcement from the member for Blain towards the end of May about giving police new powers to lock up young people found on the streets at night. I find it frightening that he, a backbencher of the CLP government, considers it appropriate to give police new powers to take young people who have done nothing wrong, have not committed an offence, off the streets to some place where their parents can pick them up when they find out their kids are missing. Perhaps the member for Blain might respond in this debate as to why that is an appropriate course of action.
I come back to the bill. The bill in itself we have no issues with. There are, however, broader issues the government needs to look at with the growing, and worrying, number of people locked up in our prison system. In youth justice there have been a number of breakouts of young people from Don Dale, and, bizarrely, a break back in to Don Dale. I am sure the minister has much on his hands to deal with, not the least of which is the bill before us today, which, as I said, we support and commend to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill.
that the explanatory statement??? explains in greater detail how inserting a new clause 53(1), which read in conjunction with new clause 57(1), deals with fixing a new non-parole period in respect of multiple sentences.
The only change I see between the old section 57 and the new 57(1) is the word ‘caught’ is replaced by the word ‘offender’, and the words ‘in which it proposes to fix a non-parole period’. As a layman, I have tried to understand why it has to be changed. I am sure the judges of the High Court have better minds than mine, but I wonder whether anyone reading the intention of the original bill could see why it needs to be clarified. Obviously it did. Being a lay person I was pleased to see this document …
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He cannot stand in front.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, move off the floor.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I make note of this book that has just been published. It is a resource for judicial officers, Aboriginal interpreters and legal professionals working with speakers of Aboriginal languages. It is titled Plain English Legal Dictionary. They should broaden it for the lay person. It is a very good document. I have a legal dictionary on my desk but something like this is an excellent idea.
It was put together by Aboriginal Resource and Development Services; the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, NAAJA; the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and the Northern Territory government.
I congratulate all the people who put this together. Something like this also helps me as a member of parliament. Sometimes the words in legal documents are not always the easiest for people -even me – to understand when trying to work out what, for example, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is. It is not something that most people would understand in their day-to-day life.
I raise this because in my reading of this bill and in the minister’s second reading speech, it is clear that a matter raised in the High Court was the reason this section had to be clarified. As a lay person I would not have been able to understand that unless it was explained to me and I thank members of your staff, minister, for the briefing on this matter yesterday.
In the case of section 53, the second reading speech said this clause has been inserted to prohibit a court from fixing a non-parole period where it imposes a prison sentence of less than 12 months. What was the original reason for this? Could a judge, if they thought this section was unfair, not sentence someone to a good behaviour bond to avoid it because they believe they should be allowed to set a parole for a shorter period than 12 months?
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talking about the number of Indigenous people in prison. My approach to that issue is slightly different. There is no doubt if a person commits a crime – and many of these crimes are to do with violence and domestic violence – they should be punished.
There are two issues. I know we are not here to discuss this too much, but we need to look at the causes of people going to prison. If they are in prison, we need to look at alternatives. I am not saying anything new to the minister on this matter. He and I are on the same page when it comes to the effects of a welfare state and high unemployment in some communities. It is the same old story; when people are bored and have nothing to do, they get into trouble. We really need to work harder to find out why people are committing crimes. Why they are getting into trouble in the first place?
In relation to people going to prison, again the minister knows my thoughts. We need alternatives to prison, that is, work camps. The previous government set up a work camp in Tennant Creek, and the current one is setting up another in Nhulunbuy. There should be more. The government promised, when it was in opposition, to have one in Katherine. It had a temporary one in Adelaide River. We should have a prison farm, as well. A prison farm does not necessarily mean just growing vegetables; it could mean industry.
It was good to hear at the last Development Consent Authority meeting, which I attended last Friday, that there has been an application to clear some land at the existing Howard Springs prison, which is not in Holtze. That land clearing application was to develop a farm to grow vegetables and fruit. That is a mix governments need to look at. In conjunction with the federal government – I do not think the Territory government can do this itself – it should tackle the problems that are the cause of people going to prison.
In Aboriginal communities we have the highest rates of unemployment, overcrowding and non-attendance at schools. None of these things are in any way helping the situation when it comes to giving people a better lifestyle and reducing the opportunity to end up doing things regarded as criminal behaviour. We cannot just take a figure and say it is terrible, because it is not a simple problem to fix. It is a complicated problem that needs the Commonwealth, the Territory and non-government organisations, including Aboriginal people to be part of the solution from the start. We need solutions that are not imposed on people but work in collaboration with them. I make these comments because the member for Nhulunbuy raised those issues.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I appreciate the support they place on the table. I apologise if I sound a bit doughy today, but I have the flu from hell so I would ask people to please bear with me.
My first comment is to the member for Nhulunbuy, and I ask who you are intending to let go. Name them. Tell us which people currently in prison you would like to see set free and why? The member for Nhulunbuy said in this House that we have too many prisoners in custody. If that is what she believes, she has to identify what changes she would make and identify the individuals she would set free. Are they housebreakers, car thieves or wife beaters? Who will you set free? That is exactly what the member for Nhulunbuy has advocated in this House today.
Ms Walker: No, that is not what I said at all. I spoke about justice reinvestment.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection; justice reinvestment is about taking money out of the correction system and putting into other systems. I have some real questions about justice reinvestment, particularly out of the Texas environment where it has been lauded as a great success. The only question I have is why did they have 171 000 prisoners 10 years ago and now 172 000?
How much will you take out of the corrections system to pay for justice reinvestment? The debt legacy we carry as a result of having to buy into your massive $1.8bn prison is something we have to spend money on. Are you now telling Sentinel services that you will not pay their bills of $60m a year for the prison? If so, you will find yourself in court pretty quickly.
I remind the honourable member opposite that the reason the prison Mahal had to be built in the first place was, according to the Labor Party’s projections when it was in government, they would today have about 1885 prisoners in custody. They were planning to have 286 more people in custody today than are currently there. I want to know from the member for Nhulunbuy, who will you set free and where will you make the cuts to pay for your justice reinvestment model? The justice reinvestment model advocated by Texas meant money was deliberately taken away from the corrections system. How much will you take away from the corrections system, where will you reinvest it, and what does that reinvestment look like?
Is the member opposite aware that the justice reinvestment phraseology can mean any number of things to any number of people? The justice reinvestment model that comes out of Texas sees money going back into particular neighbourhoods to run certain types of social programs. If you go to some of our remote communities, you will see some of the most socialised communities in the country. There is a government department for every occasion and nobody is required to do anything, because government will fix it.
That is the attitude we are peddling and the member for Nhulunbuy is advocating more of it, that we will close the gaol or spend less money in the gaol system, where she is also advocating we must spend more money on youth detention. Sadly, we probably are because of recent events. Never an articulated syllable comes out of the member for Nhulunbuy’s mouth in relation to the real problem, which is a passive welfare system that sucks the soul out of people. It sucks any form of identity they may have in what they do for a living, because it makes them passengers on the train of state-sponsored charity.
I agree with the member for Nelson on this point, probably a little more violently than he, that the way welfare is distributed is the root of so many of our problems in the Northern Territory. I have said it before and I will say it again; when you have a system of welfare which pours millions of dollars into this jurisdiction every fortnight, and then we as a jurisdictional partner have to spend millions of dollars every fortnight to clean up the subsequent mess that welfare money generates, then clearly we have a problem. I continue to lobby my federal counterparts and make public statements about the need for welfare reform in such a way that it creates jobs in remote communities that have meaning, structure and can create a future for the people there.
The reason I introduced the Sentenced to a Job program, and why we are clearing land at Howard Springs prison, is to create an environment of work. That is what we have been doing since coming to government and we will continue to do so. We create jobs in remote communities and place prisoners in those remote communities to work in those jobs. The Sentenced to a Job program continues to go from strength to strength. We hope to pick up a larger employer in the not-so-distant future who will pick up a number of prisoners and put them into full-time, fully paid work so they can start paying their way in life, including paying rent for their cells.
A person with a job is a person with an identity. Yet the best the members opposite can suggest is to cut money out of the prisons, let prisoners go and reinvest money into social programs. Where? Yuendumu or Papunya? Where will these social programs be and what will they look like? We have an abundance of social programs in these remote communities. We have health services in these remote communities as well as educational and police services. There is no shortage of NGOs that operate in these places. Yet we do not see success because the responsibility for the daily lives of the people we are trying to target has still not been given to them. We are doing it for them; we are not asking them to do it for themselves. Unless we as a state, a community and a country have the courage to say to people, ‘You are responsible. You must be responsible for your own welfare and the welfare of your family, particularly your children’, we will continue to have the atrocious outcomes we have.
The member opposite said we have this dreadful situation where we have 16 people in custody for every 10 000 people. Yes, and it is not a good result. I would like to see no gaols. I would like to see no juvenile detention facilities. I would like to make sure that the 1000 kids we currently have in our child protection system were in happy homes. But it does not work that way, because there are 1000 kids with parents who are so disengaged with their children that they neglect them, and are abusive or sexually abusive to them.
We continue to make excuses and say, ‘Oh well, there are social reasons’. We are not saying to individual people, ‘Be responsible. Be a good parent and do all that is necessary as a good parent. Ignore the card game, do not go to the pub or stick the money in the one-armed bandit. Become responsible.’ Every time I suggest this there is a chorus of people saying these people are victims. We have to stop saying to these people they are victims and instead say they have a duty to themselves and their community to lift their game.
We have become so involved in this idea that you can manoeuvre society by pulling its levers to produce beautiful outcomes, but there is scant evidence to prove it. Every time I hear about a new program that is super successful, the question I ask myself is; after 40 years of super successful programs which have done all of these social engineering things, where are the results?
The answer from the members opposite is to let the prisoners go. All right, name them and tell me how much money you will pull out of the prison system, because that is what I heard the member for Nhulunbuy advocate today, and she should articulate that clearly in a policy.
I have strayed away from the debate in point, which is a technical amendment of the Sentencing Act. I thank honourable members for their support in relation to that amendment. Members understand the nature of what is being asked of them today. Basically it gives control over a sentencing anomaly back to the courts in the way I suspect the legislation was always intended to operate in the first place.
I thank the staff here today and the other staff who have worked on this amendment, as well as acknowledget Justice Graham Hiley for bringing this matter to the government’s attention.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUMMARY PROCEDURE) BILL
(Serial 122)
(Serial 122)
Continued from 30 April 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. I thank the officers from the department who facilitated a briefing for me and walked me through the reforms this bill aims to deliver. The original plan was to have the second reading debate when we last sat in this House at the conclusion of estimates, but it was delayed with a handful of committee stage amendments which obviously were not quite ready. However, I received them late yesterday afternoon along with the Attorney-General’s notes. I thank him for that, In the interest of transparency, he has afforded non-government members a chance to go over those late committee stage amendments, all of which appear to be quite in order, to improve the workability of the bill.
I understand the intent of this bill is to implement major reforms by bringing in changes to deliver efficiencies in the systems in the way in which matters are progressed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, soon to be known as the Local Court, and how that will work. Clearly, these reforms are driven by the government’s desire and need to see the courts operate more efficiently and reduce wastage of valuable time and resources. Any government worth its salt must always be seeking to find efficiencies, and, with it, savings. There is nothing wrong with that. Having more cases settled and at an earlier stage sounds very sensible.
I think I am correct in saying, broadly speaking, that to realise efficiency and reduce wasted resources the bill provides for two significant reforms to be enshrined in legislation: firstly, a new case management procedure for summary criminal matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which will see the replacement of summary case conferences with a court directions hearing between the magistrate, defence and prosecution to identify, early on, issues in dispute.
The second major part of the reform is the sentence indication scheme which encourages an early guilty plea for a more efficient case management system, and to be eligible a defendant must make a plea seven days before a case is listed for hearing.
I acknowledge the efforts of the minister and the agency to engage stakeholders in the reform process and conduct a type of consultation. If only other ministers from around his Cabinet table, including the Chief Minister and the Minister for Lands and Planning, would conduct such consultation instead of the, ‘We know what is best for you’ approach, and then, after the fact, scramble to give the illusion they consulted or areabout to.
With regard to this bill, consultation started in May 2014. I am not sure if an issues paper was released – an exposure draft of the bill which invited feedback from relevant stakeholders including, I assume, the Chief Magistrate, the judiciary, legal practitioners and their representative organisations, police prosecutors and officers of the court. All these people have a vested interest in engaging in that process, and their collective wisdom, expertise and experience in matters of law and the justice system is quite considerable.
Further consultation was held in October 2014, during a symposium the minister referred to in his second readings speech, led by former Victorian Supreme Court judge Professor George Hampel. As a direct result of that key changes followed, including the removal from the consultation bill of the graduated sentence discount scheme whereby courts were empowered to allow a sentence discount of up to 40% for early pleas. This is much to the disappointment of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory.
I understand another significant point during that consultation phase was recognizing the difficulties of implementing this system in our bush and remote courts and, as such, it will not be applied to them.
A fresh round of consultation led by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice occurred last May. However, the bill had already been introduced during the April sittings and at that time the department gave a snapshot of changes made to the consultation bill – what was in, what was out, and an opportunity for stakeholders to make further comments and suggestions on technical operational issues or problems. They said in the PowerPoint presentation they would take feedback to the minister.
The bill evolved considerably during the process of consultation. The minister stated at the conclusion of his second reading speech:
- I realise that most stakeholders have not seen the bill in its current form and the bill looks different to that which was circulated for consultation in May 2014 …
Nevertheless, in order to offer stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the technical aspects of the bill, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice will circulate the bill to stakeholders for any comments they may have. Any issues that need to be addressed can be dealt with in the committee stage of the bill.
We all acknowledge that in its bid to consult, especially when there are significant reforms afoot, government may not be able or want to take on board all of the competing views and constructive feedback.
Having said that, while there remains a view amongst some that the bill has made considerable progress, some fundamental matters remain unanswered. Whilst consultation occurred, there is a view amongst some that the changes have been developed without any genuine engagement with stakeholders over some of the more philosophical issues associated with the bill. As one lawyer said to me; ‘We have been shown various versions of the bill, but the Attorney-General’s department has not consulted with us about the problems and what they are trying to solve’.
This takes me to the heart of what the NT Law Society raised in its original submission in May 2014 around an evidence base to support these reforms. I note the minister in his second reading speech makes the point that the background to this bill represents what he describes as:
- … a culture of un-cooperation and inefficiency.
With it – and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong – he also seems to point the figure at the defence for seeing trials fall over at the last minute.
What is of concern is that the policy assumes the late plea of guilty, causing the trial to fall over, is a failure of the defence. I suggest there is limited substance to this; it is just as likely that it is due to the late disclosure by the prosecutor of evidence or other materials.
I quote from the Law Society’s submission:
- The society submits that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing system of criminal procedure has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The submission goes on to acknowledge:
- The society accepts the assertion that the current process should be reviewed. The society also accepts that there has been significant growth in the number of cases in the Northern Territory and a workable process that will facilitate where appropriate early pleas has become important to ensure smooth running of the court. Importantly where it is demonstrated that court procedures are resulting in late pleas efforts should be made for reform.
However, in their submission they next state:
- The society submits that any review should identify and quantify the scope of the perceived problems, so that effectiveness of reforms can be monitored. This examination should identify all possible causes, options for reform and identify why any proposed reform is preferred. The review should not ignore the impact of other factors such as mandatory sentencing, charging practices or failure to conduct the case in the interests of the administration of justice.
I wish to expand upon the matter of mandatory sentencing, and how the existence of the CLP’s mandatory sentencing frustrates the very reforms the CLP is trying to achieve in this bill. Similar reforms implemented successfully in other jurisdictions work better, because they do not have mandatory sentencing.
In the Criminal Lawyers Association NT’s submission of May 2014, representing their members, which include prosecuting and defence lawyers, it states:
- Without the incentive of sentencing discounts, many defendants will continue to be advised that it is not in their interests to offer to plead guilty at an early or indeed any stage. In those matters, case conferencing, sentence indications and sentence discounting will all be rendered nugatory.
The CLANT submission goes on:
- Furthermore, the coexistence of mandatory sentencing and the proposed sentencing discount scheme will create anomalies in sentencing which will bring the law into disrepute.
Resourcing of these reforms remains a concern, especially the requirement for directions hearings and defence disclosure. I asked this question at the briefing I attended, but I remain unconvinced that workloads will not increase. I am especially mindful of lawyers who work in legal aid services for their clients. For them, the changes to summary procedure are unrealistic without additional funding for legal services. The changes seek to impose stricter time frames and obligations on parties, but those things are very hard to meet when they are struggling to keep their heads above water.
Government said it wants these defence lawyers to be doing the work earlier, not more work. To be frank, there are many who believe this view is simply ignorant of how things work on the ground. Preparing a case early, before you have all the material, is double handling, especially for those representing legally-aided clients who simply do not have the luxury of time.
The Law Society of the Northern Territory’s submission raised this issue on the ramifications for legal aid services, but also addressed the fact that this bill shifts the onus to the defendant and his or her lawyer to prove innocence rather than proving the facts of the case by the prosecution. I quote from the submission at length:
- The bill appears to treat prosecution and defence as equals by creating disclosure obligations for both. In doing so the bill ignores the fact that the state brings a criminal case against the individual and that there exists a gross disparity in resources between the two. The bill represents a significant change to the law and the rights of people charged with offences, placing a significant new burden on defendants. The bill in turn increases the desirability for all individuals charged with any criminal offence to have immediate access to legal assistance to be best informed to respond to the allegations. In the current economic climate, we are uncertain that there will be the necessary resourcing available for this.
Declining funding for legal aid generally and Aboriginal legal services will worsen the disparity between prosecution and defence. Care should be taken when introducing measures that increase the burden on defendants, and thus publicly-funded legal services. Reforms need to be cognisant of the need to maintain flexibility of procedures to deal with the anticipated increase in unrepresented defendants.
The proposed amendments have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable accused, particularly those with limited resources.
We further note the limited nature of the resources available to the legally-aided defendants because of extreme restrictions on, and delays in, considering applications for legal aid. Mandated disclosure and the potential for sentencing discounts raise the prospect of having to engage counsel at an earlier stage to provide the necessary advice. Currently legal assistance services are not funded to engage Counsel prior to trial.
Self-represented accused may not be aware of what elements constitute a criminal offence. They may be pleading guilty because it is easier, which would thwart the criminal process.
Trepidation around significant resourcing implications for both defence and prosecution, rather than the savings suggested, are very real. I ask the minister to address this matter when he participates at the close of this debate, and to advise whether he has taken into account the Law Council of Australia’s policy statement on justice impact assessments. I draw to the minister’s attention the following points from that document:
- 28. The Law Council supports a RIA process which considers the broader social and economic consequences of new legislation or regulation including specific impacts on the justice system, courts and tribunals, the legal assistance sector and the administration of justice generally.
29. Ideally, regulatory proposals impacting on the justice system should entail genuine consultation with key stakeholders, including courts and tribunals, legal assistance sector providers and legal professional peak bodies. at all stages of the regulatory cycle.
The final point I quote is point 34:
- Adoption of justice impact assessments will better inform the legislature, improve ministerial and departmental decision-making and improve the overall health of the Australian justice system.
These are quite clearly very important principles.
Front-end loading is just that. It is not necessarily a saving, just bringing things forward in time. It is likely there will be just as many vacated directions hearings, etcetera, because parties are not ready. I think our local media and reports into Latitude Travel, including the implication that prosecutors were not ready on multiple occasions, is a case in point and one which is raised yet again in today’s Northern Territory News.
I trust the minister will address the issue of resourcing and what many see as increased and unsustainable workloads.
The justice impact assessment I referred to a short while ago from the Law Council of Australia takes into account economic factors, not only for resourcing of publicly-funded legal aid services, but the cost of private legal services. I expect the provisions in this bill may also see costs increase for private clients, and I would also like to hear from the minister on that point. It seems it will require a lot more work early on that might otherwise not have been done for a matter that will be resolved.
There are some provisions that I think, given discussions I have had with lawyers, will be difficult to comply with or will be so formalistic as to be meaningless. The committee stage amendments address some of this, but, for example, clause 60AM(2) requires defence to serve prosecution a notice 21 days before a hearing with any objection to evidence and the grounds for such objection. I am sure defence lawyers, especially those working in the legal aid sector, would love to have their hearings prepared 21 days in advance and to have the time to reduce to writing all possible objections to evidence, but they do not live in that parallel universe. Surely it is the job of the prosecution to lead proper evidence.
I would like to hear from the minister on the matter I have just raised as well as proposed section 123A, which says you cannot get a discount for a plea of guilty within seven days of the date listed for hearing. This will mean that many more hearings will run as there is no incentive to plead. The fact is matters are resolved close to the day for many reasons, often late disclosure of new evidence by police. There is an exception if the court is satisfied that an offender could not have pleaded guilty earlier, but surely that is far too narrow. A person generally can plead guilty earlier but might only plead guilty late when confronted by fresh evidence.
If there is no chance of a discount, they might as well run the hearing as there would be nothing to lose. Surely this undermines the whole point of this legislation, which is to make things more efficient.
Why is it that a magistrate who knows how to run a court cannot be left to run that court? Should government not just step aside, get out of the way and leave them to run their courts? The minister addresses this on page three of his second reading speech. It seems the directions process which commenced under former Chief Magistrate Hilary Hannam was working quite well, but I note your assertion that not all measures of the bill can be dealt with by way of a practice direction and that there needs to be a statutory basis.
In the next paragraph the minister said in his second reading speech: :
- With the greatest respect to the Chief Magistrate, I do not think a practice direction can go as far as the measures can in this bill. Nevertheless, the Chief Magistrate has been extensively consulted in the development of the bill introduced today to ensure its workability, noting that some matters in the bill represent policy decisions of this government rather than approval of the Chief Magistrate.
That cuts to the chase, and for many perhaps rings alarm bells about the importance of the separation of powers and the need for judicial independence. The Law Society of the Northern Territory also addresses this concern explicitly on page two of its submission under the heading, Who Should Decide Court Procedures and Process :
- The society is of the view that the court is best placed to determine court procedures, and that legislative intervention encroaches on this to the detriment of the court. It is also of concern that public faith in the administration of justice may be undermined by legislative reform that albeit inadvertently creates the impression that the court is unable or unwilling to control their own processes.
We ask the minister to commit to a review, in 12 months’ time, of the effectiveness of this bill, to assess how well it is delivering on its intent and to outline the positive and negative outcomes,. I would like to think the review, whilst it may be done by government – although we have concerns about government investigating government, we know that kind of reporting can be fraught with problems – would feature the engagement of an independent group, such as the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee.
I am sure the minister will be looking to data as an indicator of success, and the Territory might see results commensurate with Victoria’s reforms, with measureable savings in witness appearances, police shifts and reduced court hours, all because of provisions for preliminary briefs and sentence indications. In his second reading speech he quantified that data from Victoria. However, this is not Victoria; this is the Territory, and our jurisdictions are very different in a number of ways. With collection of data, as an evidence base aside, the opposition wants a review to include a full assessment of the impact of resourcing as per the Law Council’s Justice Impact Assessments.
Minister, I acknowledge the enormous body of work you have undertaken, led by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, and that you have engaged with many stakeholders who have given their time to this process. We will watch with great interest to see how these reforms unfold and hope they deliver what you say they will. As I said, we do not oppose this bill. We have raised a number of matters and we look forward to hearing your contribution, as well as hearing what the member for Nelson has to say on this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill. This is an extremely important bill with the purpose of introducing reforms to the case management procedures for summary criminal matters in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. This means the introduction of legislation to provide for the procedure, whereas currently the procedure is governed by practice directions made by the Chief Magistrate. By doing this the bill will provide fair, efficient, expeditious and economical case management procedures.
There are several key objectives, which include: to facilitate early disposition of a charge arising from a complaint or information before the court; ensure that if a complaint or information proceeds to a hearing of a charge, the hearing is focused on very important issues, and those are the issues in dispute; to minimise the time between the making of a complaint or laying of information and the hearing of the charge; and, very importantly, to minimise the trauma to victims of crime or other vulnerable witnesses.
As a former police officer, I cannot begin to tell you how important these changes are. It means valuable time in the court will not be wasted on what is or is not in dispute. Even more than that, anything that minimises the trauma for victims of crime is a major win. Many victims have been through months, if not years, of trauma before they finally get to face their perpetrator in a court of law. A long, convoluted court process can quite often be the final straw that breaks these victims. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill will provide tangible measures to ease that burden.
There are several key elements to the reform; each and every one of them is important. There will be new preliminary briefs of evidence to be provided to the defendant within seven days of his or her first appearance in court. The preliminary brief will contain key information and the evidence the prosecution has at that time. There will be a new directions hearing presided over by a magistrate to set a time line for the progress of the matter and to discuss frankly the issues with the parties.
There will be new defence disclosure requirements. The defendant will need to disclose the issues that are in dispute, and those that are not in dispute, at the directions hearing. The defendant will also be required to give notice to the prosecution of any alibi, expert evidence and any objection to the evidence.
It will encourage any early pleas of guilt; a new sentence indications scheme whereby the defendant can apply to the court to indicate, on a without-prejudice basis, the sentence the court would impose at the time if the defendant pleaded guilty; and amendments to the Sentencing Act to encourage compliance with the new procedures or early pleas of guilty, including a provision stating a magistrate can take into account the extent of the defendant’s compliance with the new procedures when sentencing him or her; a provision requiring the magistrate to state what he or she gave the defendant for an early guilty plea; and a provision precluding a magistrate from giving a discount of a guilty plea if the plea was entered within seven days of the date set for the contested hearing.
These are important changes and I applaud the Attorney-General for his foresight in bringing these amendments to the House. It is also important to acknowledge the large amount of consultation that went into these proposed reforms. Among contributors are the Chief Magistrate, the NT Police, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Justice.
In May 2014 the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also consulted external stakeholders including legal aid agencies such as the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, the Law Society of the NT, and the NT Bar Association.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice also engaged Professor Hon George Hample AM QC to conduct symposia with these stakeholders in Darwin and via video conference to Alice Springs. This consultation was extremely important and assisted with how the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 looks today.
There are many beneficiaries of this legislation. All court users will benefit because the bill aims to achieve efficiencies in the case-flow management in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. In particular, the court will likely see a reduction in matters listed for hearing due to early pleas of guilt. Victoria saw a significant reduction in police shifts when that jurisdiction introduced similar reforms. Victims of crime will benefit by a reduction in the number of hearings in which they need to give evidence, and also by matters being resolved either by hearing or plea earlier.
The Country Liberals government is committed to the swift justice measure of the Pillars of Justice framework for reforming our criminal justice system. The Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 is a key component of that reform. These measures, we believe, will encourage a change in culture towards a system that is cooperative, efficient and fair, while upholding the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Currently over 80% of matters result in a guilty plea. This bill aims to secure those guilty pleas much earlier than they are entered at present. Swift justice involves a range of initiatives to reduce unnecessary burdens currently seen in court processes. It also aims to reduce the time spent by various stakeholders who are caught up in proceedings. That includes, of course, our police officers.
I can speak from experience of hours and hours of wasted time by police officers attending court hearings where they found, at the end of the day, they were not required.
This government is a strong supporter of the Northern Territory Police Force and all the work they do. It is such a complicated environment in which they work. Added to those complications is the fact that sometimes police officers could be called to sit at a courthouse after a night shift for endless hours of waiting for their matter to be heard only for the case to end with a guilty plea. I have experienced that a number of times, and I cannot begin to tell you just how hard it is for a police officer, having spent eight or 12 hours working during a night shift, to have to front up to court, sit there waiting and then potentially have to give evidence in a compus state after being so sleep deprived. This bill supports our police officers through the simplification of court procedures.
The current contest mention system requires that where a defendant indicates he or she will plead not guilty and contest a summary matter, a full brief has to be prepared as a matter of course. Once the full brief is prepared, the parties are then expected to discuss the matter to identify where evidence is required to be called at a contested hearing. This is where it gets even more confusing. At the contest mention the parties are then required to hand up a contest mention form to indicate the discussion has taken place. It is very common for parties to hand up separate forms because they have not discussed the matters set out in the form.
The number of contest mentions far exceeds the number of contested hearings listed and the number of hearings that proceed and see the light of day. This means matters are listed for contest mentions and contested hearings where there is no genuine dispute.
The Northern Territory police, in particular, noted a significant increase in their workload following the implementation of that practice direction in preparing a full brief of evidence even where a narrow range of issues was in dispute. I can personally attest to that also, having done that many times during my time in the police force.
The Northern Territory government needs to do everything in its power to ensure our police are out on the beat where they are needed most. We do not want a situation where our officers are tied up with endless paperwork for court issues where it could be avoided.
Another issue which this legislation will minimise is the wait and see defence. This is the well-known problem where the defendant will wait until the day of the hearing to see if the victim will turn up to give evidence. Again, I can attest from personal experience how common that is. We know this is especially a problem in domestic violence cases, where the victim will be intimidated and eventually refuse to give evidence.
We as a government are committed to putting an end to this unethical behaviour. Every police officer who hears this or reads what is being said in this House today will get this. If the defendant waits until the day of the hearing to plead guilty, it has a great impact on those witnesses waiting to give evidence, including the victim who is already traumatised by the entire experience.
__________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Yiota Devriadis. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, the defendant can also require the court to allocate its valuable hearing times and resources to a hearing that will not proceed on the day. There are many inefficiencies built into the current court system and this legislation will go a long way to resolving quite a number of them.
The background to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Bill 2015 is a culture of non-cooperation and inefficiency. This bill will transform that culture, ensuring the resources of police, prosecutions and the courts are not wasted.
I again applaud my colleague, the Attorney-General, for his hard work in bringing this important legislation to the House. It gives me great pleasure to support it on behalf of all of the police officers in the Northern Territory who have had to endure the inefficiencies of the court system, which the amendment to this legislation will make inroads to change.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for what should have been part of the second reading. It is great to hear other members of the government support bills and give a different point of view or slant on what the Attorney-General is putting forward. I never looked at it from the member for Katherine’s point of view, but I have no doubt the police will welcome this. I have heard these sorts of frustrations before. I had not quite put two and two together.
It sometimes disappoints me in this parliament that we have about two or three speakers and that is it. This is an important issue to discuss. As I said, I thank the member for Katherine for his contribution today. I am sure Northern Territory police will welcome anything that allows them to avoid them sitting around courthouses doing nothing, and then finding nothing came of all that time. If it means police are doing their work on the beat, not wasting their time in courthouses, I support that.
I thank the department for the briefing. I do not find this legislation easy, and when I speak about it I speak from a layperson’s point of view. It is not easy to talk about clause by clause, but I understand what the government is putting forward. In his second reading the minister said:
- The key aims of the new dDivision 2A comprising the new procedures are set out in the new section 60AB of the Justices Act and:
- (a) provide for a fair, efficient, expeditious and economical case management procedure in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, including by –
- (i) facilitating if appropriate a defendant’s guilty plea to an offence at an early stage of the proceeding in relation to a complaint or information before the court; and
(ii) ensuring that if a complaint or information proceeds to a hearing of a charge the hearing is focused on the issues that are in dispute; and
(iii) minimising the time between the making of the complaint and the laying of the information as well as the hearing of the charge; and
- (b) minimise the trauma to victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses.
The minister went on to say
- The bill addresses these aims by introducing the following key elements: preliminary briefs of evidence to disclose the prosecution case at an early stage in proceedings; court supervised directions hearings; new defence disclosure requirements; a new sentence indication scheme; and amendments to the Sentencing Act to encourage earlier pleas of guilty.
I understand that but as you go through this piece of legislation, trying to understand how it fits within what you are trying to do, it is not that easy. I asked at the briefing yesterday if it is possible to get a flow chart. I do not know whether that made life better or worse for me, but there are a lot of arrows there.
Mr Elferink: That proves that Napoleon Bonaparte actually lost the Battle of Midway.
Mr WOOD: That is right; it looks a bit like that. Believe it or not, I have read it and it helps. Sometimes we need things like that for people who do not understand the court process. We do not understand the court processes if we have not dealt with them, but we must speak in this parliament about the proposals that government puts forward to change those court processes. If those court processes can make the system more efficient it is important.
The minister is looking to see whether the Battle of Waterloo had some relationship with this flow chart – but I digress.
The issue, in a philosophical way, is to make sure justice is not diminished by the changes government is putting forward. I remember making this statement when the minister first raised the issue of his Pillars of Justice and he called reforms to the summary criminal procedures ‘swift justice’. When I was younger, and even today, I watched a lot of westerns. They had a different meaning for the words ‘swift justice’, and it did not usually involve the courts ...
Mr Elferink: I hanker for the old days as well.
Mr WOOD: That is right. The title could have been better if it had been about a more efficient justice system, that did not mean people’s rights were necessarily diminished, but the process of dealing with those rights or matters before the court was done in a more efficient way.
Attorney-General, I support what is proposed. As I said, it is good to hear from the member for Katherine. I do not think what the member for Katherine was saying has come out much in this debate. He has raised another side of the practical issues this legislation might help resolve or improve.
That section you mentioned in the second reading speech says there will be improvements, hopefully, and maybe some cost efficiencies – I am not sure that might be part of the review – in the way these matters are handled. The other issue that is important is if this minimizes the trauma to victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses. Some of those practical implications need to be emphasised.
However, I am interested to know, minister, if there is a downside to speeding a process up when you encourage a guilty plea. I am not saying people should not say they are guilty. We do not have the American system. Sometimes is it the case a person is encouraged to plead guilty which might not be the proper process. Sometimes you are encouraged to do something because you might get a lesser sentence. Is it always appropriate someone pleads guilty when maybe the case should go through the court system to see whether that person is aware of the ramifications of that plea? I am talking from a layman’s point of view to see whether there are any implications in speeding up a process that could have some downsides in relation to justice.
The member for Nhulunbuy quoted from the Criminal Lawyers Association. I have a letter – I hope I do not verbal the member for Nhulunbuy – dated 31 May which was a copy of a letter that might have been sent to NAAJA, I am not sure. It says:
- The Criminal Lawyers Association NT acknowledges that some of the significant matters we raised in our submission of 14 May 2014 have now been incorporated into the current bill. In particular we welcome section 60AC which regulates the application of the new division in a manner that recognises that the proposed reforms would not be workable in bush courts.
I read section 60AC and it relates only to courts in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. You mentioned it in your second reading speech. It says:
- The new section 60AC provides that new provisions in the Justices Act must apply only to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
I think I mentioned Katherine, I am not sure. Is Katherine mentioned in section 60AC?
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: No. You might be able to tell us why, for clarification. It continues: :
- During the extensive consultation undertaken by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice it became readily apparent that a one-size-fits-all approach would not likely succeed in the Northern Territory and some allowance needed to be made for the bush circuit courts.
I went to the briefing yesterday but I thought about things afterwards. Do the bush courts have regular dates they hold for certain areas? Or is it difficult in remote communities to get people to those courts?
Mr Elferink: Practical reasons.
Mr WOOD: If you could give us an explanation, it would be good. We were concerned that if it was about getting people to court, you could have the same problem trying to get people to Tennant Creek court.
The Criminal Lawyers Association also mentioned – this was written by Russell Goldflam.
- Firstly, it is submitted that section 60AK(2)(a), in its current form, is too broad.
- It provides that ‘the court [at a directions hearing] may make orders for a defendant to disclose information to the prosecution.
That is clearly written in the new bill.
- On its face, this provision is inconsistent with fundamental features of the accusatorial system, including the accused’s right to silence. It appears, however, that the intent of the provision is simply to give effective teeth to the defence disclosure requirements set out in section 60AJ(2) …
I understand why that is required.
- If so, then it is submitted that section 60AK be worded accordingly, for example, by amending section 60AK(2) to read, ‘without limiting subsection (1) and to the extent required to effect compliance with section 60AJ, the court may make orders for’.
I am interested in the minister’s comments on that.
The Criminal Lawyers Association said it:
- … maintains its support for sentence indications (Subdivision 3), we also maintain our submission that in conjunction with this the Sentencing Act should be amended to allow sentencing discounts of up to 40% for an early plea, as is provided in section 10B of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 South Australia, the provision on which the previously proposed Division 3A was originally based.
Although it is now common ground that the SA model is too rigid to be effective in the NT, in our submission, for the new sentence indication scheme to be effective, magistrates’ sentencing powers and discretion should be broadened so to as to give them both the carrots and the sticks they require to encourage parties to settle at an early stage.
- It is particularly disappointing that the only proposed amendment to the Sentencing Act in this regard is section 123A, which actually erodes existing power of magistrates to impose what they consider to be a just sentence. Furthermore, it is anomalous to impose this sentencing restriction on one class of judicial officers (magistrates) but not another (Supreme Court judges).
I am interested to hear why, although as you say in your second reading, minister:
- The Supreme Court deals only with a small percentage, being the most serious and heinous crimes.
You also state at least 80% of matters are dealt with through the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It is still a fair question to ask why the sentencing restrictions are imposed on one class of judicial magistrates and not another.
Mr Goldflam also mentions section 123A again, which he notes is in the nature of a stick rather than a carrot.
- A fundamental feature of these reforms is that they substantially enlarge the powers of magistrates in managing and disposing of criminal cases. CLANT submits that it is inconsistent with the scheme of the amending act to further restrict magistrates’ sentencing powers.
The comments from Russell Goldflam are constructive. It would be good if the minister could address those issues in the House. I agree, and I raised this at the review, that we need to look at the effectiveness of these changes.
The member for Katherine mentioned at the briefing that Victoria has seen a large reduction in the time these cases take. It would be good to see, from our point of view, how it has changed.
The other thing I and the member for Katherine mentioned was how a range of people were asked for their submissions about this piece of legislation. It would be good to know if there are issues law groups are concerned about that the government does not agree with. If there are any major issues, could the government enlighten us and give reasons why they do not agree with those concerns.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this legislation. With a few more weeks of letting this drip-feed into my brain, I could get a fairly good understanding of what it is about. I thank your ministerial guys and the minister who put this together. I will keep it safe because if matters like this come up again I will pull this out and be able to understand what you are talking about, to some extent. There are a lot of arrows but that has no relation to my comments about looking at westerns.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution. I also thank the member for Katherine because his contribution was extremely important in light of this debate. Whilst I might have thought about his points, I got a much better understanding after he spoke today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, picture this: it is 2 am on Mitchell Street – for the purpose of this conversation. Police are called to Discovery nightclub. Person A has punched person B in the mouth, and A is arrested for the crime of aggravated assault because B has several loosened teeth and a very serious split to his lip all the way up to his nose.
Person B is then interviewed and a statement is collected from him. He is taken to hospital where his lip is stitched up. A is then taken to the watch house where he seeks legal advice, and the legal advice is, ‘Do not say anything to the cops at all’, which is the standard legal advice lawyers would give you. ‘Provide your name and address, but say nothing else.’ Person A is then bailed to appear. He has given his name and address and he seeks legal advice. The lawyer then listens to what A has to say but does not tell anyone else. Person A then walks into the court room and A’s lawyers stands up and says, ‘My client is pleading not guilty’.
At this point the file then goes back to the police. There is a contest mention. ‘What is in dispute?’ is the question asked of A’s lawyer. ‘Everything’, is the answer. The file goes back to the police and the police collect the following evidence: the statement from the victim; several other statements correctly identifying A at the scene of the crime; a statement from the attending police officers who effected the arrest; and, perhaps, the recovery of blood splatters on the floor to prove that there is DNA evidence to demonstrate that B bled copiously. Then the doctor must be dragged away from his work to give a statement to police, which doctors do not like to do because it gets in their way. Then the trial date is set, at which point A walks into the court and the doctor, police officers, independent witnesses and god knows who else are standing outside the courtroom.
All of those people are there several months down the track. A’s lawyer stands up and says, ‘Our defence is that B had a broken bottle in his hand and A, my client, was defending himself’. There is nothing wrong with that; that is what happens. It is perfectly lawful. The only problem is, in practical terms, why did he not say so up front? Seriously!
Now you have a witness statement from a doctor which has no point of evidence that is in dispute. Is A denying that he punched B? No. Is A denying that he split B’s lip? No, he is not. Is A denying that he has loosened B’s teeth? No, he is not. It is not in dispute, so why do we need the doctor’s evidence? Why was he called in the first place? Why did we even get a statement from the doctor? The other five witnesses’ statements put A at the scene of the crime. Is A disputing that he was at the scene of the crime? No, it is an integral part of his defence that he was at the scene of the crime. ‘Absolutely, I punched B in the mouth! He had a broken bottle in his hand!’
Why do we need those other five witnesses standing around the front of the court house for six or eight hours whilst the process goes on? Do we even need the police evidence? Is there any dispute that A was arrested? No. Is there any dispute that A was witnessed to be arrested by the other police officer, which is why the second police officer is there? No, it is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether or not B had a broken bottle in his hand, prompting A to defend himself.
Wind the clock back under this new system. The police are called, A is arrested, brought into the watch house, gets legal advice, turns up to a court, turns up to a directions hearing and all of a sudden is asked, ‘What is your defence going to be?’ ‘Well, my client was defending himself.’ ‘What do you mean, defending himself?’ ‘B had a broken bottle in his hand.’
That goes back to the police for investigation with one of three outcomes. Outcome one: police, through their investigation, discover that B did not have a broken bottle in his hand. So they pick up the phone, speak to the lawyer on the other side, ‘Mate, you are going to lose. We have good evidence to demonstrate, from two or three witnesses, B did not have a broken bottle in his hand. You may want to talk to your client.’
Outcome B: ‘Mate, we have just done the investigation. Bloody oath! B had a bottle in his hand. We are no longer pursuing this matter, because we know we will not get up on the assault charge. Clearly A was defending himself.’
Or outcome three: ‘We don’t know whether B had a bottle in his hand or not. We do not have sufficient evidence. We had some person who was going to stand up in court and say he thinks he may have seen something in his hand that glinted.’ In which case, that is the issue before the court: did B have a bottle in his hand?
You do not need the doctors or all the other independent witnesses, just those issues. That is the matter then, through a directions hearing, that goes back to the police, and they then investigate. How much time have we saved? How many hours of police work?
Having investigated a number of these sorts of things, I would be guessing, straight-up aggravated assault, from memory, full file, would have been 12 to 16 hours’ worth of work, most of which never sees the light of day in a courtroom because it is not in contest.
This idea is not new. It has existed in the Northern Territory in another place for a long time, and that is in the civil courts. If I walk into a lawyer’s office and I have a contractual dispute with the member for Nelson. I wanted to purchase …
Mr Wood: Chickens.
Mr ELFERINK: Good, chickens! … 500 chickens from the member for Nelson. What is the going price for a chicken?
Mr Wood: Oh, at point of lay, probably about $9 or $10.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Say $10, so it is $5000 worth of chickens. It turns out that I have a contractual dispute because I was expecting nice, big plump chickens, and he sent me a whole bucket load of bantams. It is a contractual dispute. Do you know the odds?
I go and see my lawyer, the member for Nelson sees his lawyer, we go through the process and end up in the court system to sort out this dispute. The chances of ending up in court over a dispute like that are very small. You would be lucky one time out of 10 that a dispute like that would find its way into a court. Why? Because the lawyers have to talk to each other, so only the matters in dispute in a civil dispute are the things you will find in a court room. If you walk into a courtroom with a civil dispute like that and you have not spoken to each other and are still adducing evidence as to the disputed facts, the court will tell you to get out and get your stuff together.
In the summary procedure process, the stuff we do in the lower courts, which is 95% of all matters heard in courts in the Northern Territory, we are talking about, effectively, what some people call the sausage factory. I call it the meat grinder of our justice system; it just churns this stuff through. The small assaults, the drink-driving offences, the property offences, the small criminal damages, the unlawful entries, those things – the meat grinder is just grinding this stuff through and it becomes a very mechanical process. I challenge anybody to sit in Court 1 on bail and arrest day when they are going through the guilty pleas without coming to the conclusion that it is a mechanical process.
We all know the system. The lawyers practice it, there is an indifference to what is happening in the courtroom and there is the hubbub and noise of it. Through that process we start to filter out the things that are in dispute. So A has answered his bail, walks into the courtroom, has obtained a lawyer who says they are disputing all facts. Okay, in the current environment we will then go to a contest.
A contest mention means the file goes back to the police and all the work I have just described is done before you even get to the hearing process. You have this massive draw on police resources.
I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk specifically about the separation of powers in relation to these things. We are not diminishing in any way the court’s capacity to deal with these things. We are telling defence lawyers to get their stuff together a little earlier and make sure they are ready to go well before they reach the courtroom, so when they walk into the courtroom they are not running the line of pleading not guilty and all facts are in dispute. By the time they get to the hearing date several months later, potentially many hundreds of wasted hours later of police and other people’s time, they are running a small defence or a very peculiar defence and the rest of the material is not in dispute.
That is what we are doing today – creating an ease of system. The amendments before this House do not limit the court’s power. In fact, I argue in some ways they enhance the court’s power to start telling defence and police to talk to each other. ‘When you get to a directions hearing if you have incomplete evidence, we understand that. We will not bash you for having incomplete evidence, but we expect you guys to start communicating so the facts in dispute find their way into the courtroom and all the other gumpf is filtered out.’
Something similar to this was introduced in Victoria where they went from 7000 to 3500 hearings in 12 months. There was a massive drop in the number of hearings; it halved them. That is the reason I am attracted to this. Nothing in this says to the police, ‘You do not have to play with a completely open hand’. In fact, as the Attorney-General it was one of the first things I insisted on when we changed the police paperwork to make sure coppers were declaring everything going on in their case to the defence.
I started to lose some of my enthusiasm for this initiative because of the amount of pushback and resistance I received, particularly from the defence fraternity. It was not until I did the bar readers course with Professor George Hampel and was talking to the good professor – a lifetime defence barrister before he became a judge who did some prosecution work, but most of it was defence – that George Hampel reinvigorated my enthusiasm for this course. That is why we took him on as a consultant. He was able to convince far more effectively the defence fraternity in the Northern Territory than I ever could have.
What am I? Some busted-ass lawyer who has never really practiced who has his admission to practice in the Supreme Court, compared to a guy who started his career defending people who, if he lost, were hanged because he has been around since the 1950s, a pre-eminent lawyer who went to the bench, I think of the federal court, and finally got chucked off the federal bench because he became too old. They took him on as a professor at the University of Melbourne where he continues to run advocacy courses around Australia and the world. This guy is a smart dude. He is not very tall, he is physically not what you would call an imposing character, but he intimidates the hell out of me with the sheer presence of his mental acuity. I think he is 81 or 82 years of age now and still working every day. He is my pin-up boy in terms of what I want to be like when I am that age.
He brought his smarts to the table – title of professor, former federal court judge, former defence barrister going back to the 1950s – and he was able to convince the defence fraternity of what we are trying to do.
Why am I not applying this to the Supreme Court? I suppose we could, but, frankly, the Supreme Court is a slightly different animal and deals with a relatively small number of matters when you consider the overall number of matters dealt with in the Northern Territory. I chose, and I think most of the legal fraternity would agree with me, to leave the Supreme Court unmolested in these areas. It is a matter for the Supreme Court because it deals with indictable offences which have much more serious consequences.
When it comes to managing large caseloads through the lower courts, a little preparation will save us a lot of expenditure down the track. What we are saying to prosecution and defence is: prepare your fight effectively; know what the points of issue are; see if you can negotiate or deal with the issues prior to ending up in a hearing; and, if you end up in a hearing, make sure you argue about points genuinely in dispute. That is what this legislation is about.
Sentence indications are another element of this legislation. Frankly, sentence indications are available to the courts right now. Nothing prevents a magistrate indicating a sentence in a courtroom right now. I know it has been done. However, this gives some certainty and structure around those matters and we have dealt with this issue in the past in this place, with magistrates being seized of issues whether or not a sentence indication binds the court in any way. This is now in a without prejudice environment where a sentence indication can be made.
I will give you a classic example where I have seen this type of thing happen. A matter is being argued by a defence lawyer, a client is sitting in the room, the prosecutor is sitting there silently and all of a sudden you realise what the defence lawyer is doing. He is hedging around the fact he is scared his client will go to gaol. What stops the magistrate saying, ‘Are you concerned, Mr Smith, that your client will go to gaol?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Would it give your client some comfort if I could indicate that on the evidence I have seen so far, it is unlikely he will go to gaol? Would you like to now seek an adjournment?’ ‘Yes, we would.’
There is then a quick conversation in the back of the room or the lobby of the court. Ten minutes later the lawyer walks in and says, ‘My client is changing his plea’, because he was scared that in the act it says he would be sent to gaol.
There are few acts in the Northern Territory statute book that do not carry gaol sentences, even for the most minor offences. The ability for a magistrate to reassure a person they probably will not go to gaol for a particular offence is probably not a bad indication of sentence. This legislation creates some structure around that approach. It is about making sure the wheels of justice are properly lubricated with proper communications. It is about people talking to each other in the system.
What you learn in law school 101 is that your first duty is not to your client. Your first duty is to the court. Sometimes I suspect that with people’s enthusiasm to look after the interests of their client, they may overlook the primary duty of a lawyer to a courtroom. That is tolerated by courts because clients have the right to a fair trial.
Nothing in this process limits or diminishes the capacity for a person to have a fair trial. It simply gets the gumpf out of the way so we know what we are talking about. That is what this government thinks a court system should be, and the intent of the legislation. The sentence discounts process was something that CLANT was particularly interested in as well. I understand why. However, we stepped away from it. In fact, I will read something that might help from a piece of paper that has just been shoved into my hand, ‘While CLANT supported the provision allowing 40%, the other stakeholders were concerned about allowing for the sentence discounts for guilty pleas beyond what is precedent in the Northern Territory courts. Also other stakeholders were concerned about the possibility of giving unduly lenient sentences. Additionally it was noted that defendants who are informants, and agree to give evidence against other accused, may receive up to 50% discount on their sentences’..
I will not read out the whole thing but there was an issue about whether or not sentence discounts properly supported the principles of justice.
It does not limit the fact there is a range for most sentences which is generally well-accepted and well-adopted by the courts across a raft of sentences. Yes, we have the operation of mandatory sentencing for assaults, outside of the provisions of exceptional circumstances. That is a fundamental policy of this government and will be an issue between this government and the courts for as long as the sun comes up and goes down. That is how the system works.
From our perspective, we want to see our court system being effective and efficient. Ultimately, this House cannot drive that. Ultimately, there is one other player in this process to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, and that is the magistracy. The magistrates have governance and carriage of these legislative instruments, and they have to ensure – and I am sure they will – these processes will lead to the efficiencies government seeks.
I thank all members of the legal profession who have commented on and given input to the government with this process. I am grateful we have come through the process with as little rancour as we have. Yes, it has been a long time in negotiation, but the final product is acceptable to all parties to a greater or lesser extent.
No, I do not think this erodes the course of justice in the Northern Territory. No, I do not think it unnecessarily impinges upon the right to silence. The right to silence has been limited in a number of jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, in different ways. You only have to look at the caution when you are arrested in England. In the Northern Territory if you are arrested the caution is: you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so; anything that you do say may be written down and later given in evidence.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that clause 5 of the bill be amended to insert a new subsection 60AI(5A). New subsection 60AI(5A) will state that the court may appoint a date and time for a directions hearing earlier than four weeks if the defendant has applied under section 60AI(5) or the court’s own initiative, and only if the court is satisfied that there is a good reason to do so. This amendment is required so that the court is able to set a directions hearing earlier than the four-week minimum time frame required under section 60AI(2) in cases where it is appropriate to do so, such as where the issues are not complex.
Concern was raised that there would be cases where an earlier directions hearing is warranted so that in turn a hearing date can be set earlier than after four weeks from the first mention. Although the defendant may apply for an earlier directions hearing under the current section 60AI(5), the new 60AI(5A) will enable the court, of its own motion, to set a directions hearing sooner rather than waiting four weeks. The four-week minimum time frame would, however, likely apply in the majority of cases.
My memory was jogged about another question in relation to Katherine and the bush courts. Katherine has one magistrate so there would be difficulty in applying the proposed principles in the Katherine environment. In regard to bush courts, often lawyers will only see their client for the first time on the day of court, which means you cannot apply these things. So there are very practical reasons for excluding bush courts. The purpose of this bill is to create practical outcomes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 of the bill be further amended so that section 60AQ(2) states that a court may allow for the prosecution to adduce further evidence whether or not it is obtained as a result of the defendant’s disclosure.
Currently, proposed section 60AQ(2) states that if the defendant has failed to comply with a disclosure requirement and is ordered at hearing to comply, amongst other things the court may order that the prosecution is able to adduce evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s compliance with the disclosure requirement.
The amendment is needed because the current wording of the section confines the prosecution’s ability to adduce evidence only to evidence obtained as a result of the defendant’s disclosure. This was an oversight. The amendment is required as it may be the case that the prosecution properly seeks to adduce evidence they already obtained but not previously considered relevant, or the prosecution may need to call a witness or cross examine a witness.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 be further amended so that proposed section 60AT(2) is replaced with a newly-drafted subsection. This amendment results from further consideration of section 60AT in light of proposed amendments, which I will move in a moment in relation to section 60AU. The amendments to the existing section 60AT(2) are technical in nature and are to:
insert the words, ‘if section 78DG and 78DH of the Sentencing Act do not apply’ at the front of subparagraph 60AT(2)(a), because under this subparagraph the court may indicate a sentence of imprisonment for offences to which the mandatory minimum sentence provisions for violent offences do not apply.
insert a new subparagraph 60AT(2)(c), which makes it clear the court may indicate that it would likely impose a sentence of actual imprisonment if section 78DG of the Sentencing Act applies to the offence. Section 78DG concerns sentencing a defendant to a term of actual imprisonment for a violent offence in circumstances where a mandatory minimum-term of imprisonment is not required under the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Sentencing Act. This new subsection distinguishes between indicating actual imprisonment for a violent offence under this subparagraph and actual imprisonment for a non-violent offence under 60AT(2)(a).
amend subparagraph 60AT(2)(d) so that it is clear the section applies if section 78DH of the Sentencing Act applies to the offence. This makes the subsection more accurate as it relates to the court, indicating a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a violent offence
The amendments are necessary, first, to be consistent with the amendments to be made in the proposed section 60AU, and, second, to be consistent with the language and process required under the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of Part 3, Division 6A of the Sentencing Act. When reviewing the issue addressed in section 60AU it was realised section 60AT(2) needed to be improved and made more precise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move that clause 5 of the bill be further amended so that section 60AU is omitted and replaced with a redrafted provision. During consultation it was pointed out that the current wording of section 60AU made it mandatory for the court to take into account an available victim impact statement or victim report considering whether the exceptional circumstances exemption applies to a case where the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for a violent offence applies. This is consistent with section 78DI(3) of the Sentencing Act, which gives the court the discretion to consider a victim impact statement or victim report when determining the question of exceptional circumstances.
Current section 60AU is therefore amended to insert a new subsection 2, which will make it clear that where a court is deciding whether or not to indicate a type of sentence under section 60AT(2), but has nothing to do with the exceptional circumstances exemption, the court must also take into account a victim impact statement or victim report, if it is available.
Subsection 3 is also inserted, which will make it clear that the court does not have to take into account an available victim impact statement or victim report if the court would not have regard to those documents if the court were hypothetically sentencing the defendant and deciding whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional.
Additionally, definitions of ‘victim impact statement’ and ‘victim report’ are inserted by the new section 60AU(5). This is because a number of structural changes have been made to section 60AU and a victim impact statement and victim report are now referred to in a number of places in the section. The definition for ‘victim impact statement’ and ‘victim report’ now refers to definitions in section 106A of the Sentencing Act. The amendments to section 60AU are needed because the current wording of the section is inconsistent with the Sentencing Act, which gives the court discretion as to whether to take into account a victim impact statement or victim report when determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. It is desirable that the section 60AU is consistent with the Sentencing Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move clause 12 of the bill be amended so that new section 123A(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act states that:
- the offence is listed for a trial in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction ...
This amendment is needed because currently section 123A(1)(b) states that the ‘offence is listed for trial’. However, it is not clear whether the word ‘trial’ in that section is intended to be known as the summary hearing in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There was concern that it may be interpreted to apply to the Supreme Court, which clearly is not intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 89, that ministerial statements be called upon immediately after Question Time, followed by Government Business Order of the Day No 3.
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
PETITION
Petition No 47 – Banana Freckle Eradication in the NT
Petition No 47 – Banana Freckle Eradication in the NT
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 519 petitioners praying that the eradication program is stopped and banana plants saved. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate and conforms with the requirements of standing orders. This petition is similar to Petition 43 presented in February 2015. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, the petition of banana growers in the red zones of the NT brings to the attention of the House that the Banana Freckle Eradication Program in the NT is causing significant hardship and trauma in that we have been assured that our banana plants are free of banana freckle and we declare we will not take our banana materials out of the Northern Territory. We are concerned for the loss of biodiversity if our heritage-style banana plants are destroyed. Banana freckle has been classified in other parts of the world as a low-risk pest if regulated adequately.
We, the undersigned, humbly petition you to stop the eradication program and save our banana plants.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Petition No 44 – Improved Laws to Protect Innocent People and their Properties
Petition No 44 – Improved Laws to Protect Innocent People and their Properties
The CLERK: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 44 has been received and circulated to all members.
- Petition No 44
Improved Laws to Protect Innocent People and their Properties
Date presented: 24 March 2015
Presented by: Ms Purick
Referred to: Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
Date response due: 27 August 2015
Date response received: 5 June 2015
Date response presented: 16 June 2015
Response:
Currently section 28B of the Sentencing Act contains provisions regarding ‘aggravated property offences’. The section states that, upon a conviction being recorded for a prescribed offence, the court must either sentence the person to a term of imprisonment or order the person participate in an approved project under a community work order, unless there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the offence or the offender. The prescribed offences for section 78B of the Sentencing Act are robbery (section 212 of the Criminal Code), unlawful entry to buildings or attempted unlawful entry to buildings (section 213 of the Criminal Code), armed with intent to unlawfully enter a building (section 215 of the Criminal Code), unlawful use of a motor vehicle in a prescribed circumstances (section 218(2) of the Criminal Code), home invasion in prescribed circumstances (section 226B(3) of the Criminal Code) and damage to property (section 241 of the Criminal Code).
In the Northern Territory the most severe category of penalty that a court may impose is a custodial penalty. Custodial penalties include imprisonment, imprisonment that is suspended in part or full, and home detention.
In 2014 a custodial penalty was imposed in over half the cases that resulted in a finding of guilt for an information or indictment that included a charge of unlawful entry to a building, a charge of unlawful use of a vessel, motor vehicle, caravan or trailer, or a charge of property damage. A custodial penalty was imposed in just under half of the matters in 2014 where a finding of guilt was recorded for an information or indictment that included a charge of stealing.
- This government is focused on reducing the opportunity that offenders have to re-offend. To that end this government:
- introduced the Bail Amendment Act 2015. That act commenced on 15 April 2015 and removes the neutral presumptions, as regards the granting of bail, in the Bail Act. These amendments mean that matters that the court could only consider neutrally when considering whether to grant bail must now be considered as factors that go against the accused person. For example, one of the amendments makes it a presumption against bail if an accused person is charged with a serious offence (an offence punishable by five years or more) and within the previous 10 years of that charge has been found guilty of a serious violence offence
- introduced the Sentencing Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 in the April 2015 sittings of the Legislative Assembly. That bill proposes amendments to section 53 of the Sentencing Act and section 85 of the Youth Justice Act. Those amendments will put beyond doubt that, subject to prescribed circumstances, a court cannot fix a non-parole period where a sentence of less than 12 months imprisonment for an adult, or a sentence of imprisonment or detention of 12 months or less for a youth, is imposed, or where any sentence of imprisonment (or detention) is suspended in whole or part.
- In addition, property crime is the Northern Territory Police Force’s primary focus.
Police have implemented a number of strategies to prevent property crime and apprehend offenders. Police have introduced Strike Force Trident in the Darwin Metropolitan Area and Strike Force Vega in the Northern and Southern regional areas. The primary focus of both strike forces is on reducing common crimes, particularly unlawful entries through targeted enforcement action on recidivist property crime offenders and other common crimes. Both strike forces engage similar methods and tactics to achieve their objective. These include:
detecting offenders early on in an investigation through forensic examination, fingerprint analysis and intelligence. This is assisted by the Forensic Science Branch prioritising fingerprint identification to allow for early arrests
- continual bail compliance checks on offenders with bail conditions. Where breaches are detected, enforcement action is undertaken and can include their immediate reappearance before the courts
regular interaction with youth
regular execution of warrants targeting property and drug offending. Those offences are particularly targeted as stolen property is often used as currency for illicit substances, or sold for cash
implementing repeat offender management plans
immediate enforcement of mesne warrants to ensure that known offenders who do not attend court as required have a minimum opportunity to re-offend
development of human sources to enhance intelligence holdings regarding activities of high-risk offenders.
Furthermore, police introduced Strike Force Disruptor to target both property crime and domestic violence. The use of a strike force approach has realised a 59% reduction in assaults and a 24% reduction in property offences in Tennant Creek.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Indigenous Education Review Implementation
Indigenous Education Review Implementation
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide a statement on Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. During the previous sittings of this Assembly, I presented a statement on the education reform agenda this government is progressing under the Framing the Future strategy. Today I will focus on the reforms that we will drive to improve outcomes for Indigenous students.
When we came to government it was clear that education outcomes for Indigenous students had not improved despite a considerable increase in both Northern Territory and Australian governments’ funding over recent years. The reality of low and declining education outcomes means that for a high proportion of Indigenous students living in remote communities in the Northern Territory life will likely not provide the same opportunities as it will for students in our larger towns and urban areas.
Literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students in very remote communities in the Northern Territory are the lowest in Australia. Low school attendance continues to affect education outcomes. Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training completions are very low in number for our very remote students. Last year there were only 20 NTCET completions for students from remote areas out of an enrolled Year 12 cohort of 120 and a possible Year 12 age cohort of 800. This is why there must be a focus on Indigenous education in remote and very remote communities. We cannot shy away from this.
This government stands firm on the decision to commission this comprehensive review of Indigenous education and to implement the review’s recommendations. We commissioned the review with scope to investigate education service deliveries across the whole spectrum of schooling – the early, primary, middle, senior and secondary years. The review was undertaken by Mr Bruce Wilson of Education Business Pty Ltd following a formal procurement process. Mr Wilson is a highly-respected independent consultant with more than 30 years’ experience in education.
The level of interest and engagement by stakeholders during the review was widespread and appreciated. The passion and commitment of many was very evident. I believe many respondents could see their feedback and input had been considered in the final report.
I will provide a direct quote from the report because I believe Bruce Wilson has captured the need to take a different approach in Indigenous education, particularly in very remote communities:
- The starting point for this review is that the children now in our schools and those yet to arrive deserve better.
Those who have read Bruce Wilson’s report will have observed that the majority of the findings focus on education in remote and very remote schools. Bruce Wilson confirms this is where the greatest need exists. I encourage everyone to reflect on the data Bruce Wilson presented in the report, and I quote again:
- When the data discussed here is compared with Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, it is clear that the achievement of very remote Indigenous students in the NT is at levels that would normally be seen only in third world countries.
Many of you are familiar with the findings of the review, but I will restate some of these, because if any justification is needed, they clearly demonstrate this government is driving this reform agenda to improve not just educational outcomes but, most importantly, lifetime opportunities for Indigenous students that a good education assures.
The need is quite confronting when you consider the picture the report represents in the NAPLAN literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous children in remote communities. We cannot shy away from this. Our literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students are well behind those of our non-Indigenous students, and they decline with increasing levels of remoteness. The review found that despite substantial investment and dedicated effort, in some areas the education outcomes for many Indigenous students are worse than they were at the time of the last comprehensive review undertaken in 1999. By Year 3 the literacy and numeracy results for Northern Territory Indigenous students in very remote schools are already behind those of Indigenous students in very remote schools in other parts of Australia.
As many will know, these results do not improve as students go through school; in fact, they get worse. By Year 9 Northern Territory Indigenous student achievement in very remote schools is on average five years behind that of Indigenous students in very remote schools in other parts of Australia. We cannot shy away from that.
This is perhaps the starkest of findings, which this government and this minister find totally unacceptable. This sample of findings portrays a picture that should leave no doubt that most Indigenous students in remote and very remote communities in the Territory commence school poorly prepared to engage with and be successful in their education.
The Australian Early Development Index, the AEDI, is a measure of early childhood disadvantage. It measures how children have developed in the domains of physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, communication skills and general knowledge. Of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory, 59% are recognised as developmentally vulnerable in at least one domain of the Australian Early Development Index. This compares to a figure of less than 21% for non-Indigenous children.
This means that Indigenous children are almost three times more likely to have difficulty as they undertake formal schooling. The consequence of this is that students struggle through the primary years. For many students this culminates in low attendance, low achievement and, eventually, total disengagement from education, which leads to limited opportunities in employment and limited active participation in the economy of the Northern Territory.
This reality is visible daily to the teachers working in remote and very remote schools. It is a reality confirmed by NAPLAN data, and a reality we cannot shy away from. In 2014 only 16% of very remote Indigenous students in Year 3 achieved equal to or above the national minimum standard in reading. There is clearly room for improvement, especially when we consider that in Year 5 only 11%, and in Year 9 only 9%, of our very remote Indigenous students achieved equal to or above the national minimum standard in reading.
These are not results we can be proud of. Bruce Wilson makes it clear there are many factors contributing to poor education outcomes, factors that are beyond the school gate and, fundamentally, outside the control of schools. As the Chief Minister pointed out in response to my previous statement, we need to continue to work closely with communities and the Australian government to respond to factors such as housing, poverty, the timing of major events and the effects of alcohol and substance abuse, all of which affect school attendance and need to be addressed.
But there are things we can and need to do in education. We have developed a long-term strategy to turn these poor outcomes around. The strategy, A Share in the Future, is named after the review’s report and has been designed to implement the 51 recommendations made by Bruce Wilson across the elements of the public education system. The strategy, including the implementation plan for the actions over the next three years, was officially launched in Warruwi on 1 May 2015.
Commencing in 2015, the strategy spans a period of 10 years. Over the first three years alone, from 2015 to 2017 with the assistance of the Australian government, we will invest almost $190m in education to take action and provide our Indigenous young people with quality education options and a chance to participate fully in the economy in the Northern Territory.
The strategy focuses on outcomes, not on activities. We will implement programs we can measure. We will build on success and ensure we are using evidence to inform what we do. We are aiming high; targets have been set and we want our Indigenous students, no matter where they live, to achieve results equivalent to our non-Indigenous students.
The implementation plan outlining the actions in the first three years of the strategy focuses on addressing recommendations in the review across the early, primary and secondary years, student and family engagement, and the education workforce.
It focuses on five elements. The first is called Foundations and supports childrens’ early learning experiences, followed by Essentials, which ensures children can confidently move through the primary years of schooling into pathways, providing a strongly-supported program of pathway options for students to succeed in their secondary schooling. The next section is Engagement to ensure students, parents and the community can access and participate in wide-ranging educational opportunities. The final element is Workforce, which strategically plans to have the best and most experienced teachers in our most complex and difficult very remote areas, and strengthens the capacity of our Indigenous professionals and para-professionals to deliver quality education to students.
The benefits of a long-term strategy include the consistent and sustainable delivery of programs that focus on what schools can deliver and impact on, despite the many external factors that affect student learning. It is important the strategy is implemented in a measured and timely manner. We will evaluate it as we go along to ensure that this informs what we do. Our strategy is grounded in a strong and ongoing partnership with the Australian government. We have negotiated to refocus funding provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory on implementation of the recommendations of this review. These negotiations succeeded because we have a comprehensive long-term strategy for improving Indigenous education outcomes, and we provided a clear set of actions for the next three years.
I will now detail those actions. The review made it clear the focus needs to be on a manageable number of programs which we know will make a difference. We must concentrate on those programs that we know, from evidence, will work. Over the years, with all good intent, schools have tried numerous programs in an effort to try to turn around poor literacy and numeracy outcomes for Indigenous students. As Bruce Wilson noted, many of these programs had not been tested, yet we still kept delivering them without necessarily achieving the desired outcome. We need to provide evidence-based programs for teachers to deliver and develop a culture of tracking success.
Early childhood is the foundation, the stage where a child’s early learning experiences can define their educational outcomes. Over the next three years, $24.75m will be injected into strengthening early childhood learning and services to address the disproportionate level of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous children as they prepare to commence schooling. The importance of focusing on early childhood has been a priority of this government, and there is a range of programs already in place and achieving success.
Parent and family engagement in a child’s education is a key to long-term educational success. At a cost of approximately $23.8m, the successful Families as First Teachers program will be expanded over the next three years to an additional 11 remote Indigenous communities to operate in a total of 32 sites. Over 4000 adults and children are already benefiting from the Families as First Teachers program, which works in partnership with a range of early childhood education, care, health and family support programs to ensure children and their families participate in quality early learning programs and can successfully transition into preschool. The program encourages parents and their young children to learn and read together in a supported educational environment, and fosters confidence in parents to make learning a priority in their child’s life.
Families as First Teachers not only delivers quality early childhood programs, it offers a range of family support strategies. It builds parental knowledge of early childhood learning and development, as well as parenting skills, health and nutrition. Families as First Teachers is supported by the evidence-based Abecedarian approach in Australia. This approach is a set of quality teaching and learning strategies that, under the guidance of early childhood educators, is used to enhance literacy, numeracy and early learning through quality parent/child interactions and parent education.
Families as First Teachers is a key activity supporting the government’s Framing the Future’s strong society goal. I strongly support this program. I have seen it in action, and as I said when I delivered my statement at the previous sittings, the children in these programs will now be better prepared to enter the school environment. They will not be scarred and they will not be scared. They will not be ashamed; they will be confident and learning. Families as First Teachers is a vital component in preparing young children for school.
In remote communities it is important to have an integrated approach to delivering early childhood services, with family engagement at the centre of this service delivery. In the past, early childhood service delivery in some remote communities has been ad hoc and scattered, making it difficult for families to access complete services. In partnership with the Australian government, $25m has been invested to build child and family centres located at Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Ngukurr, Palmerston and Yuendumu. We are resourcing the child and family centres with qualified managers to provide a more coordinated approach with co-located services.
In Maningrida, for example, the child and families centre offers early childhood education and care support through a Families as First Teachers program; a crche and a playgroup; child and maternal health services, including the Healthy Kids Under-Fives program; a public health nutritionist/dietician; healthy skin checks; and antenatal care. Rheumatic heart disease check-ups are available. A speech pathologist and a physiotherapist provide services through the centre. An ear and oral health clinical trial is being conducted and there is a foetal alcohol syndrome disorder communal project under way. Community members can also access a range of family support services, including the remote area family and community program, legal aid services, and child and safety wellbeing support.
The centre has a multipurpose training room, which is available for the community to use. Our investment in early years ensures that young Indigenous children are prepared and are able to engage in the former years of school. When they enter primary schooling we need to be providing the essential skills and knowledge for children to succeed at school. Schools will have clears plans for supporting students and encouraging families as children transition from early year programs into preschool and then through the primary years of schooling.
Over the next three years we are committing $47.6m to build on the gains made in the early years, including preschool education, and to make sure students have the opportunity to continue their learning through a consistent and ongoing approach.
Bruce Wilson identifies the need to have a system-wide approach to providing literacy and numeracy programs, particularly for those schools with students not achieving NAPLAN results to the minimum standard. Some $20m of this funding will provide staff to support schools to deliver this essential package. An amount of $19m will be invested so all schools in remote and very remote communities will put in place consistent English oracy programs and highly-structured literacy and numeracy programs to ensure a solid foundation for students in reading, spelling, writing and mathematics. These programs will be supported with intensive professional development to ensure all students are accessing high-quality learning. Our investment will include $3.2m to ensure we can adequately measure our students’ progress and provide quality diagnostic feedback to teachers and, of course, parents.
All students in remote and very remote schools will participate in benchmark testing in literacy and numeracy using the Australian Council for Educational Research Progressive Achievement tests – PAT maths and PAT reading – so we have a common way to measure how our students are progressing.
I have previously spoken about the Direct Instruction program, a model of literacy and numeracy learning that is achieving positive results in the Cape York Peninsula. Direct Instruction is an evidence-based English mastery program which groups students based on their current knowledge and explicitly focuses on improving their English language skills.
The program requires students to master a particular concept before they learn the next concept. This ensures that students have a proper understanding and a solid basis to build on their learning. There are early signs of success in Cape York, with student improvements occurring not only in literacy and numeracy, but also in student engagement and behaviour.
As I have said in this House, I have been to observe the program in schools in Cape York. I went there because I was looking for ways to make things better for students in remote areas. I was impressed with what I saw. As we went in and out of classrooms, students were not distracted from their learning. The intense level of engagement was incredible. This program, supported by the Australian government, is being delivered in 15 government schools in remote Territory communities because we believe it has the qualities to succeed.
We are mindful of the advice provided in the review’s report and we will monitor and measure the effects of Direct Instruction to ensure it is delivering improvements for our students. Direct Instruction provides the benefits of a highly-structured and scripted curriculum that ensures continuity of student learning, lessening the significant impact that teacher turnover and student mobility has in very remote locations. We know that, sadly, many Indigenous students do not attend school every day. The Direct Instruction model provides learning based on the individual level of each student and concentrates on students mastering each learning concept.
Weekly student testing and data collection systematically monitor the progress of individual students and enable them to progress from the point which they are at individually. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. The Department of Education has developed a professional development package and individual teacher support mechanisms, ensuring staff are provided with the resources, coaching and peer support to confidently deliver the program. The critical point is that students are provided with consistency in their education. It is imperative that programs are designed and equipped for success and can be delivered effectively regardless of other factors.
A number of remote communities in the Territory have a long history of bilingual education. The review acknowledges this history and represents a balanced account of the evidence from previous investigations. While the previous government removed support for bilingual schools, we have funded a new position to coordinate bilingual programs across the nine schools, delivering them to ensure the resources provided deliver high-quality outcomes.
We will continue to provide an additional $2.5m per year to our nine bilingual schools to properly fund the bilingual programs at Elcho Island, Maningrida, Millingimbi, Numbulwar, Yirrkala, Lajamanu, Areyonga, Willowra and Yuendumu. The review makes a number of recommendations for first language learning, and the department will work closely with relevant schools to ensure a coordinated approach is in place for language and learning explicit English literacy and numeracy.
We want to see a strong improvement in the number of Indigenous students who transition successfully from primary to secondary school and who stay engaged in their learning. This is a critical area of importance to our government, and we have committed $59.8m over the next three years to open new horizons in the secondary years.
Secondary schooling is the vital pathway to further learning, and we do not back away from making some hard decisions about secondary delivery for remote students. The review made it very clear that secondary education delivery in remote and very remote communities is impeded because of the factors I have already discussed. Poor attendance affects a student’s secondary education outcome, and we need to ensure we have a consistent and aligned approach to school attendance. We have been working closely with the Australian government to ensure we are working in a connected and complimentary way, and ensure the $7.7m committed to improving Indigenous student attendance is invested in the areas that will have the most effect.
A suite of attendance initiatives is operating in many remote and very remote communities across the Territory. In 2014 we saw an 11% increase in school attendance across the 30 remote schools which have attendance strategies. We are building on the success of this by connecting our 32 school attendance and truancy officers with the nearly 300 local community personnel on the ground in our regions, working with parents to encourage children to regularly attend school. The school enrolment and attendance measures provide support for parents who have not enrolled their children in school or are not ensuring their children attend school. Ultimately, we have legislative processes under our Every Day Counts initiative to prosecute parents if they fail to make sure their children attend school regularly.
Our attendance initiatives will be complementary and work in concert to address issues identified with students, parents, the school and the community. Getting attendance right will significantly improve secondary education outcomes. Currently, low numbers of students make it generally impossible to deliver a quality secondary education program in very remote schools. The data tells us clearly that unless students are prepared for their secondary years of schooling, they will disengage. They will just stop participating. As the review confirms, this is exactly what is happening, and has been happening for far too long.
The review found the average attendance of senior-year students in very remote schools is about 30% - and we cannot shy away from that – or three days in every fortnight. In number terms, it means that on any given day on average fewer than six students are attending each of the very remote schools offering secondary education programs. Imagine a high school where only six students attend, on average, every day, and trying to provide a full high school program for them. It is just not viable.
In total, there are 51 schools trying to provide a full secondary education program, with low enrolment numbers and very low attendance rates. The Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training results for Indigenous young people across the Territory are confirmed in the review findings as having flat-lined, and have been doing so for some time.
There have been some improvements in the number of NTCET completions in Darwin and Palmerston schools. However, in very remote schools, the low number of completions demands we do better and we do it differently.
Bruce Wilson calls for a structural shift in the delivery of secondary education for remote and very remote schools. What does this structural shift look like? The Indigenous Education Strategy emphasises the need to provide students with options during and beyond their secondary years of schooling, and to provide parents with choices of secondary pathways for their children. Secondary programs in many remote schools do not equip a student with life skills or basic workplace literacy and numeracy. They do not provide a pathway to further education in training or employment. This is unacceptable, and we will change that. In the first three years of this strategy we will put in place meaningful and engaging pathway options to provide Indigenous students with the support they need to have a fulfilling secondary school experience, be it in the academic or the vocational stream.
A total of $9.5m will be invested to establish an employment pathways program to be delivered in regional high schools and selected schools in remote and very remote communities where there are sufficient numbers of students to make the program viable. The employment pathways program will provide high-quality workplace literacy and numeracy courses, vocational training, work experience and structured work placement, and programs in health, resilience and wellbeing, in addition to opportunities for paid part-time work.
In last year’s Territory government budget, $40.5m was committed for the construction of residential facilities for students attending regional or urban high schools. The Australian government has committed a further $9.4m towards constructing residential facilities in Nhulunbuy. I will describe what that will look like in planning and timelines.
Our intention is to commence with building a $20m residential facility in Nhulunbuy so remote students from northeast Arnhem Land can have access to a high-quality secondary education at Nhulunbuy High School. There are a number of factors that position this regional centre to be the first location in which purpose-built facilities are constructed. Potential numbers from across the region are high, and Nhulunbuy High School is delivering high-standard secondary programs with outstanding Year 12 results.
We have begun the process of building pathways from Yirrkala and Garrthalala to connect the curriculum and learning resources across these three centres. We will deliver a clear and attainable pathway for students to pursue a high-quality senior secondary school education close to their homes.
We know the mention of boarding facilities can cause anxiety in parents and students. The Department of Education has been gathering information and feedback as planning for the Nhulunbuy facility commences. The Yothu Yindi Foundation has been engaged by the department to facilitate a steering group of local people who represent the regional communities and clan groups. Each step of the project planning will involve input and feedback from representatives across the region.
The department has recently been involved in an intensive two-way workshop with around 40 key stakeholders from the northeast Arnhem Land hostel at Gulkula. The facilities at Nhulunbuy will be the first of our new residential facilities aligned to regional high schools and will offer a quality secondary education option for students in northeast Arnhem Land.
We will work consistently over the life of the strategy to build further residential accommodation for remote students in the regional centres of Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. It will not be easy to implement this model of secondary provision, but it will be done carefully with communities so that parents and students have a real choice. We will provide well-resourced and well-planned transitional programs to support students and families to engage with and access secondary schooling.
A sum of $12.7m over the next three years will support the establishment of a transition support unit. The unit will open its doors in July 2015. It will provide staff to visit communities and discuss secondary education options with students and their families. It will also have a team of support officers to provide case management for students throughout their secondary school journey, wherever they may be. The transition support unit will work with parents to plan the best secondary educational pathways for their children, and work with very remote students in Years 6 and 7 so they are prepared for and enrolled in appropriate schooling options in their secondary years. A delivery of regionally-based case management services will ensure students who choose to undertake secondary schooling outside their community remain connected to their families and the services available to help them complete their secondary schooling.
The support unit will closely monitor all remote students in residential accommodation and react quickly to the early signs of disengagement, and provide rapid support for students experiencing difficulties. It will also support the significant number of high achieving and potentially high achieving students from remote and very remote areas. Staff will work with these students and their families to assist them to obtain scholarships to their choice of some of Australia’s most esteemed boarding schools, and support these students, and their families, as young people who have completed the NTCET and make the transition out of secondary school to university or the workforce.
Helping to transition students is also about partnerships. A key partner for us in this strategy is the Australian Football League Northern Territory through the new state-of-the-art Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre. We have committed $200 000 per annum for the next three years to the centre to further develop its educational component to ensure it is complementary in developing remote Indigenous students’ skills and experiences as they transition from primary to secondary school.
This partnership will see 12- and 13-year-old students from very remote communities experience a one week residential program in Darwin. This program will build a raft of personal development and transitional skills, including visits to and sporting interaction with boarding schools. Our partnership commenced with the first week-long trial visit of very remote students on 17 May 2015. This saw the first 16 students take part in this fabulous opportunity. This will be followed by a further 16 week-long visits before the end of the year and a further 32 visits in 2016.
Our new initiatives rely on engagement with families and students. Consistent and appropriate engagement and support during all the stages of schooling will see us retain happy and engaged students who can achieve their potential.
The Clontarf Academy is a highly successful program in place in 13 schools across the Territory. There are currently 877 boys in the program. We will continue to support this program, including expanding its footprint across our regional high schools, including Nhulunbuy. The Clontarf program is based on a strong relationship that builds trust, commitment and strong engagement for young Indigenous men with secondary schooling. Young men in the program mature under the guidance of excellent role models, develop commitment to their schooling and sporting endeavours, and are assisted into further study or the workforce at the completion of their secondary schooling.
We are matching the Clontarf program with a high-standard girls’ engagement program, to which we have committed $4.4m over the next three years. This will be established and funded this year and will target up to 650 Indigenous girls and young women in secondary schools in Alice Springs, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, West Arnhem, Nhulunbuy and Darwin.
The girls’ program, in addition to all its valuable engagement activities, will provide a credit towards an NTCET and transition students through their school to further education, training or employment. It will be specifically aimed at young Indigenous women and have a focus on educational outcomes, health and wellbeing, and employment options beyond school. The program will incorporate outcomes focused on improving employability skills and be closely linked to the employment pathway programs established in each school.
The actions under the Indigenous strategy require a skilled and supported workforce. We have committed $29.81m over the next three years to achieve this purpose. The Chief Minister has set high expectations to increase the number of Indigenous employees in the public service from 8% to 16% by the year 2020.
Education has a major role in achieving this target, not only by improving education outcomes for students so they can actively seek and secure employment in their chosen field, but in its own workforce. The department is punching above its weight in the number of Indigenous employees. Currently 606 staff, representing 13.2% of the workforce, are Indigenous.
The Department of Education is soon to launch its Indigenous employment and workforce strategy 2015-20, which will aim to further build its Indigenous workforce to ensure there is a quality workforce in place in schools across the Territory. Under the guidance of a newly-appointed Indigenous employment and workforce coordinator, the workforce plan will deliver a clear direction to attract the right people and retain and develop our existing employees.
In conclusion, I have described this government’s strong resolve to maintain our focus and commitment to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous students. The education of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory is a cornerstone of our collective future prosperity. Our 10-year strategy addresses all recommendations of the review of Indigenous education. The first three years of implementation provides a sharp focus on delivering projects which are measurable and have the highest impact on student learning and engagement.
The key areas of the efforts are:
early childhood education and development programs
early literacy learning
engaging parents and carers in their children’s learning and development from the earliest years
structured literacy and numeracy programs throughout the primary years of schooling, such as Direct Instruction
Territory-wide age benchmarks to ensure effective monitoring of students achievement in reading, oral English and numeracy
residential options and transition support to very remote students
workplace literacy and numeracy programs to prepare students for work
substantial new investment to upgrade the skills of our Indigenous workforce
a major teacher housing refurbishment program.
We have set ourselves an ambitious challenge. It will not be easy, but we are prepared, with a comprehensive and long-term strategy to commit to tackling this issue so we can ensure our Indigenous children can have the very best opportunity to live productive lives.
I commend the statement to the House. I am extremely proud to take the challenge before us to improve Indigenous education for those people most in need and who, for far too long, have been left to wither with no possibility for a real future. This program will not be, easy, but this government is committed to improving the lives of all Territorians no matter where they live.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I thank the Education minister for bringing this very important statement to the Chamber so we can debate the future of Indigenous students across the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that education is the key to opportunity for these young Territorians. If they are not armed with an education their adult life will be pretty tough and they will miss out on many opportunities. We know that for a fact.
It is very important to the future of the Northern Territory because it will mean, ultimately, we will pull so many people who are living in poverty and conditions that are hard to fathom in a first-world country out of those situations. Education is a key to that.
I first thank the department’s Mr Tony Considine and Mr Ken Davies, who recently provided me with a briefing on the Indigenous education review and some of the steps the government has taken since releasing this strategy.
Looking at some of the key findings and identified as constant themes within the review, much of this is not new. These matters have already been identified over the years. It demonstrates the challenges ahead because these have been well-known challenges within the education system for some time. It has been difficult to get on top of them, but it is important we do.
There is much work to do. There are elements of the government’s direction when it comes to education that the opposition agrees with, but there are elements which the opposition has huge concerns with. For example, the government’s cutting of over 500 staff from the Department of Education, with teacher and staffing resources cut from schools, as well as huge amounts of money cut from the public education budget under the CLP government. When we talk about delivering education outcomes, we know money is not the be-all and end-all, but resourcing education is extremely important.
Our students have the highest learning deficits in this nation and are starting from well behind when they get into school. The answer is not to have less support for those students. You need more support for them. You need to work with those students far more intensively if you are to get them up to speed. Yet under the CLP government, we seem to have this determination to cut funding and resources from public education. That is not a very good start when we all want to see improvements in the critical area of Indigenous education.
Education will play a huge role in tackling Indigenous disadvantage, just as health and housing will. If a child gets a good education, they will have many opportunities ahead of them in their life. In the Northern Territory too many Indigenous students are not finishing school, which is a great shame and is concerning and something we need to work a lot harder at overcoming.
Many of those students are dropping out far too early, which is again a disaster for them and their future. We have also seen clearly in statistical data – NAPLAN is only one measurement of the education system in different assessment categories, but we can see clearly there is a serious gap between the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions, particularly when you break it down between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. If you look at the data on students reaching national minimum benchmark standards, it is concerning that gap does not seem to be closing.
The results have been lumpy over the years to say the least, but we are not getting the traction we want or the rate of improvement we must see to get those students to a level of education that will create different pathways for them in their adult life. There is a huge amount of work to do.
I acknowledge what the minister said about the Australian Early Development Index, the AEDI, and the importance of looking at those assessment categories before a student enters their schooling. It is important students start their learning at home so, when they start school, they are ready. That is where, over the years, we have seen a fair bit of work put into, for example, the Families as First Teachers program. That program was introduced under Labor and is operating in many communities at the moment. It is doing a wonderful job working with parents, grandparents and very young children to start that very critical early learning in the home through family and preparing them for the important schooling journey. Labor is proud of that program and we are glad to see the CLP government continue it.
Attendance, however, remains one of the greatest challenges in the education system that we must overcome. When it comes to Indigenous education, you can see there are huge gaps when you look at the breakdown of attendance in very remote schools and remote schools, particularly Indigenous attendance. Too many students are not going to school every day, and that will make a huge difference in their lives. Going to school every day, or well over 80% of the time, will ensure a student learns what they need to in order to move forward with their education. Unfortunately, a long journey needs to be taken there.
Major changes were looked at in the Every Child, Every Day strategy and introduced to the Education Act at that time. I welcome the increased focus over recent years on attendance and seeing more resources going into communities to encourage children to go to school. The attendance rates are still nowhere near good enough. We need to see attendance rates catch up as quickly as possible, and a lot of work still needs to be done.
The focus should never be dropped in that area. It needs to be appropriately resourced. We must see attendance issues overcome; it is vital. We have seen that attendance in schools can improve due to something as simple as a strong principal who has a very good relationship with families in the community. There might have been some trouble in the community and attendance goes backwards. There are varying reasons as to why attendance can be all over the place. When you look at year by year results and see some schools go up one year then down the next it can be very frustrating. I strongly encourage the government to keep up the work on that because attendance is critical to ensuring more Indigenous students in the Northern Territory get through those vital years at school and finish their education.
We know other things influence attendance. Home conditions – overcrowded housing remains a major problem in the Northern Territory, despite the more than 3500 new or improved homes delivered under NPARIH. Many people living in remote communities are still living in extremely overcrowded situations, as well as in our towns.
We must always make sure we are investing in housing. It does not matter whether you are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, or where you live, if you do not get a good night’s sleep you will struggle to function the next day. If you are a child and are living in an overcrowded house, you cannot get a good night’s sleep, so how on earth will you manage to get through a day of school and learn what you need to? That needs to be looked at as part of this Indigenous education journey.
There are also issues to do with parents, especially if they are having problems with substance abuse. It is important that families get the support they need to ensure children do not miss out on the opportunity of education.
I touched on the Families as First Teachers program earlier. It is strongly emphasised within the Indigenous education review, which was a Labor initiative. We were very proud of it. To go into the schools and see it at work, to see the mums with the kids going through books, learning in an interactive environment, is wonderful. That continues in the home, and many students are getting into the habit of seeing school as a good and important place to be. When they are old enough, they will start that journey of being in school.
It was very pleasing to see – as part of the Indigenous education review – that there are moves to expand Families as First Teachers, because we believe it is an important program. The opposition has made it very clear that we see it as a priority to address those vital early years before a child starts their schooling and to make sure children are ready, are hitting those developmental key benchmarks, are healthy and ready to start schooling.
We will be working very hard to look at what more can be done in the Northern Territory because there is a lot more that can be done to ensure students in the critical early years get access to the health services, education and support they need to prepare them for their important schooling journey.
I was also briefed by the department about – and the minister has very much hung his hat on this – the implementation of the Direct Instruction method into Northern Territory schools. The minister has visited Cape York on a few occasions. I understood after the estimates process that some of those were paid for by the Education department rather than through his ministerial travel, but he has had a thorough look at the Direct Instruction model and has decided this is the direction he wants to take the Territory under the Indigenous education review.
I have visited schools to see that model at work. It is happening in some schools at the moment, with the view to expand it later this year. I believe it will cost in the vicinity of $22m over three years to deliver the Direct Instruction model in schools. I am still not very clear on what that $22m delivers. Is it purchasing licences and access to the program? What additional resources do students get access to from that funding? Does it equate to any additional staff or teachers? That was not something I was able to get any clear answers to during estimates. One thing is for sure, if you were to invest an extra $22m into a specific area of education, you would expect to see more resources as part of that, particularly for teachers and teacher assistants to deliver the vital learning we want in those schools. What exactly are we getting for that $22m for Direct Instruction in our Territory schools? That is something I will be keeping an eye on in the future.
The government has made it clear that for many children living in remote communities to complete their education journey they will have to travel to boarding schools. It is nothing new in the Northern Territory. We have seen models before where students, to finish Year 12, have had to go to a boarding school.
It is critical those families and students who choose to go on that boarding school path, are supported. If a student decides to go through that journey, we want them to succeed, or as many as possible to succeed. I heard one story out bush which concerned me where students were successful and secured scholarships. They headed down south to big boarding schools, only to return very suddenly because it did not work out. They did not feel comfortable and it was an overwhelming change for them. For whatever reason it did not work, they came back to their home community and were too shamed to go back to their local school. So they dropped out of school altogether. That story horrified me. To hear of young students taking a big step in their life, feeling success and securing a scholarship to go away to boarding school, then for something to go wrong, and they return home to say, ‘I am too shamed to go back to school’, was devastating.
Students who want to finish Year 12 and go to boarding schools are going into very different situations. Many local schools are experienced after working with students from remote communities for a very long time. We have some wonderful private schools in the Territory which many members of this parliament have attended. They do a great job.
It is important we make sure everything possible is in place to help students who go away to succeed, and if boarding school does not work out, that they do not drop out. We must make sure we do everything we can to keep them engaged in their education, because that is critical.
I have spoken to my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who comes from one of the first areas where the boarding school will be expanding under the CLP government’s Indigenous education review plans. She has further questions about how broadly the consultation occurred within the communities that will be impacted by those changes. I am sure she will raise these questions further with the minister.
I note the minister’s statement referred to the Clontarf Academy. Again, that is something implemented during the Labor government which we were very proud of. When I visit Clontarf sites, I see young Indigenous men at school, engaged in their learning, and proud to be part of the program and at school. It is a wonderful program. We have some very strong male role models working in the Clontarf program who do a wonderful job with young men, taking them through some very important life skills. One thing is sure, Clontarf is not all about sport; it is about life skills and education. Sport is a way to keep kids engaged in school, but it is not about producing elite athletes; it is about producing more Indigenous men who have gone through an education so they have more opportunities in their life when they finish school. I think they do a wonderful job.
I was at my local school, Dripstone, recently, meeting the Clontarf boys. It was great to see them and see what a diverse bunch of students they are. Some boys are from remote communities and some are local boys living around the Dripstone feeder suburbs. To see how proud they were and hear how they felt about the program and how it engages them in their schooling was wonderful.
We were also very happy to see the recent opening of the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre, another initiative started under Labor and opened under the CLP. We are very supportive to see many young Indigenous men from remote communities go to the centre and acquire life skills, but also to promote important healthy lifestyle messages and the importance of an education. It is about attendance; they have to attend school to access that program. It is good to see we are encouraging students to stay at school.
With regard to the girls program, the GEMS program has been cut under this government. We know there are moves at the moment, as part of the Indigenous education review, to reinstate a girls program. It is not just the boys who need help. We need to ensure girls going through school have access to programs which help keep them engaged in their schooling journey and help with life skills. I am glad to see there will be a focus on providing a girls program in the Northern Territory for some of those schools that are now having to do without it. We look forward to seeing that up and running as soon as possible.
The minister also referred to, as part of the Indigenous education review statement, the importance of getting quality teachers to schools. Teachers can have a huge impact on the journey a student takes. We all remember good teachers in our years at school and know what a difference they can make. It is vital to get the right teachers into the communities, particularly in remote areas, to keep kids at school. We have all heard stories about the difficulties of recruiting people to communities, but also getting the right person for the job. It is not about having an adventure in the Northern Territory for one to two years and then off you go. We need teachers to commit to schools and stay there to build relationships with the community, with the students, and ensure they are there for as long as possible.
I worry about some of the messages being sent to teachers to come to the Northern Territory. There have been cuts to education driven by this government, particularly public education. We have seen teacher numbers cut with over 500 staff lost from the Department of Education, which includes teachers and support staff in schools, who are critical. We want to attract the best teachers to the Northern Territory, but you need a government willing to invest in education, schools and jobs to do that. That is vital.
With regard to the implementation of the Indigenous education review, we would be keen to hear from the minister about reporting to this parliament as they implement the changes and how they are going. We want to make sure we can keep a close eye on it and report on outcomes. If there are improvements, great, look at them and see what you can do to further enhance them and drive them forward. However, if things are not working out the way they were meant to, then that needs to be looked at. It needs to be analysed to see where it is going wrong and what can be done to make it better.
We agree that improving the outcomes of Indigenous students is vital to the future of the Northern Territory. Ensuring we have good outcomes for all students in the Northern Territory is vital to the future, but we have a government that seems to have sent out some very strong messages since 2012 that education is simply not a priority for funding, resourcing and investment. We have seen, under this government, huge cuts to public education. Since June 2012 there has been over 500 full-time equivalent staff lost from the Department of Education. That is a fact.
There is now over 130 fewer staff in senior and middle schools in the Northern Territory. We have also seen the roll-out of a new global budgeting system to schools, where we have seen great difficulties and problems. A clear admission that there were problems with the initial roll-out of the global school budget funding model was how, late last year, the former Education minister, the member for Araluen, had to come in and find another $22m to put into that program. We are still hearing of problems within the schools.
Schools still do not have enough money to address those issues, and it is not uncommon to hear stories about, for example, support staff having to cut their hours and schools that made big cuts last year to meet their budgets this year. Schools have to do more with less.
I am glad that through the estimates process we were able to proceed school by school and see a breakdown of global school budgets and staffing figures, and see how each school is tracking. The roll-out of global school budgets was disastrous and there is still much more to come with issues around global school budgets.
It is also concerning to see significant cuts to government education under the CLP. This year alone about $12m has been cut from the budget so schools have to do more with less. If you go back to 2012 and look at it in real terms, there was about an $80m cut to government education in that time. That is quite a significant figure for a place like the Northern Territory. It shows that schools have to do more with fewer resources, despite the fact we have the greatest learning deficits and difficulties in the Northern Territory.
Our students are behind. This government’s answer to that is to get schools to do more with less. From our own schooling journeys we know when a student has problems and difficulties they need extra support, one on one instruction, for example. That makes a difference. It is very difficult to see that happening when there are fewer resources in our school system.
We are concerned about it, but we welcome the statement with regard to the Indigenous education review. I thank the minister for the briefings I have been provided with. I also thank the staff within the department, because my understanding is they have done a great deal of work and they continue to do so. They are passionate about seeing a change in this because they understand how vital it is to those students. A student who does not succeed in education will be very limited in their life opportunities. You have some really passionate people in that department working towards seeing more students receive a great education.
I believe everybody in this parliament wants to see Indigenous students succeed, and see more of them finish their education and go on to a life with more opportunities. On this side of the Chamber one thing simply does not sit well with us, that is the fact you have cut teacher numbers, support services and funding to schools. That will not help us see those vital improvements in education. It will be very difficult for many of these schools to achieve the improvements in education we need to see in the Northern Territory when there are fewer teachers and support staff, and less resources for schools.
I thank the Education minister for bringing this very important statement to the House. We agree that we all want to see vast improvements in the education of our Indigenous students across the Territory.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, education is important for our people, especially in the remote communities. I was at Willowra School the other day and 15 kids turned up. It was a cold morning. I was told there were usually 30 but some of the kids were in bed as it was still too cold for them to come to school. At least they turned up later.
During my visit to Willowra School I saw how important education is, especially for my people who need to have education to be employed, to talk to the world, to be confident within themselves to speak to people who have English as their first language. This is the problem with our people who are not confident enough to speak clearly so people can understand them. This is why most of our children in the bush communities feel education is not important. I encourage parents to get their kids to school to get the best education there is, so it is possible for them to stand up and be proud of themselves and to speak clearly and be understood.
I trained to be a teacher, but decided that was not what I wanted in life. There are 189 schools in the Northern Territory, and the total number of remote schools is 46. Education has always been important for me, to make sure we get a sense of life and are proud of who we are. I want to ensure our people encourage their kids to go to school every day, get their kids out of bed every morning to go to school, and for our children to understand that is the only way forward for Aboriginal people who are part of the Northern Territory.
The Giles government is doing its best to encourage my people, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to make sure education counts and we get our children to school every day. The member for Arafura would agree with me; if you do not have education in your life, you will never get anywhere. My cousin, Marie Ellis, has a strong view on getting kids to school. She wants to see kids educated to make them strong and proud of themselves.
I encourage Aboriginal people who are watching me speak today to get their kids to school and get them educated, because that is the only way we can make a difference for our people.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. I devoted more than half my life to a career in Indigenous education.
I start by addressing the first four pages. Once again we hear the incredible statistics about failure, and I challenge the House and the department, led by the minister, to start moving on. The statistical analysis continually belted out through the parliament and media has a serious impact on people’s self-esteem. It has a serious impact on parents, teachers and students. We know these figures and understand the ramifications. Let us move on and shift the debate into a new area.
As an infant/primary trained teacher, when you were encouraging children to write, one of the very simple standardised practice was the ‘who, what, where and why method’. If you put up the headers ‘who, what, where and why’ and then scaffold off from those markers you create the story. With the members of this House – it was good to hear the member for Stuart talk about education – I would like to challenge the ‘how’. How will we change outcomes? If the minister wants to say there has been no change in Indigenous education for the better since 1999, let us press the rewind button to 1979, then to 1969, because in this House there are members who are the result of very good educational outcomes. We have members who are skilled and educated in two worlds.
I refer to the member for Arafura. I would like to examine the ‘how’ in the member for Arafura’s life and an example of education in two worlds. He is an educated man culturally and an educated man in the western mainstream system, who has been elected by the electorate of Arafura to be a member of the Legislative Assembly.
What is the story in that educational pathway? Let us concentrate on what is different about then and now. It is not as simple as the welfare story. I do not want to get bogged down in the welfare story because we have heard that and it is on the Parliamentary Record well and truly. I support what the member for Port Darwin says when we talk about the welfare story, but let us go to the nuts and bolts of what is different now. Why are we not seeing those outcomes?
I could tell you a 35-year story. Perhaps we should go back to the 1960s and assess what was working then? Why was it working, why do we have members in this House who can tell a story about very good education outcomes, and why do we have real challenges today?
That is where I would like the debate to shift to. The minister has at his disposal amazing resources to start exploring this with departmental resources, with taxpayers’ funds, to look at consultancies, reviews and reports. Let us dig into that and identify the Aboriginal student in the 21st century. Let us analyse why the challenges are there today and why things are different than in their grandfather’s and grandmother’s time? That is what I would like to move on to. Four pages could be deleted from the statement. Let us shift the educational resources into exploring those differences. I can add my take on that. I would like to participate in that debate.
Getting down to tin tacks, the other element is your outline is of a 10-year strategy. I did not hear any reference to additional resources towards foetal alcohol spectrum disorder or about new, creative and innovative behaviour management or support and resources. I heard nothing about alternative pathways in education designed for students with higher support needs who do not fit into the mainstream system, particularly secondary-aged students who will not be attending boarding schools in town. What is there for those students? What do we do with the students who are expelled or suspended from either the hostel or the town school and return home? I am already talking to students on the streets of regional towns and remote communities who have already hit a wall when it comes to government policy.
What are we doing about community engagement? I did not hear much about strategies addressing community engagement, the rhythms of a remote community, their calendars, cultural context, sports, recreation, funerals and observance of very special cultural markers.
There is a lot of scope in resourcing when you look at these issues. I did not hear it in the statement, but I am sure in summing up you might like to address some of those issues. I listened intently at estimates and I heard a good explanation from the Department of Education about how there are existing initiatives to address foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I heard of a number of new initiatives which are planned, but there was no real budget appropriation for that.
The government commissioned the Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Select Committee and its report, which was a great move for this parliament. The report is excellent. It presents the latest information for any government to make a difference. In 2017 approximately 8000 Aboriginal children will be turning five years of age and entering the formal education system, yet we see in Budget 2015-16 by the CLP government a cut to preschool education by $12m. That is a serious concern for Territory families and parents, as it should be for this government.
As we see in the demographic of young Territorians in my electorate, under 25-year-old parents with children under five years are represented above the national average. We have to prepare for the influx of children, including Indigenous children, who will have different needs. As the FASD report tells us, up to 50% could present with higher-support needs. If we do not see a continual and specifically targeted investment now and for the future, then schools will continue to struggle.
School attendance is always thrown around and addressed with political rhetoric, but let us seriously look at the appropriation made by the federal government in relation to an attendance strategy. It does not acknowledge these kids coming into our mainstream, regional and remote schools with poor attendance records who generally present with higher-support needs. I will generalise about these kids and put them into two classes: higher-support behavioural and higher-support emotional.
As we bring these kids in, they are putting a lot more pressure on the schools and education system, our teachers and programs. The Commonwealth government has partnered up with you and we are seeing this program roll-out. You are talking about the improvements but we are not seeing the same level of resourcing to address higher-support needs students. You only have to go to regional and remote schools and talk to teachers to understand this dynamic.
That brings me to the next point; often there will a higher-support need to be addressed through an alternative pathway in the transition and induction process for that student. I talked to teachers recently in regional and remote areas, and said, ‘Anecdotally, give me a number out of an average class size of around 25, where we could zone in with an alternative pathway program to support those kids which would normalise your class and reduce your work from a 90% crowd control to a 90% teaching load.’ The numbers were quite surprising. They were small numbers; less than five in most cases where I asked that question – two or three and maybe four, although, some said; ‘If number three is supported through that type of program, then number four can stay with me’. Teachers are realists; they have a go and need to be supported. This is one way we can support this higher-need cohort. If anybody is interested in the FASD report, the numbers showing what is coming are critical and alarming.
The minister needs to look at alternative pathway programs to address his NTCE deficits. Once again, the statistics are confronting. They have an impact on students’, teachers and, no doubt, the parents’ self-esteem.
What are we doing about alternatives to secondary-age programs? If we have students who have missed vast areas of their education through their early and primary years, what will we do to re-engage them? There are many opportunities. The minister did not mention the Vocational Education and Training space in his statement. I would love to take you back, minister, and debate in the House how we can do that, how to achieve those outcomes in the secondary area using alternative pathways, specifically with school industry partnerships and Vocational Education and Training.
Parent engagement did not feature in the reforms we heard about in this statement. The Parents as First Teachers program is excellent. I support it and thank the minister for its continuation. However, when it looks as if we could face federal government cuts, with other states and territories, of $80m to health and education over the next 10 years, these programs will be difficult to sustain. When you talk about those national partnerships and the specific development of programs, then the federal partnerships are critical. I hope you are engaging at that level to make sure the Territory is not disadvantaged by the Commonwealth in its pull back of funding for health and education in the states.
Teacher numbers and the budget cuts are important in this debate. The member for Wanguri put that very clearly in the estimates process, and continues to challenge this government because that is the reality. The efficiency dividends of this government’s budget over the last three years have been significant in all areas. We present a clear alternative – we had a budget step-out plan, but it did not involve savage cuts to education. That is a clear difference between the Labor and Liberal parties. The member for Wanguri clearly articulated how, over those years, this has impacted on our schools, and defeated any improvement in outcomes.
The minister knows that. He is the minister in Cabinet who has been rolled regarding the efficiency dividends. He has delivered these cuts. He knows the truth and he has to try to work with it, and, basically, wear it. That is not an easy job. We know the level of these cuts and the effects these cuts are having. The minister is in a very difficult position in improving outcomes with the budget strategy being imposed on him as a Minister for Education.
I would also like to hear more about the professional development of teachers. Minister, there is word across the regions now that there is no professional development occurring with teachers gathering and talking about teaching practice and methodology. Improving outcomes is a challenge. We have to professionalise and support our staff. That is an area in Indigenous education where you can do a lot of specialised work. That is a topic I am picking up as I travel about, and I share it with you in good faith. No doubt departmental people listening to this can explain the importance of teachers’ professional development when dealing with classroom practices and methodologies.
I am watching with great interest the implementation of Direct Instruction. The Direct Instruction model reminds me of the standardised curriculum 30 years ago. A standardised curriculum, when I started under the Commonwealth Education department, was to try to keep continuity in the curriculum and address staff turnover, but essentially it was to address cross-cultural contexts. Many of the schools I started teaching in did not have English as a first language, so a standardised curriculum presented a good model to build on. You had the basics and then you could scaffold off that. It provided good outcomes.
To me Direct Instruction seems to be a move back to a standardised curriculum. However, I am concerned about how standardised that has become because it loses a lot of creativity. Young teachers who are now implementing the Direct Instruction model need professional development about scaffolding. Sticking to a script is okay, but sticking to a script does not address that love of learning, that element that is difficult to articulate to professionals, parliamentarians, parents and students. It is an old school concept that needs to be addressed. The way to do that is through professional development.
The Direct Instruction model is costing a lot of money. It could be a deficit model; however, I am prepared to give it time. I am supporting schools that have undertaken the trial and I am keen to meet with teachers. I have been invited to look at that model closely in the classroom, which will take place, hopefully, in the second semester of 2015.
There is an interesting point with the Direct Instruction model. Statistically it relates to poor attendance. As the new concepts are introduced, if a child misses significant Direct Instruction lessons there is a compounding effect that can be defeating in regard to educational outcomes. That seems to be one of the unique qualities of this model that can be dealt with in other ways. The minister will probably be able to report back to the House on critical benchmarks met along the way to see if it is making any difference.
For bilingual education there were a couple of brief paragraphs, with the minister talking about supporting bilingual education with $2.5m over nine schools, or just over $300 000 a school. I am interested in how that money is appropriated because from my experience over 30 years the critical element for any bilingual program is a teacher fluent in the first language and English. That is the challenge. Thirty years ago we had the most amazing dynamic staff across our bilingual schools who were fluent in their first language, often three or four first languages and, of course, English, both written and spoken. Those dynamic teachers led that bicultural and bilingual movement. Backed by literacy production centres and community engagement, we had those programs delivering effective outcomes.
I am keen to hear what is new in that space. You have an appropriation toward it, and I would like to debate that with you in the future. I have run out of time, but I hope you have a few points and take them in good faith. I assure you the opposition has a clear alternative in this area and we will continue to debate it positively. We look forward to more information, even if it is a 20-page statement dropped on the desk for opposition members to work through on their feet. We are up for the challenge, we hope you are, and thank you for this opportunity.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, for a number of decades remote Indigenous education outcomes have been below national standards. It was clear that they had not improved even though both Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments had increased funding by large amounts. Literacy and numeracy results for Indigenous students in very remote communities in the Northern Territory are the lowest in Australia. I have made clear many times in this Assembly my commitment to achieve better education outcomes for our Indigenous students. I am proud to say that I am part of a government that feels just as strongly. I will be talking about the Country Liberal government’s review into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory. This review was undertaken by Bruce Wilson, and it is titled A Share in our Future.
It was made clear that Indigenous education outcomes were well below standard. The minister talked about a quote from the report. I will repeat it now to make sure we all know how much we need to take a different approach:
- The starting point in this review is that children who are now in a school, and those yet to arrive, deserve better.
The minister received the report from Mr Wilson in May 2014. Instead of rushing out and throwing money at the problem, the Minister for Education gave his department time to properly consider the report and come up with strategies to implement recommendations in ways they believed would deliver the best outcomes and the best chance of success.
The department came up with a 10-year plan for reforming remote and very remote education. As the minister outlined earlier, the strategy is made up of five elements: Foundation, which supports children’s early learning experience; Essentials, which ensures children can confidently move through the primary years of schooling; Pathways, which provides strong support programs, or pathway options for students to succeed in their secondary schooling; Engagement, which ensures students, parents and communities can access and participate in wider-ranging educational opportunities; and Workforce, which strategically plans to have the best and most experienced teachers in the most complex and difficult very remote areas, and strengthening the capacity of our Indigenous staff to deliver quality education to students.
Politicians quite often are accused of only looking at short-term outcomes and always being worried about the next election. With this strategy, we have done the opposite. We have set out our plan and targets in detail for the next 10 years. I look forward to seeing the results of this strategy. I took great pleasure in joining the minister and Mr Davies from the department for the launch of this strategy at Warruwi School in my electorate.
After more than 11 years of no improvement under Labor, it is time for all of us to take responsibility for the future of all our children. Our children are our future, and we must make sure they are given all the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in life.
One of my concerns for our remote communities in west Arnhem is the need to target kids who are not getting any support. I want to see that change. We need to start looking at policy we can implement to tackle this issue so kids can have a good education and a better life.
I thank Mr Wilson for undertaking the review. I also thank the Education department for its work in developing the strategy. I also acknowledge the minister’s strong commitment to improve education outcomes for all Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House on the Indigenous education review’s implementation. There are a number of issues I will talk about on this subject, but a good deal of it will be devoted to my own electorate which, as we heard from the minister, will see the construction of a boarding facility commencing in September.
I have listened to what other members had to say on this subject. I have to correct the member for Arafura in his comments about how this government is not driving an agenda based on elections or electoral cycles. It is quite the opposite. We have a boarding facility and a $20m investment going into Nhulunbuy very soon which is completely at odds with the recommendation of the Wilson review that these recommendations be implemented with bipartisan support over a 10-year cycle so it is beyond electoral boundaries. I do not see that happening in my electorate with these current changes, but I will return to that.
As a parent of school-aged children, a school teacher for a number of years – all of my teaching was in the Northern Territory – and someone who lives – and has done for 25 years – in a remote area, I have seen quite a bit during my time in education. After a couple of decades of CLP government not investing in secondary area education in our remote schools – not one Indigenous child graduated with an NTCET because there was no secondary education, there was only post-primary. That is not to say there were not children from those communities not going to boarding schools, perhaps in Darwin or down south. But under the CLP government for more than two decades, not one child from a remote Indigenous community graduated from Year 12 because Year 12 was not on offer in their school.
Labor was in government for 11 years and one of the first things the first Labor Education minister, Syd Stirling, former member for Nhulunbuy, my predecessor, did when he became the first Labor Education minister in the Territory, was to address the incredible deficit in education in remote Indigenous schools. Over 11 years, whilst Labor still had a lot of work to do with the federal government – and the former Labor government in the Territory worked with the Howard government as well as the Labor government that came after – there were some real steps forward: the investment in infrastructure in these remote schools, including accommodation for teachers; and investment in curriculum and consultation with communities about what was important to them. We did not always get it right but in the relatively short space of 11 years, Labor delivered significantly to secondary education.
The new CLP government – well, not so new now, as it is coming up to three years in office – has struggled to deliver to remote schools. I appreciate the steps they have taken in moving forward with the Indigenous education review, but there are many who reject the recommendations of that review and the Wilson report.
I attended a consultation session in Nhulunbuy quite late on a Friday afternoon when most people are not that interested in attending community consultation sessions. About 15 or so attended, predominately teachers and school council members. Earlier in the day there had been quite a large gathering at Yirrkala School where community members participated in a discussion and made it very clear to Mr Wilson and the Education department bureaucrats with him that they were very unhappy about some of the proposals in the draft document. That included compulsory boarding facilities and that secondary education not be offered to Indigenous kids in the bush – that they should be given no choice and sent to boarding facilities.
It is no small wonder that families and communities were outraged at the proposal. I visited Numbulwar last year for the first time and learnt it had not been consulted. Nobody went to Numbulwar to talk to the community face to face about the draft report and recommendations. The people were not given any opportunity to participate yet the community’s kids, in particular their secondary-aged students will be impacted by the recommendations now that Cabinet has adopted some of the recommendations.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to attend a consultation meeting out at Gulkula, the site of the annual Garma festival. I was lucky enough to discover this meeting was on. I was sitting in the minister’s office preparing for a briefing on the boarding facility proposal and changes to delivery of Indigenous education as it pertained to my electorate. At the start of that briefing I was advised a meeting was coming up on Friday 28 May.
I had not being invited to any other meetings held prior to this. I see that as a deliberate strategic move by the government. You do not want the local member there. For heaven’s sake, she might say something you do not want to hear; she might try to derail the project or offer an alternative view. I said I would be grateful to receive an invitation to that consultation meeting. I received it a day or two before the meeting was due to be held.
I could not help but wonder if there was some consternation about whether or not I should be sent an invitation. That is disappointing, if that was the case. Nevertheless, I was pleased to receive one. I attended that Friday. It commenced about 9:30 am and went through to 2 pm. There were no more than 15 or so people there. I have no idea who invitations went out to so I do not know if there were people who were invited or should have been invited and could not come.
I found at that meeting a sense of trepidation and fear. A number of hard-working public servants had been tasked with enforcing the will of the executive of government, to proceed at all costs – we are talking big costs of $20m – to get a boarding facility under way on the campus at Nhulunbuy High School, with the view that Nhulunbuy High School will become the regional secondary education centre. You would no longer be able to do your senior secondary education – that is Years 10, 11 and 12 – if you were currently doing it on homelands, such as Laynhapuy or Marthakal homelands. You would not be able to do senior secondary education down the road at Yirrkala. It appears that Gapuwiyak will be a part of this as well. Beyond that we are not sure which other communities would have to send their children to Nhulunbuy High School to receive senior secondary education.
I notice the language of the government has changed slightly, because they realised at the outset they had the language and the message all wrong. They have backpedalled now to say, ‘No, we are not removing anybody’s choice. There will be choice’. They are quite right when they say children have always had the choice to attend boarding schools in Darwin. I have had a number of constituents over the years who have sent their children to Darwin. I have constituents who send their children for boarding and senior secondary education in Melbourne, Sydney or Townsville, all with varying degrees of success. Any family, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, that sends their children away, for whatever reason, faces challenges with homesickness, being away from family and country; especially my Yolngu constituents because their children’s connection to country is so critical for them.
People have been told they still have the choice to use boarding facilities intrastate or interstate. They will have a new choice: they can send your children into Nhulunbuy High School into this beautiful 40-bed, potentially 80-bed, facility, depending on how the first phase goes. They will have the choice to raise and educate their children on country; however, they will only have post-primary education.
People interpret that as gammon education. We know resources under the CLP have already been stripped from our schools, with more than 500 positions gone. This includes Yolngu teacher assistants, who are critical in classrooms with providing the bridge between a non-Indigenous teacher and the students. I only have had to visit the homelands in my electorate over the last 12 or 18 months to see the decline in resources. It is sad to see how these schools that were once quite vibrant places, where students were well-supported with teachers – keeping in mind these kids are English second language speakers, and have suffered – trying to look after the entire gamut of a primary school-aged class with varying ranges of ability.
What concerns my constituents and me, and what was very evident at the meeting at Gulkula recently, is people not feeling they have been consulted. They feel they are being told. They were never told explicitly, ‘Sorry, but the plans to invest federal government money in a boarding facility at Garrthalala homelands’ – one of the Laynhapuy homelands, which was running a successful secondary education program with philanthropic support through a Rotary Club in Geelong which assisted in building a small boarding facility, as well as the SHEP program delivering senior secondary education – ‘sorry, but the money has stopped’. Year 12 students were graduating; children were boarding there, coming from other homelands such as Dhalinybuy, Wandawuy and Gan Gan – and possibly one or two other homelands; I cannot remember them all. That program has been allowed to wither on the vine because the resources have been removed.
Nobody told local people that with the change of government at the Territory level and federal level that boarding facility would not proceed. Nobody consulted with them to see if they would be happy to send their children to a boarding facility in Nhulunbuy, a school not on their country but on somebody else’s. At that meeting at Gulkula people were incredibly polite in raising their concerns. Yalmay Yunupingu, who is a teacher with a Bachelor’s degree and a linguist, spoke very eloquently at that meeting. She raised concerns that NAPLAN was being held up as the only evidence why senior secondary education would not be conducted in their schools in the future.
You can imagine how Indigenous students and their families feel when they are told time and time again, ‘You are failures’, ‘This is not working’. Bruce Wilson described it as a ‘human tragedy’. ‘Kids at Yirrkala and on homelands, you are a human tragedy because your NAPLAN results are not very good.’ As Ms Yunupingu explained, NAPLAN results are but one indicator of success at a school.
Children for whom English is not their first, second, third or even fourth language are required to sit the same test that students in Darwin or Melbourne sit, without any consideration that English is not their first language. Being told that they are a human tragedy and failures, you can imagine, does not do a great deal for their self-esteem.
Ladders are published that have red lines on them that highlight that Baniyala school, Gawa school or other remote schools are not doing well. These communities and children are simply ranked and told, ‘You are lousy; you are not doing at all well here.’
I have talked about Yalmay Yunupingu. I want to talk a little about her husband, the late Dr Yunupingu, who had a vision for Indigenous two-ways education. Very recently, on 2 June, it was the second anniversary of his passing. I was unable to attend that ceremony, but I understand there were some 100 Yolngu people who attended Yirrkala school to participate in it. I will share a few words from one of the speakers at that ceremony, Trevor Stockley, a retired teacher who has returned to Yirrkala where his son is teaching, and was a contemporary of Dr Yunupingu’s who spoke at this ceremony. He taught with Dr Yunupingu. I obviously cannot read as he can in language, but he has translated it into English, and I will place it on the record:
- Many years ago Dr Yunupingu established the Yothu Yindi Foundation. He started this foundation in the hope of enhancing Yolngu life and for a better future for Yolngu youth. Dr Yunupingu’s vision included developing a strong local secondary education for youth at Yirrkala and homeland centres.
The process of consultation for the Nhulunbuy boarding facility has been flawed. No real consultation has been conducted with many Yolngu clans and families at Yirrkala, or at Laynhapuy homelands centres.
Let us remember the careful process of preparing Ngathu, the sacred Yolngu bread which must carefully follow the correct process or will result in bread which is poison. Consultation, like Ngathu, must also follow a careful and correct process or it will deliver an education which is poison to Yolngu children.
Yet, now, Yolngu have been told that this boarding facility will go ahead. Yolngu are being told that it is now too late to stop the building of this boarding facility. This is not real consultation.
Dr Yunupingu had a vision for Yolngu education and for community development. He worked closely with elders of all clan groups to put in place an education which empowered elders and respected Yolngu culture and knowledge. His vision was to implement a recognised secondary education program within the Yolngu community which incorporated clan languages, Galtha Rom, which is law, and learning on country at secondary level.
How will the Northern Territory government support these Yolngu parents who choose to keep their children in secondary education at Yirrkala and homeland centres – those parents who choose a secondary education which reflects Dr Yunupingu’s both-ways philosophy?
The education choices for Yolngu are being reduced, and Yolngu youth will be forced into a limited, second-rate post-primary education at Yirrkala or their homeland, or be pushed into town. Important decisions about secondary education are being made without proper consultation with Yolngu.
It is true: consultation on these incredible and very significant changes have proceeded without real and genuine engagement. I was at the homeland of Borawuy, also known as Wandawuy, last week for an overnight visit. It was purely coincidental when I contacted the community and school to see if people were out there that …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: It happened that at the time I was planning to travel to Wandawuy, about a two-hour drive from Nhulunbuy, with my electorate officer, Sarah, we discovered ahead of our visit that the Learning on Country program had a special community event planned for last Thursday morning.
The Learning on Country program has been in operation for more than a year, probably closer to two years now, and is just what it says, learning on country. It is about kids being educated on their country. It features a curriculum with literacy and numeracy, but encompasses that two-way sharing and learning of knowledge about their community. We participated in a walk that took us about two hours around the community of Borawuy.
What was particularly special was seeing perhaps 25 kids ready for school first thing in the morning – hair brushed, shoes on, doing their routine exercises, sitting down in lines while their Yolngu teacher, Wapit, explained to the children what was happening on the day. The kids were then joined by a couple of Yirralka Rangers, Ian Hutton and Napuhuy Wunungmurra, and a number of elders from the community. There were parents, fathers, and it was an amazing experience to be led on this important walk around Wandawuy community for a couple of hours where we stopped and talked about particular plants – what their uses were for ceremony, food, and medicine – but also about the seasons, about the law associated with some of the places we visited, and about the shark story from the waterway that surrounds Wandawuy community.
At the conclusion of the walk was shared with us a story which is very special to that clan group, about the shark. Then we celebrated the end of the walk with a barbecue that had everybody helping to prepare the food.
I was struck by how powerful the Learning on Country program is and the jobs it can lead to within homelands. There is a limited job market in homelands, but one of the biggest employers of Indigenous people is the ranger program. They have a vital role in protecting the environment, but with that you are protecting Yolngu law, culture, language and the things that are sacred, and passing it on to younger children.
The other thing happening at Wandawuy, as it is at a number of homelands in the east Arnhem region under Lirrwi Tourism, is developing a niche market in homeland tourism. This is what people at Wandawuy are doing in preparing these walks, quite apart from the knowledge sharing and the education those children are receiving. I saw Wali Wunungmurra recently, the former chairperson of the Northern Land Council. We spoke about education and he said, ‘Define for me what quality education is’. What quality education is for the Attorney-General and his two daughters may well be different to what my idea of quality education is, and different again for Mr Wunungmurra, as well as those homeland families.
I see the Learning on Country program preparing students for pathways into work that, should they choose, allows them to remain on their homeland. Different parts of the Territory refer to homelands as outstations, particularly in Central Australia. Regions are different, as to how many people live on these homelands and outstations. I can assure you that in my electorate, homelands are regarded as important places and there is a strong feeling that – and I have heard people say it time and time again about their children – when they go away, they grow away.
If older children from homelands are required to get their quality NTCET education at a regional high school facility in Nhulunbuy, there is a fear amongst people that those children going away will disrupt the social fabric of the communities, the family connections and the family connection to country. People, not surprisingly, are starting to see this as a move by government to close down homelands by stealth, to starve them of resources so they will eventually have to move away.
The member for Fong Lim, in opposition, loved talking about urban drift. He thought it was wonderful. He said urban drift is a great thing. He described homelands, outstations and some remote communities as black holes, miserable places. That is not so.
It is not too late for the government to put the brakes on with this boarding facility and to stop, step back and think, ‘Let us start listening to these people, start talking to them and genuinely engaging and take these plans out of an electoral cycle’. Twenty million dollars is a lot of money to spend. I have put it to the Education minister on more than one occasion that what it is about first and foremost is an economic stimulus package for Nhulunbuy.
I am sure there are building companies and contractors in Nhulunbuy who would be delighted at the prospect of tendering for work on a $20m project that would employ many people and stimulate our local economy. But is it really the best thing for educational outcomes in northeast Arnhem Land? Even the Wilson review said these boarding facilities should be on a trial basis. Investing $20m into a community to build a boarding facility that has not been consulted on widely is not a smart thing to do.
From what I have seen in the time I have lived there, and especially in the time I have been the local member, things happen best and are successful and sustainable when they come from a grassroots level. I spoke at the meeting at Gulkula recently about how some of the Aboriginal organisations and initiatives that have been successful have come about at grassroots level.
Lirrwi Aboriginal tourism corporation has been built up over a number of years. It started at Bawaka community and has now grown to take in a number of other homeland communities. Its success is underpinned by the fact that the family at Bawaka and their extended family have ownership of it. They have had good support in running that business, but it is theirs. They have their own board and Yolngu chairperson. The Yothu Yindi Foundation, started by Dr Yunupingu, is an incredible organisation with where it is now at Gulkula, running one of the biggest Indigenous festivals every year, and foraying into education and other matters, an organisation that evolved over years from grass roots.
The takeaway liquor permit system in Nhulunbuy did not come from the government. It came from grassroots level from a group of strong women at Yirrkala, predominately Marika women, who wanted to change what was happening with alcohol abuse and misuse in the community. It has worked and has been sustainable because they embraced it and worked with stakeholders to see it evolve.
Yolngu have a lovely metaphor that they use time and time again. It has to do with the lippa lippa, or canoe. It is about people sitting in that lippa lippa. To get across the water everybody needs to be working together and rowing in the same direction, not against one another but with one another. Right now that lippa lippa – that is, the boarding facility and Indigenous education across the homelands in my electorate – is off course; it is at risk of tipping over and everybody falling out.
Consultation has to be genuine and it has to be right across the homelands to the people who are affected by it. When I was there last week nobody at Wandawuy knew about this boarding facility, and nobody had been there to sit down and have a meeting with them. I put it to the Education minister that he needs to stop and rethink this process. There is a view at the moment of ‘build it and they will come’. The minister is at risk of building a white elephant because families do not want to send their children to a boarding facility.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, before closing debate I will read into Hansard page 18 of my statement which I inadvertently missed out. I apologise for that. For Hansard it starts after page 17, where I said:
- Under the guidance of a newly-appointed Indigenous and workforce coordinator, the workforce plan will deliver a clear direction to attract the right people, retain and develop our existing employees ...
What I am about to read was not read.
… develop quality leaders and build performance potential while supporting and valuing our people. Indigenous educators and support workers in remote and very remote schools fulfil a crucial role in supporting Indigenous students and non-Indigenous teaching staff. This element of the strategy focuses on actions to make sure that Indigenous employees in our schools have the same professional development opportunities as other staff. We are partnering with Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, and strategically planning the professional development pathways for our Indigenous staff. This partnership will enable our staff in remote areas to access high-quality professional learning. They will be supported by a dedicated regional learning coordinator to assist them in negotiating their career pathways.
We acknowledge that our remote teacher workforce sometimes works under difficult conditions and we need to ensure that people moving to remote areas to work in our schools have safe, secure and comfortable accommodation. It is my firm belief that by providing this we encourage good teachers to stay longer and provide greater continuity for students. We have committed $25m for the construction of 10 new dwellings and the refurbishment of 144 existing dwellings over the next five years as part of a teacher housing refurbishment and replacement program. Under this strategy, work has already commenced on the refurbishment of 16 houses across Ngukurr, Ali Curung, Wooliana, Milingimbi and Maningrida. New kitchens, new laundries and better bathroom amenities are the focus of the upgrades. We want our teachers to stay and we want them to feel valued.
That is what I missed out from the second reading, and then we went into the concluding comments.
I thank everyone for offering their support and their comments in regard to the Indigenous education strategy. It was hard to listen to some of the rhetoric, but the constant was the fact that we should be looking for a bipartisan approach to Indigenous education. The members for Barkly, Nhulunbuy and Wanguri spoke about the need to put the politics aside and ensuring we provide what is right to improve education for our students.
At the same time, they spoke about the conspiracies and not being invited to a meeting to talk about the ‘human tragedy’, as the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned. The member for Barkly talked about the human impact it has. That is hard to take when you know about the scare campaign and tactics employed by Labor over the last few years against this government over what we are trying to do with education.
Have we been faced with extreme budgetary restrictions because of the budgetary system we have in the Northern Territory and the position we were left in from the last government? Yes, absolutely, without a doubt.
I look at the Education department today and see a fantastic vehicle run by dedicated people. It is an efficient system; it is a very efficient government department.
Some of the results we are getting in education today astound me, given there is a big efficiency drive now in the department. I said to the member for Daly earlier, I wonder if we had not peeled back the layers provided by the previous government, the layers of bureaucracy, whether we would have understood just how efficient the Education department could be in the Northern Territory?
I was thinking, how do you describe what we inherited? To me it was a little like a circus tent that had the lights replaced; the tent was white, it had been repainted, every globe on the outside had been changed, the signs had been repainted and the tent looked a million dollars – but inside the crowds were getting smaller and the show was of a decades-old quality because there had been no investment in improving the show.
There was no investment in driving teacher quality or the product being taught in our schools to ensure the educational outcomes were improving. Using the analogy of the tent, the show was becoming less and less interesting for the audience, in this case for the children.
There was plenty of money thrown at it. I argue that every school I visited in remote areas was well-resourced and the teachers were passionate, but the results were not getting any better.
Sadly, the approach the former government was taking in education was the wrong approach. I do not want to be too critical, because I do not think there is anyone on the other side with intentions that were anything other than honourable in wanting to improve education. There were sparks of brilliance in some of the schools I visited, but not all of them.
How do you develop a program that will provide those sparks of brilliance in every school? It starts with the teachers but also with the program the teachers are using to teach. You need to engage children, that is why some teachers are far more successful than others.
Those teachers who are successful are people who can inspire someone, people who can stand at the front of the class and get those children involved in their own education. Find out what fires them up because if someone is fired up you know what? They will go and do the job for you. Someone who is fired up – whether it is on the football field, a classroom, or job – if you inspire somebody, they will chase their dreams.
But when you have a system you have to modify – we did not have to; we could have sat back and thought the previous government did the best they could. ‘Look at the money they are spending in education, what are we going to do about it?’ If they could not get it right, we are not going to be better; let us keep doing what they did.
I could not do that, so we slowly started to unpack what was being taught in our schools, how they were being resourced and the excessive bureaucracy we had in the Department of Education. I remind people that at a time when the cohort of students grew by under 200, the department grew by 700 or more; there was too much bureaucracy.
I start to see the picture slowly turning in people’s minds, whether they be from school councils, or they are teachers or parents. There has been a lot of rhetoric over the last few years, and I will pick up on what the member for Barkly said earlier, that when you continue to talk down something people are involved in, whether it is teachers or students, they rightfully feel hard done by. They are part of a system you are telling them has failed.
That is exactly what has happened in the last few years with Labor’s attack on this government when all we are trying to do is improve things. Our sole focus has been to improve the outcomes of students in our classrooms. I asked a couple of years ago, if the previous government had left the Territory in a better financial position would we as a government have been forced to find as many savings as we did? The answer is no.
I put it to you like I put it to the member for Daly outside earlier, until we had to peel away the onion we did not know what was there. There is a heart like a golden nugget, and the education system in the Northern Territory is robust and full of passionate people. Over the last few years we have developed a solid framework to provide a solid education into the future, but it is continually bashed.
When talking about remote education and the results, you cannot gloat about the past or the results. It was raised a number of times, and it may have been member for Barkly – forgive me if it was another member. You raised NAPLAN as if we are using NAPLAN results as the only thing to judge results in remote communities. That is wrong because I, like you and others, do not think NAPLAN is the sole measure of whether a school is good or not.
There are many people I have worked with over the years that I formed the strong opinion that a solid education is made up of many things. The curriculum is but one; the quality of the school and the infrastructure are other things – the quality of the teachers, the pedagogy, and, of course, the outcomes. If a child feels secure in their environment that is a sign of a good school.
If you have a good school community, a good solid school council – there are so many ways to measure a good school. The member for Wanguri said – I think even the member for Nhulunbuy – press pause on this whole thing, talk to these people and have something in place that can be measured. That is exactly what we are doing. We want a system that can be better measured, but not like NAPLAN every year, or every two years for kids sitting it every second year. We want something that is measured weekly, even daily in some cases. The Direct Instruction model provides instant feedback into the classroom so teachers know that a child has fallen through the cracks. They know next week that the lesson needs to be revisited.
I also like the system because it is not dependent on somebody’s age. We, for so long, had a system in place where kids just rolled through and because they finished a year, next year they would go to the next class.
With Direct Instruction it does not have to be like that. Children only advance when they have learnt the lesson. They only advance when the teachers know they are ready and will understand the next lesson. It is a model, and I have said in this House many times, I was never wedded to a particular model. I am not like Lynne or Gerry, who are ex-teachers. I have never taught in a classroom. Those guys are experienced in the classroom, I am not. I am not wedded like someone wedded to a political party. I just know what is right and wrong, good or bad. What I have experienced is a scattergram approach to education in the NT for too long. There are too many schools doing it their own way – I am talking remote schools – and too many inconsistencies.
When you consider for one moment how transient our society is, especially our remote society, if you do things differently in various schools, what chances do those children have to keep up and stop from falling through the cracks? It is nearly impossible. If we use the same system in schools, lesson A becomes lesson B, becomes lesson C. No matter where that child ends up, whether it is in this school or that, the approach is consistent. These were the things we looked at to provide a consistent approach to education across the Northern Territory.
It is not about, as Labor would put it, saving money. Although, savings measures were applied right across this government because of the big need to get this budget back in order. But it has never been my focus as minister. My focus has been trying to break down education and understand it at its core to better understand what the needs are to improve it – to break it down to a structure that I understood, as someone from outside education, and to understand why people become wedded to certain methods of teaching or a particular program.
Why are some people so argumentative or emotional towards a particular way of doing something? You can only put that down to experience, the fact that person has experienced something in their life that demonstrates something clearly. Well, hello; I had the same experience. It was when I visited north Queensland and I saw Noel Pearson’s academies. I saw for the first time Indigenous children engaged in learning. The behaviour issues were not, as somebody on the other side mentioned, taking up 90% of the teacher’s time. The behaviour was not an issue in north Queensland because the children were engaged.
I asked the question there, ‘What is your policy on discipline because whatever it is, it is working?’ They said they look at a lack of discipline as a lack of engagement, and they used the program to engage the child therefore there was not a discipline issue. The child was engaged, interested in learning and being inspired by their own learning. Their teachers were inspired by the results from these children and that is what brought them back time and time again, teachers who had left the system only to come back a couple of years later, because they had gone into mainstream and realised that it was not all it was cracked up to be. What was really fascinating and engaging was what was occurring with Direct Instruction.
It is just one method of teaching, but I have also put it in the program – as the opposition has asked for – that we regularly test the system. If we got two or three years into this program and it was not working, I would be the first to stand up and say, ‘Here is the sword; drop it.’ We would not continue with something that was going backwards, but I honestly do not think it will. The longer we run this program, the clearer it will become. I think there will be other more urban schools lining up to take on some of these methods.
You have to remember that this was never about duplicating exactly what was happening in north Queensland here in the Northern Territory. It was looking at the best parts of what they do there and we do here to make sure we can make a program robust enough, which will meet our critical needs, that is Territorian and is not just somebody else’s program. That was important to me.
While we are focusing on writing and mathematics; for the majority of the school day things will always run as they have. Teachers will still have the opportunity to demonstrate their flair and real passion for education. It will not be as controlled as Direct Instruction.
I am prepared to make a deal with the opposition that we stop rubbishing our schools and systems, start supporting what we are trying to do in the Northern Territory, and stop with the rhetoric. The member for Nhulunbuy said this is a pseudo way of closing down homelands and outstations. Not once have we talked about closing down schools anywhere. The only one who ever spoke about closing down schools was the Labor opposition.
Last year they continually talked about us closing down schools and cutting the guts out of things. It is wrong, and we proved them wrong time and time again.
This brings me back to my final point which is – the message is finally getting through to the general public. They are over the rhetoric. They are starting to understand that the castles have not fallen down, that children going to public schools are getting a decent education and education is improving in the Northern Territory. Our results and attendance rates are going up, and we have great passionate teachers.
For goodness sake, give me one thing, that is, a tick for trying to improve something I am passionate about, which is remote education. If we do not get this right and fix this mess we have – and I am not just talking about education, I am talking about all the remote issues across not only the Northern Territory but also across Australia – these kids will be another generation lost to more passive welfare and a life without real opportunities. It starts in the classroom. We can give these kids a great education. It does not matter where you will live in the Territory, you can get it.
Secondly, let us start to look at other ways we can support our communities so these kids can have a real pathway, not to just training, but to real jobs, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory.
I am passionate about Indigenous education. The easy thing would have been to give up and say, ‘No, it is too hard’. I will not. We all should take a bipartisan approach to this, get on and commit to this for the next 10 years.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Defence and the Northern Territory
Continued from 26 March 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I contribute to this important statement about the Australian Defence Forces and the work they do in the Northern Territory. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House because, as he is well aware, the opposition stands united with the government in supporting our Defence Forces.
So often when we speak about Defence Forces in this House, we speak about the strategic and economic benefits and importance of Defence in the Northern Territory. We do not stress enough the importance of the social element our Defence Forces play in the Territory. Those men and women serving in the Defence Forces and their families bring a wonderful element to our community. That is something I will touch on later in this statement.
The Northern Territory has had a long-standing and proud relationship with the Australian Defence Forces. As the Chief Minister said in this statement, the Northern Territory’s relationship with Defence started in 1824 when HMAS Tamar transported Royal Marine sailors and civilians to establish Fort Dundas on Melville Island.
We stand in parliament on a site that was bombed during World War II. Darwin and the Top End were at the front line of the defence of Australia in World War II. Throughout history our strong Defence presence and history has helped build some of the character of the Northern Territory.
Resilience is often the word that comes to mind when people speak about the people of the Top End. Everything people endured in the Second World War with the bombing of Darwin and later Cyclone Tracy helped strengthen the Territory’s famous resilience – going through hardship and uncertainty. Many of us here, like many people in the community, have strong relationships, ties and family histories that date back to the Defence Forces.
I have said in this parliament before that I do not think I would be standing here today if it was not for my grandfather serving in the Australian Army during the Second World War. He drove trucks for the Army and saw plenty of destruction during that time and the bombings here.
It is those stories and that history of my own family which bought my father to the Territory, where he met my mother who was serving in the Air Force in Darwin.
Look around this parliament. Here we have had reservists from the Defence Forces, and I have heard other members of parliament read their family histories of the service their relatives have given to the Defence Forces.
We all stand united and firm in the belief that our men and women who serve in the Defence Forces do an incredible job; they make incredible sacrifices for this nation. We have a long history where the ultimate sacrifice has been made for the protection of this country, and today we stand firmly with them to keep supporting them in the future.
Looking at that military history, the Territory children of today feel a strong sense of support for Defence Force personnel, not just because they live with them – we have many Defence families in the Northern Territory – but because it is something we see for ourselves and the role the Northern Territory had in the defence of Australia.
As children growing up we used to play on the gun turrets at Casuarina Beach, and you also see them at East Point. We have military tunnels in the city, and if you go through Charles Darwin National Park you will see plenty of military sites. There is the Adelaide River War Cemetery, and if you drive along the Stuart Highway you will see what is left of the old air strips.
We see that history around us. We need to preserve those sites and ensure they are taken care of so future generations understand the sacrifice the Defence Forces made on the front line defending this country in the Second World War.
Many of our personnel serve in deployments. They still face the possibility of serving this country and protecting it or training other nations. It was not long ago that we deployed forces to Timor Leste, Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are seeing more worrying activity in those parts of the world.
Families understand that as part of signing up they are likely to be deployed to tough and trying environments overseas – that is the reality of signing up – and it makes your heart go out to these families even more when you know the incredible sacrifice they make on a personal level.
I have no doubt Territorians appreciate the Defence Forces and the work they do, but if you go beyond the appreciation, the reality is, they also bring some very important economic benefits to the Territory. Defence presence plays an important part in our economy and figures significantly in the number of people we have here. Going through the budget books you see one-tenth of Australia’s Defence Force lives in the Territory, around 4900 people. That equates to 14 000 people when you include the families of serving members. Two-thirds of people are from the Army, with one-fifth in the Air Force and the rest of the personnel in the Navy. Some 3% of the total Defence reserve lives in the Northern Territory. However, this has dropped since the peak of 7234 people in 2009-10, and we have seen somewhat of a decline with the relocation of the 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment.
Defence spends a huge amount in the Territory every year. We saw that increase by 10.6%, or $144m, to a $1.5bn total in 2013-14, so we are talking about significant expenditure in our economy. Defence spending accounted for about 6.9% of the Territory’s gross state product in comparison to 1.9% of the Australian gross domestic product. Again, you can see what a vital role Defence plays in the local economy.
Some significant projects are coming up, which means we will see further expenditure in the local economy. We want to see these important Defence projects occur, but also see local people and businesses benefiting as much as possible.
We are seeing the $470m upgrade to the RAAF bases at Tindal and Darwin to support the new Joint Strike Fighters. Also, if you look through the budget books you can see in the pipeline numerous projects are being considered by the Commonwealth, including base developments of Darwin, RAAF Tindal, Robertson and Larrakeyah Barracks, the East Arm hard and barge ramp project, the refurbishment of health facilities at Robertson and Larrakeyah Barracks and facilities to support the US Force posture initiative.
One thing we have become very used to, particularly us Darwinites, is the sound of the jets roaring over during Pitch Black. I remember as a child how often at the netball courts you could not hear the umpire’s whistle on a Thursday night when we had exercises in town. I have grown very fond of seeing the exercises here. I am in awe of the technology and skill of the personnel involved. It is also good to know we are playing our part in the important role of making sure our Defence Forces are ready and are able to do the essential training and preparation they need. When I hear the roar of the engines I do not get too upset. I tend to watch the planes fly over.
It plays an important part of our local economy too. When exercises of this size come to town it can also make a significant contribution. In 2012 that contribution was in the vicinity of around $25m to the local economy. I applaud the Defence Forces for Pitch Black. I was with the member for Nightcliff last year at the Pitch Black Open Day. That has become a wonderful community event. It opens the RAAF Base for people to see these magnificent planes, jets and jet fighters, show the kids around and have a chat to the personnel involved. It is a wonderful thing they do. When you look at how many people attend, it goes to show how popular it is with locals and how much people appreciate the services of the RAAF. I am looking forward to attending it and seeing it for many years to come. I am sure it inspires many young people to go down the career path of joining the RAAF or the Defence Forces, which is wonderful.
Last time this statement came before the House, it was around the time when the government had announced the appointment of the Defence Advisory Board, as part of their work in ensuring the Territory gains as much as possible from strategic Defence investment flowing through to businesses. Those sorts of initiatives are something we welcome. We look forward to hearing more about the work that board is doing and the outcomes it is achieving. As I said before, we want to ensure the community benefits as much as possible from these big projects and that jobs flow on to Territorians and local businesses.
An area where we have seen some significant expenditure over time – and Defence is playing a huge role in this – is land release. Through Defence Housing Australia, Defence makes a very large contribution to the local housing construction and maintenance industries, as well as for local contractors able to secure Defence housing work. There are around 2000 Defence housing properties. I very proudly represent the two Defence suburbs of Muirhead and Lyons where many Defence families live.
My husband works for Defence constructing houses, so he always pays great interest to the work happening. He spends a lot of time in Katherine at Tindal, with the redevelopments and housing construction there. There is significant housing work happening, which is great for local businesses. It is great for the families because Defence personnel who come here have quality housing to live in and raise their families. When that stock is disposed of, local people can purchase it. I do not think that is a bad thing.
We welcome what Defence brings to our community socially. In Muirhead and Lyons we have a large number of Defence families. To see the couples, parents and their children, and what they bring to our local community, is wonderful. Wanguri school is a fantastic example of what Defence families bring. There is a large number of Defence children attending that school; it has been great for other children to get to know more about what our Defence services do.
I have never seen any school’s Anzac Day or Remembrance Day assemblies like the ones at Wanguri school. They get the mums and dads who are serving involved. It is a wonderful assembly and an example for the children. They learn a lot more about our military history and the sacrifices mums and dads in the Defence Forces make. It is also good because the students with parents who are serving get plenty of support from those around them.
Socially, Defence has also been a very healthy contributor to our local sporting communities. I saw plenty of the Defence girls in my football days who joined the club, and netball as well, when they came to Darwin. You meet some great people. The only shame is that sometimes they are only here for a couple of years and then they are off to their next deployment or posting, but they are a wonderful part of our community; there is no doubt about that.
With the recent commencement of the Marine Corps and the rotations in the Top End, we have seen wonderful benefits to the community, aside from the strategic and military benefits. They have gone above and beyond their duty to participate in the Territory, to support our Defence Forces and go into schools. We saw them at big community events like the City to Surf and the footy to support the Thunder. It has been wonderful to see how enthusiastically they have embraced the Territory, just as we have happily embraced their presence here. They have made a fantastic contribution and it is ongoing.
Since this statement was made I have picked up the shadow responsibilities for Defence support. It is an area in which I am very much looking forward to doing more work and seeing what we can do to further support Defence Force personnel and the development of Defence investment and strategic work in the Northern Territory. We have a very long, proud history of supporting the Defence Forces in the Territory. We have been on the front line of this nation’s defence. The Territory will continue to play a very important role in the future of the defence of this country, but also in the strategic investment in Defence and the development of our forces.
Territorians are very welcoming of the personnel who come here. They make a wonderful contribution to our community. It is vital we continue to strongly support Defence and ensure positive flow-on effects from strategic Defence projects and investment are maximised for jobs, local businesses and families.
I thank the Chief Minister for making this statement. The Defence Forces are critical to the future of the Northern Territory and we will continue to do what we can to support them.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I too support the Chief Minister’s statement on our Defence Forces. I feel that my contribution will be similar to the member for Wanguri’s, but in a slightly different context ...
Ms Fyles: Different suburbs.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Yes, different suburbs. I have only wonderful things to say about Defence’s contribution to the Northern Territory, particularly Palmerston.
Our contemporary Defence Force has had a long and close connection to Palmerston over the last 23 years. Many Palmerston residents will remember that in 1992 we were given an opportunity that changed our culture, growth and prosperity in the Palmerston community forever, with the Army coming to Palmerston. It was a very exciting time and one that was met with quiet caution by some quarters of our community, as we did not know what type of change it would bring. It is safe to say that 23 years later we can happily reflect that the change has been positive in every way.
In 1992 1st Brigade was established and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment moved from Holsworthy Barracks to Darwin, making it the first post-war combat unit to move to Darwin. I can remember my dad taking my sister and I on a big bicycle ride from Gray to Robertson Barracks to see what was being developed. It was a very exciting time for our community and one we can proudly reflect on.
The 2nd Cavalry Regiment took its engagement with the community very seriously and worked hard to earn its social licence in Palmerston, which has very much set the tone of Palmerston’s bond with the Defence Forces over the last 23 years. That relationship has continued to this day.
Many Palmerston, Darwin and rural residents will also fondly remember the 1995 Freedom of Entry march in the city of Darwin. It was something many of us will remember because it had never happened before. I was so young; I cannot 100% remember my feelings at the time, but there was certainly a feeling of excitement. It was almost like a new chapter in our history.
We have seen 1st Brigade soldiers actively involved in peacekeeping in East Timor and the Solomon Islands and, of course, in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few. As a community we have farewelled and welcomed back thousands of Defence personnel over the last 23 years, and have mourned the loss of those who never returned; lest we forget.
As 1st Brigade has grown, so has the number of Defence families in Palmerston. I am proud to say the people of Palmerston have welcomed that growth over the last couple of decades. For our community, that meant an influx of young people, children and families, and the infrastructure improved and grew with it. We saw the building of Defence childcare centres, suburbs and houses, increases in school numbers, and additional sporting teams and clubs. Our community blossomed and grew as a result of that.
It also facilitated the development of key infrastructure, including the Palmerston RSL. In 2007 the RSL moved into the Palmerston Sports Club, which has been fantastic for our community. It is right in the centre of town and I do not think there is a single person in Palmerston who does not know where it is. The Palmerston RSL is a pillar of strength in our community. It very diligently prepares ANZAC commemorations in a way I believe other cities are jealous of. The Defence connection in Palmerston has reinvigorated the people of Palmerston’s commitment to ANZAC ceremonies.
In Palmerston we commemorate the start of the day with the gunfire breakfast at the Palmerston Sports Club. It is amazing to see how many people attend, even though it is at 4 am. The numbers increase every year and it is no surprise that our young ANZACs – our new war veterans – are proudly represented there. The gunfire breakfast is followed by the dawn service, which is attended by thousands. That number is growing yearly, particularly this year, being the centenary. It was astonishing to see the number of people gathered around the Palmerston Cenotaph. It was a truly humbling experience.
We have high a participation of community groups and schools in the dawn service, the morning service and the march. The dawn service is followed by the RSL’s breakfast at the RSL where hundreds of Palmerston residents join in a gathering which is quite unlike anything else. It is a tribute to our Defence community, the RSL and the people of Palmerston.
At the morning march you will see many of our schools, our Defence personnel and now the Marines, who have been a wonderful addition to the Palmerston community. The Marine Rotational Force has been the next chapter in our defence expansion in Palmerston and they, just like the soldiers at 1st Brigade, have made a wonderful contribution to the Palmerston community. They have earned their social licence to be there and have been welcomed with open arms.
I was thinking back to what the member for Wanguri said about growing up in the Territory. Our history goes past the Defence involvement with Palmerston. Each year, we gather to commemorate and remember the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942. When you grow up in the Northern Territory, you walk on the beach at East Point, play in gun turrets and have this wonderful opportunity to interact and be hands-on with our military history. That is a constant reminder of the battles we have fought and those we may very well face in the future.
Exercise Pitch Black is, for me, as a born and bred Territorian, a very exciting time and one I have loved ever since I was a little girl. When I went to Kormilda College, right across from it on Berrimah Road was a business. I am sure it is still there. There is a car with a dummy bomb sticking out of it because during one of the exercises it fell from a plane and landed in that person’s business. No one was injured and it is a funny urban tale now, but like the member for Wanguri, for me, the jet noise and helicopters are all part of being Territorian.
The presence of Defence in Palmerston has seen many different areas of the community flourish. That includes the Army Cadets. I was a member of Army Cadets from Year 9 right through to my first year at university. It is a wonderful recreational activity for young people. The way cadets in Palmerston got to be part of what 1st Brigade was doing was really special. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment formed a really strong relationship with the cadets in the late 1990s and that has continued, even though 2nd Cavalry are no longer in Darwin.
On an everyday level, my office is right next door to the MVR so we have army trucks, cars and all sorts of things coming in and out of our car park. It is wonderful and funny at the same time to see massive camouflage painted vehicles with L plates on the front. It is fantastic to see that Defence integration in our suburbs and our community. I do not think anyone can say they have driven down the Stuart Highway and not come across a military convoy or something similar that has not taken their attention.
I remember one time I was here on university holidays and I was meeting my parents, but some of my family had gone to Litchfield for the day. My sister, cousins and I thought we would meet them later. By the time we had reached Batchelor at the rail crossing, the Army was doing an exercise and had taken over the whole of the town. We drove into Batchelor and were met by six ASLAVs, camouflage soldiers with rifles and the whole works. We were pulled over, asked for ID and interrogated briefly before we were allowed to join my family for our picnic in Litchfield. Some of those memories are ones I cherish the most. It is great that Defence can go into a little town like Batchelor and run such an important exercise that is embraced by the community.
The RAAF open day is always a day on families’ calendars. It has not changed much except the technology is a lot more hi-tech. It is an event we all know, love and remember.
In Palmerston – going back to the Northern Territory’s military history – we have 16 Mile camp, a relatively new establishment located in Johnston next to MacKillop College. It is really fortunate because MacKillop College is such a wonderful school. It houses many recreational clubs and groups, including scouts and dukes. The 16 Mile camp is utilised by young Territorians, and so represents a very special connection with our community. The camp was first occupied prior to the Japanese raids but has remained very important.
I commend the previous government for the walk they established. They did very well with the erection of silhouettes of soldiers in the bush – you can still see the gun pits, a lot of memorabilia and remains of the camps. It is a wonderful piece of the Northern Territory’s history literally in the backyards of the people of Johnston. I am really pleased our community groups have access to that. Every day people who walk their dogs interface with our history and Defence connection.
Durack and Durack Heights are major suburbs in my electorate. That was a predominantly Defence Housing Australia stronghold for many years. As a result we saw an influx of Defence family students going to Durack Primary School. That Defence presence made a huge impact on that suburb. We are starting to see that change slowly now, due to the expiration of the DHA 10-year leases, but Durack traditionally was very much a Defence stronghold in the Palmerston area. As a result, Durack Primary School has had a Defence school transition aid for the entire time the school has been there.
The Palmerston Senior College is now an independent public school and takes that responsibility seriously. It wanted to come out this year and show that it is an educational institution which belongs to the community. The students and the teachers planned a wonderful Anzac Day centenary commemorative event on top of their usual ceremony, which they do very well. They did a large amount of fundraising to support a project for an Anzac garden and a memorial sculpture dedicated to the Anzacs. They also had exhibitions and a wartime experience display that members of the public could enjoy. I thank Bev Crawford, the Defence transition mentor at Palmerston Senior College, for her contribution to that. I also thank the students. I was very pleased to support them with their Bunnings Anzac barbecue, which raised money to go towards their memorial garden and sculpture.
I mentioned the Marines rotation. In my first year of being the member for Drysdale I approached the Marines and asked if we could foster a relationship between them and Gray Primary School. I thank Lieutenant Colonel Puglisi for welcoming and honouring that relationship. Three years later, Gray and the Marines still have a relationship. The Marines visit Gray Primary School every Friday and do a great deal of mentoring work with the Year 5 students, which is having an enormous impact. The kids think the world of the Marines. They are such good role models. They do all sorts of things together, from sports to reading, to other literacy-based activities. It is having a very positive impact.
When I say the Marines have earned their social licence, they have come into Palmerston with open arms. They run the breakfast club program at Moulden Park Primary School. This year we have also seen them go to Rosebery, so they are not shy in their community engagement. The way they engage with locals on Anzac Day was fantastic. It revived the way we engage with the military and brought the people of Palmerston closer to the meaning of the USS Peary memorial. It has been a lovely recognition both ways between the two cultures and contributions to Defence in the Territory.
The Kids Brigade Child Care Centre is also in my electorate. A couple of years ago we did a backyard blitz with ADF personnel and the Marines. That was great. These are just some of the examples of how Defence does such a fabulous job in our community.
This year, for the Centenary of Anzac, the RSL also held a youth vigil, which was supported by our Defence Force. It was a wonderful tribute from young people, including cadets, to the Anzacs.
Whilst the Defence presence in the Northern Territory – especially in Palmerston – has changed, we continue to welcome those changes and embrace what Defence offers to the Northern Territory. It started in Palmerston with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and they are now gone. That is not the end of our connection with the 1st Brigade. The Chief Minister, in his statement, mentioned the launch of the Strategic Defence Advisory Board, which is another great initiative that ensures the Territory is actively pursuing opportunities for Defence industries and support.
I was also pleased when the Veterans Support portfolio was announced, and I commend the Chief Minister for recognising it, and minister Chandler for his support of the ‘Bring Them Home’ campaign. It is pleasing to see that fallen soldiers who are buried in Malaysia will be repatriated to Australia.
That was all I wanted to say on Defence other than that the Centenary of Anzac is at the forefront of our minds. The Chief Minister’s Anzac Spirit Study Tour, which sent Amy Chittick, Juliette Parsons, Jack Lake, Stevie Pocock, Robert Lee and Corporal Cynthia Gilchrist over to Gallipoli for Anzac Day was one of the many Centenary of Anzac commemorations our government is supporting.
In conclusion, I thank the Defence Force for its long-term vision for and contributions to the Northern Territory. Palmerston has long benefited enormously from having Robertson Barracks and that close connection with Defence. I cannot imagine Palmerston without it. We would be a completely different place. I hope that in the future we can continue to have that close symbiotic relationship because the people of Palmerston very much value and appreciate their contributions. We respect enormously what they do. They have a job not many people put their hand up for, and we cannot thank them enough for having the courage, strength and leadership to do what they do every day. On behalf of the people of Drysdale, I thank our Australian Defence Forces, particularly those stationed at 1st Brigade. We look forward to further enhancing that connection between Defence and the Palmerston community.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, as my contribution to the Chief Minister’s statement on Defence, I preface my remarks by reading from the Tennant & District Times newspaper from Friday 27 June 2014. The article is titled ‘Barkly communities reap rewards from soldiers’ stint’ and was written by the owner/editor Jasmin Afianos.
- More than 120 soldiers have moved into Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek to help improve environmental health and living conditions.
They have already been put to work with construction on a community centre and workshop at Wutunugurra under way.
Roadworks at Canteen Creek have also begun.
Additionally, a welding training course will see participants gain accreditation for their skills.
The group is honing their new found expertness by working on the production of 200 bunk beds that will be distributed throughout the community.
Doctors and nurses have teamed up with the Territory Government’s medical clinic staff and will work on a range of health programs.
Already they have conducted health checks on all the school-aged children at Canteen Creek.
The soldiers, from the 6th Engineer Support Regiment in the Northern Territory, are working in the remote areas southeast of Tennant Creek as part of the Army’s Aboriginal Community Assistance Programme (AACAP).
Each year, the collaborative partnership between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Army delivers improvements in selected communities through infrastructure, vocational skills and training and complementary health care services.
Overseeing the works in the two Barkly communities is Major Henry Stimson who says the soldiers – who will be there until the end of October – have developed a great rapport with the locals.
‘The response has been excellent, we’ve been made to feel really welcome here,’ he said.
‘This is a great opportunity to deliver our skills and to get to know people in the community.
‘We’re already big Saints fans.
‘Our soldiers went in to Tennant Creek last weekend to support the Saints at the Lightning Carnival and they had a great time.’
‘The players loved having the extra supporters cheering them on.’
Officially welcoming ceremonies are planned in both Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek in the coming weeks.
That was last year. Those welcoming ceremonies took place and there were also ceremonies to farewell the soldiers of that incredible unit, the Australian Army 6th Engineer Support Regiment, working in remote communities as part of the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program (AACAP). I was invited to visit ‘Camp Brit’ as it was called and toured an incredible army camp; the sort of military base you see on the national news about Afghanistan or Iraq with the overseas deployments.
I will never forget the tour of the hospital. It had a full surgical ward that was administering to a number of children in emergency situations while the unit was camped – independently, self-sufficiently – on Kurundi station just south of Epenarra’s boundary.
It is a great example for the Chief Minister, the government, and parliament to look at as a creative partnership between Australian Defence and regional and remote Aboriginal communities. It works really well.
There was surgeon on that team. I talked extensively with him, as did my wife Dawn, about the history of the school at Epenarra and the community we moved to, lived in and loved. The surgeon took a great interest in the Indigenous culture and said he was going to come back. He wanted to come back and work in Indigenous health.
I bumped into him this year in the Tennant Creek supermarket and the first thing he said to me was, ‘I told you I would come back’. That is a surgeon we recruited back to the Northern Territory who came through that AACAP program.
It was amazing to see the women’s welding program. Anybody that knows the Alyawarre people at Epenarra, knows they are very strong in their culture but very shy, so for those women to enrol in and work through a welding program to produce work for families in the communities was outstanding. This came about due to the great relationship with the Australian Army.
It is good to hear about that highly sophisticated presence in the Northern Territory. We should also be looking at these creative projects that can come about when we have input from the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Army, and partnerships with the Northern Territory government. The infrastructure alone was phenomenal. To see that in action with local people working with those soldiers was incredible. For me it was a dream come true. We are talking about eight months; it was a very long-standing relationship, with communities being mentored and receiving education and awareness programs that do not come in that form every day.
The Canteen Creek community was involved in a civil works project that laid bitumen road. It created excellent dust suppression, as well as links to the government-funded airstrip and connecter road that is three years late but will take place, fingers crossed. The project had a drastic reduction in budget 2015-16; however, I will stay positive because this is a positive story.
Minister for Local Government and Community Services, I call for your help, because the infrastructure is outstanding; however, we have hit a bit of a lull. The wind has dropped and we are having trouble moving forward with a community centre and a workshop. There is a state-of-the-art workshop and beautiful community centre in the middle of Walungurru community but now no real plans of how they will operate.
I am asking the minister for Local Government to please come and visit. I will give you a ride out there; I will take you personally. We need to find that partnership model. I suggest the Barkly Regional Council would be the logical partner, but we need to get that infrastructure into community life, functional and active.
The Epenarra men are famous for their motor cars and their bush mechanics. This workshop is now ready to not only deal with the community but also offer opportunities for training, employment and regional economic development.
Chief Minister, it is a great story. I would love the Minister for Local Government and Community Services to come and look at how we can progress this infrastructure. The infrastructure in the school was very easy to incorporate into the Education department operations. That is a great example. It has students working in there every day and it is a good story. However, we are now looking at incorporating the community centre and workshop. The civil construction work at Canteen Creek was outstanding and has really influenced that community with aspirants who want to work in that field. We have some very keen local people, so let us make sure we get them engaged in this airstrip when we finally see it get off the ground.
It is good to share stories in the parliament. The member for Drysdale brought back some great images of Kangaroo ‘95 for me. At that time the principal of the Borroloola Community Education Centre – we had the orange people take over the town. They took over the McArthur River Mine airstrip and then Borroloola. Then the Australian regular Army came in to save us. We had pitched battles going on.
One I will never forget was a rodeo weekend in my back yard. We had the Calvert Hills mob visiting with all their trucks, dogs and belongings, and then the Australian Army pursued the orange people – essentially crack SAS officers – right through my back yard with my wife in the middle of it, guns blazing, armoured personnel carriers charging and soldiers screaming. The SAS went over the back fence and through a rock retaining, which you would not believe possible. I would have broken my neck if I had gone near it in the dark. These guys disappeared as they were pursued by our Australian army. It calmed the town of Borroloola like I had never seen it before. I have been associated with that area for a long time. I have never seen so much social calm as Kangaroo ‘95 produced, where we had Australian soldiers strolling through our local supermarket with automatic weapons hanging off their shoulders.
It was a great partnership. It shows a creative way to look at defence. I say to the Prime Minister, with ranger programs and programs on country, let us look at Defence Force appropriation. Not only does it give our service personnel that expert training in the field to hone their skills, it also partners with regional and remote communities that can deliver outcomes like the Wutunugurra AACAP program or even better. There are unlimited possibilities when we look at appropriations with existing budget lines. For the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister and everybody down the food chain from there, let us see what can do in Defence to push outside traditional boundaries.
It was good to hear the member for Drysdale talk about the 17 Mile heritage camp. That was something I was privileged to be involved in as the previous Minister for Lands and Planning. As we accelerated that land release right through Palmerston east and set up Johnston stage 1A and1B, Johnston stage 2, the master plan suburb of Zuccoli, and then continued that record land release, the heritage values came to the fore in that area. It was great to see how the developers, government and the department worked together to create what the member for Drysdale rightly described in her contribution to the debate.
It is a fantastic area that reflects our WWII heritage, an area that is back to back with a new high school – Mackillop Catholic College – where students can be part of that incredible history and the residents, too, can share that open space with the added heritage value.
I congratulate the CLP for continuing with the record land release program in Palmerston initiated by the previous Labor government. It is good to see they were wise and continued that program. It was a positive outcome when you can consider the heritage and cultural values, the residential outputs and the modern urbanism.
I will give a very interesting example of dealing with Defence. At that time we were also exploring the possible use of Commonwealth land. There is some significant Commonwealth land adjacent to Berrimah Farm. As a government and the Department of Lands and Planning, we were negotiating with Defence about the possibilities of releasing that land for development of the Northern Territory. The negotiations were very complex and are ongoing. I urge the Chief Minister to continue that great work of the previous Labor government because some of that infrastructure is quite aged now and Defence is not so interested in some of it.
There are other areas that are highly sophisticated technical installations. One example of that is the very sophisticated signal and communication infrastructure located on the Howard Peninsula. The Australian Defence Force was very concerned about the building of the Darwin Correctional Precinct, a modern correctional facility in the tropics featuring a lot of metal and wire. The reason for that is the ventilation in the infrastructure for Corrections. It was a very sensitive series of negotiations. I thank the Australian Defence Force because in the end, the Labor government was able to deliver the $567m Darwin Correctional Precinct. The $567m figure is clearly visible on budget papers from last year. When that figure shifted off the CLP government’s budget papers, it gave them quite a stimulus kick in regard to telling the story of an improved fiscal position.
That $567m Darwin Correctional Precinct incorporates a highly-specialised forensic mental health unit – it is a brilliant, open security residential unit that underpins the current minister for Corrections’ Sentenced to a Job program – and a purpose-built main area that supports rehabilitation and training. It delivers the most amazing efficiencies to save the government money in the future, because it is purpose-built. The old Berrimah prison was way past its use-by date. It needs to be bulldozed and I question any minister who is continually spending money on razor wire and more bars in a facility that has a new purpose for the Northern Territory, which is to be released as new land.
One thing never mentioned by the Chief Minister when he rants and raves and tries to cut the one liners – and one of the reasons that people do not believe you anymore, Chief Minister – is the prison’s public-private partnership. When Territorians hear about this billion dollar figure, you have to be straight with them. You have to start telling the truth, because Territorians demand the truth, and the truth is that the public-private partnership was negotiated over 30 years and it delivers a partnership that takes care of repairs and maintenance of that facility for 30 years. That is good value for Territorians and the best way to engage in mega infrastructure projects. That is exactly what the Labor government did.
The Chief Minister tries to run down the previous Labor government in a cheap shot manner in Question Time. That is $567m for a correctional services precinct, not a prison, and I encourage anybody to look at that precinct. What is relevant to this debate are the sensitive negotiations that went on with the Department of Defence that allowed us to build in that area. I thank them for that, because they understand this outcome is about trying to turn around the lives of the most disadvantaged Territorians. That is a clear alternative the Labor government is presenting – trying to turn around the lives of the most disadvantaged Territorians.
When you talk to our highly specialised correctional services officers, who have had experience with some of the most serious criminals across our nation during their service in other states, they will tell you the Territory needs to have a clear focus on rehabilitation, training and ways to address offending behaviour. We have a host of people here who should not be in gaol; that is the clear difference. We have a host of people in the Northern Territory who need support networks before they end up in gaol. Now we are seeing the gaol overflowing. The minister has carriage of that portfolio and the lives of the most disadvantaged Northern Territorians.
It has been good to talk about Defence. I conclude my remarks with what we need to revisit. We had very extensive cadet programs and NORFORCE programs in places like Borroloola, Ngukurr and Tennant Creek. This represented a period in the 1990s when the Australian Defence Force came in and built infrastructure. They were so confident. We have lost momentum there.
When I was running juvenile diversion students through the Katherine rural college, I bumped into the Australian Defence Force, which was putting through soldiers into the NORFORCE training programs, targeting Indigenous recruits from the regions and remote areas. It was sensational to see their outcomes. They took an Army approach and delivered Army outcomes. It was highly disciplined and those young soldiers rose to the occasion.
I talked extensively with officers at that time about implementing some of their strategies into the juvenile diversion youth who we were working with in the rural operations program. We did that and you could see it worked, but it was nowhere near as powerful as what the Australian Defence Force delivered. They have the opportunity, and that program needs to be revisited. We need to get engaged with cadets and with NORFORCE. We need Aboriginal communities supported because not only is this a real outcome for communities, this is a real outcome training, employment and for our nation. If we are creative with our Defence budget and start to look at people on country who can deliver outcomes in Customs, biosecurity, Immigration and Defence, then we will achieve real partnerships.
I believe the Indigenous people are ready for it. Let us see, Chief Minister, how we can progress it.
Mr CHANDLER (Veterans Support): Madam Speaker, as Minister for Veterans Support and a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Army Reserves, I have an understanding of some of the challenges that veterans face, and I welcome this statement. I also have many Defence families in my electorate and I have often had opportunities to talk to them about their experiences.
The Chief Minister previously referred to the challenges faced by Defence members and their families. As a former Defence member I understand that an unavoidable part of service life involves moving interstate. That is exactly what brought me to Darwin in 1985. Between 20% to 30% of our Defence population rotate in and out of the Territory each year.
I am committed to helping Defence members and families get the most of their posting to the Northern Territory. The Territory has a unique lifestyle and the government wants to ensure postings here are as easy as anywhere else in Australia. We want to ensure Defence families understand services are available in the Territory, whether they be health or education services, sporting activities or that all-important shopping experience.
Already this year I have had the pleasure of attending both the Welcome to Tindal and Welcome to the Top End Expos. These important events are facilitated by the Defence Community Organisation (DCO) with significant support from the Northern Territory government. Both events were a tremendous success and I was privileged to spend time at the expos meeting both newly-arrived and existing Defence personnel and their wonderful families.
The Northern Territory government agreed to enter into a formal partnership with the Defence Community Organisation to conduct the 2015 Welcome to the Top End Expo as a pilot event for a potentially larger expo in 2016. This would see the expo opened up to other members of the Northern Territory community, in addition to the Defence community. Feedback received from many of the stallholders and the estimated 2000 visitors who attended was very positive. In particular, the choice of venue was highly praised, and thanks should be given to the Darwin Convention Centre for its support and preparation for the event.
I also thank the Northern Territory government agencies which exhibited at this year’s expo. It was particularly pleasing to see MVR represented and the facilities they provided for driver’s licence and registration changeovers were innovative, and very well received by our Defence families.
The Defence Support Division in the Department of Business is continuing to explore ways to further enhance our relationship with the Defence communities, such as meeting families at the Defence community centres to hear about their experiences of posting to the Northern Territory. The information gathered during these visits provides valuable feedback which can be used to develop further ways in which the government can support the Defence community.
The Northern Territory government was proud to support the recent Defence Community Organisation National Families Week function at the Territory Wildlife Park. I enjoyed attending this event and spending time meeting Defence families in the relaxed environment of the Wildlife Park to hear about their experiences of living in the NT.
I take my hat off to Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife staff for the way the Territory Wildlife Park is looking today. It is much improved on what it was even just a few years ago. It was a fantastic event and the park looked splendid. The day was a great success, with 543 Defence family members in attendance. This represents the highest attendance rate for this event so far.
One of the important sectors of the Defence community is our veterans. I have taken up the challenge of meeting with veterans and veteran organisations to better understand the issues affecting them in the Territory, and listen to how we can better support them.
Veterans have a range of unique support requirements. Many of these requirements are covered through federal government initiatives, but the Northern Territory government wants to ensure our veterans have access to the same full range of services as veterans in southern states.
In August I will attend the quarterly Department of Veterans Affairs NT Consultative Forum, where I am looking forward to learning more about the issues facing our veterans. In addition to this, the Northern Territory government Defence support unit will maintain representation at all future DVANT consultative forums to further strengthen the government’s links with our veterans and the organisations involved in supporting them.
The Chief Minister recently spoke in this House about supporting a campaign to repatriate the body of Corporal Reg Hillier, who was the sole Territorian killed in the Vietnam war. Corporal Hillier remains buried in Terendak Cemetery in Malaysia, along with 23 other Australian servicemen. One additional soldier remains buried in Kranji cemetery in Singapore, bringing the total number of servicemen from the Vietnam conflict still buried overseas to 25.
The campaign to return the 25 servicemen to Australia has been given the name operation Bring Them Home and has been strongly led by Mr Bob Shewring, the Vice President of the Veterans Association of Australia Northern Territory branch.
I recently met with Hon Michael Ronaldson, Minister for Veterans Affairs, to outline the Northern Territory government's support for the campaign and seek his agreement in making joint representations to the Malaysian and Singapore governments for their assistance to enable these repatriations to occur.
It was very pleasing that on 25 May Hon Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, announced that the Commonwealth government would offer to repatriate the remains of all Australians interred at Terendak and Kranji cemeteries, which of course includes Corporal Reg Hillier.
I thank the Commonwealth government for their assistance in making this important initiative a reality. I also congratulate, as I know others have, Mr Bob Shewring and others involved in the campaign to bring home these 25 Australians tragically taken in the service of our nation.
Defence members, families and veterans are an integral part of our community. The demands of military service can result in very special and unusual experiences, such as the opportunity to experience life in the Northern Territory. It can also deliver special challenges, as I was to learn when I first arrived in the Top End.
As minister for Veterans Affairs I am keen to work with these groups of people to understand their challenges and help them make the most of their time in this unique part of Australia.
The world of the Defence Force has changed since I was involved. It has been evolving ever since Australia had a Defence Force. Even in the few years since I have been out, I see the difference in housing and other accommodation on bases. I see the conflicts increase around the world and the one thing we can do as a community is always ensure our veterans are supported in any way we can.
On a recent study tour, I could not get over how in the United States they honour the past and support their veterans. Most of their museums and monuments are manned by the national park service who are all rangers and many of them are ex-veterans. What was more interesting was to learn how many veterans offer up their time as volunteers at these monuments around the country, whether it is the Arlington cemetery or the USS Intrepid, which is an aircraft carrier docked in the Hudson River in New York, hosting aircraft from all different eras right down to a Concorde. There is even a space shuttle on the main deck.
The most fascinating thing was to see how many veterans were there every day giving up their time to tell stories about their experiences in the defence of the United States. It made me think how we honour our past and how important Anzac Day is to Australia. When you start to marry up some of the issues many of our veterans face today – I am talking about the psychological issues. I thought about what they do in the United States. I wonder how much it assists those veterans with their state of mind to be able to tell their stories over and over again to tourists who come through. It must not only be a benefit to the attraction – that is the monument or museum – but also for those men and women who can relate their stories. What does it do for them mentally, how does it help them? The twinkle in their eyes clearly demonstrated they were enthusiastic. I might have been the thousandth person the veteran had told that story to, but I was a new person and they were telling me that story as if for the first time.
It made me think of the time we had the President of the United States in Darwin and how he stood by the gun of the USS Peary. I weighed that up against some of the monuments and museums in the United States that honour the past and veterans’ service. We can do so much more in this country. I wonder about the day when we can have not just one but a number of museums all interrelated and have some of our veterans working as volunteers and recounting their stories.
The USS Arizona has seven-and-a-half million people go through the gates every year. Many of them, interestingly enough, are Japanese. They are intrigued with Pearl Harbour and their country’s past, and wish to learn more about what happened. That same armada bombed Darwin 67 or 68 times. Yes, the Bombing of Darwin is now a day of national significance which we all should be very proud of, but at the end of the day, what could we do better to honour the past and in some way capitalise on the potential tourism?
What could we do in Darwin to improve our museums? How can we deepen interest in our past that would better attract people to the Northern Territory? We could put veterans in these museums to talk about their past. Of course not everybody would want to do that. There are people who do not want to talk about their past, but when you see the twinkle in someone’s eye, when you are told a story that could have been told for the thousandth time, that is doing something for them just as it did for me. It recounted a time in history they were part of, and were proud to impart. As a society we need to learn how to better support our veterans, and that might be one way we could do it.
I commend the statement to the House, and as the Minister for Veterans Support, I am honoured to talk about our veterans today.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I have heard many speakers talk tonight about things that have happened in the past and I will be doing the same thing, but my first connection with the Territory in a Defence capacity was that my father-in-law was a gunner on aircraft in the Royal Australian Air Force. He did multiple flights in and out. He does not remember which airstrips, but definitely some around the Top End. When my mother-in-law passed away, he then moved up here and spent his last ten or so years living with us. He loved it so much from when he was here during the war.
While I did not live here my connection goes back many years. It shows how far Defence goes back, as well as how that connection continues.
The other connection I have had with Defence directly is when we had the Daly River Mango Farm. We used to get regular visits from what I called the secret squirrels. These were people from some part of the armed forces who used to wait until we were on our own and give us some instruction on what sort of suspicious activity to look out for, especially during the Wet Season living in such an isolated place.
When doing the weather for the weather bureau, we were given big charts of aeroplanes to identify. I thought I had gone back 30 or 40 years to what they used to do in the war. If someone asked me to identify an aircraft in the air, I would have Buckley’s hope of doing that.
Prior to that, I had an experience when we were living in Nakara. This was a sad experience, but it highlighted to me how isolated people can be in the Territory and how I felt for some of the Defence people who rotate through the Territory and do not have their family here. There was a couple living across from us and the father was killed. The mother was with Coastwatch near Perth, so the two kids were left on their own. We were the only people who knew them. We had only known them for about 12 months. I had to go with the pastor and tell these kids their father had been killed. At that time I realised how hard it is for people in the Defence Force living so far away and not having family with them.
I heard Adelaide River mentioned by the member for Wanguri in regard to the graves there. Going there on Anzac Day this year was probably one of the best Anzac Days I have ever attended. It is a very moving place to experience Anzac Day. If anyone has not taken the opportunity to go there, I recommend it. It is a terrific experience and makes you think about how bad things were.
When we had the commemoration of the 70th Bombing of Darwin we recalled the last bombs ever dropped on Territory soil, which was at Adelaide River. That is an important thing for people to remember. We always commemorate the first, but we also need to commemorate the last.
In economic terms, Defence is one of the biggest contributors to the local economy after oil and gas. Many people do not realise that.
We have 1% of the Australian population here in the Territory, but almost 10% of Australia’s permanent armed forces, which is another interesting figure.
In my electorate this year, I think next month, is Exercise Talisman Saber, which will involve an invidious invasion of my electorate. The Labor Party does not have to worry about trying to take over Daly; the Army is going to do it for them. That will involve almost 30 000 personnel from Australia, the United States and a number of other countries.
The member for Karama was there where there was an amazing display of Indigenous servicemen. I do not think anyone has touched on – I may have missed it – the input the Indigenous people made in the service, especially in World War II. There was a fantastic display for six weeks. It was opened about three weeks ago; I am sorry I do not have the dates here. It is worthwhile having a look.
The display is from the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. It is on loan, with many pictures and paintings depicting the Indigenous involvement in World War II and other wars. It is worth visiting. I do not believe it will be displayed anywhere else in the Territory, so if you have the opportunity, go to Bachelor. It is a pity it is not late in the week, I could have told you to then go to the markets on the Sunday. They were last Sunday, so you dip out on that.
We have the Defence of Darwin experience in Darwin at East Point. This is consistently rated as the best visitor experience in Darwin. It is a fantastic display. If people have not been there, I would like them to go there. I encourage people to visit and hear the stories it tells, not only of the military, but of everyday Darwinians who lived through the bombings.
There is a hell of a lot to the military in the Northern Territory. It is not just what the personnel do, it is also what people can see of them and their contribution to the economy, along with their involvement with Indigenous communities.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank everybody who has provided a contribution to this Defence statement that was brought to the Chamber some time ago. There was a range of comments.
The member for Daly mentioned the population base of the Defence Force in the Territory, where the Territory is 1% of Australia’s population, but it represents about 6% of the population here from a Defence point of view, and contributes more than 6% to the gross state product of the Northern Territory’s economy.
There are a couple of key points which will be very prominent in how we move forward with Defence. Most notably, there will be the Defence White Paper due in the middle of this year, setting the strategic direction for the next 20 years and what that means for northern Australia. Whether or not all of those elements will be implemented in time, we will wait and see, but it will provide a roadmap of how the Australian government wishes to see Defence Forces here over time.
The North Australia White Paper will be released later this week, both in Canberra and Cairns, and will also set forth what the nation will look like in the future, how strategic investment will find its way into northern Australia and what that means for the Northern Territory. Combined with Defence, that will be very important.
There is no doubt people understand the changing nature of the geopolitical dynamics of the world and the tilt towards Asia. It is something that stands firmly in hand with Australians, the Australian government and Defence. As Territorians, we have a role to play in ensuring we provide an environment that is conducive to welcoming more Defence personnel from Australia and from foreign soils, and the activities and actions in place to deliver the strategic defence and humanitarian response requirements throughout our region. That is just not in relation to defence but other major Australian activities, most notably border protection through Customs operations.
There were some comments about NORFORCE and what that means from an Indigenous point of view. I have always been a great supporter of NORFORCE. I would like to see an expanded roll-out of it.
I remember when the Intervention started in 2007. For those couple of months that Mal Brough was in charge of the intervention before Jenny Macklin took over, there was a keen interest in expanding NORFORCE across the Northern Territory and significantly increasing the number of participants.
That is history, but I put the call out that NORFORCE can provide a great level of economic activity and add strength to the defence of the Northern Territory, albeit on a regional basis.
There has been much talk about investment opportunities coming to the Northern Territory and what that means from an economic point of view. I spoke in the statement about the Strategic Defence Advisory Board and how we are seeking to utilise that board for attracting investment, and operational opportunities for some of those investments, to the Territory and to Territory companies.
Historically, Canberra has been very poor at allocating those contracts to companies in the Northern Territory. You do not have to look far to see some of the service requirements for the ships that could have been handled in the Northern Territory but were sent interstate. It is not limited to Defence; there are many other federal government agencies which undertake that.
The Defence hub here was struggling for a long time but we now have some good investments outside of the wire which are now delivering services, plus what is happening inside the wire. They are providing jobs to Territorians for non-uniformed personnel and civilians, which is good for our economy.
The Strategic Defence Advisory Board had its first meeting in March this year and its next meeting will be in October this year. They will continue to take a proactive approach to representing the Northern Territory’s position with the federal government and Defence in Canberra, seeking additional economic opportunities whether they are economic from a contractual or other point of view, such as the development of additional training areas to support the Canberra class amphibious assault ships, which are looking for training grounds right now.
That is just one opportunity. I could talk about the economic impact of the expansion of Tindal Air Base to accommodate the joint strike fighters; how the project managers are advancing their consultations with the community for the 2016 works program to ensure local companies, particularly in Katherine but also in other parts of Territory, will get some of those contracts; what it means for the expansion of the roll-on roll-off barge facility at Robertson Barracks, and the like.
I was listening to the member for Wanguri talking about the US Marines. Before we talk about the Marines, we have to pay our compliments to the Australian Defence Forces and the work they do in the Northern Territory and Australia. Too often we go straight to thanking the Marines for their work and do not stop to think about the hard-working Defence Forces here.
There is a lot of discussion at the moment about the downsizing of NORCOM and its role in the Northern Territory. While they may be strategic Defence positions undertaken by Canberra, I have had an opportunity to speak with Defence Minister Kevin Andrews about some of those mechanisms
It is important we send a clear message that it is not about the number of people who work in the positions; it is about making sure we have key leadership criteria. Good people like Brenton Smythe continue to be employed in these roles and lead a strong area of command to ensure we have the defence of Northern Australia, the protection of some of our key economic assets, whether they are oil, gas, personnel or otherwise.
Some of the commentary about the downsizing of NORCOM is concerning. The movement of tanks to South Australia smells of political opportunism by the federal government, but I am assured that is not the case. It is more about appropriate management of strategic Defence assets and the ability to respond to the needs of the nation. I would hate to think the politics of South Australia are being put ahead of anything else, particularly because I do not believe South Australia has any concerns about an invasion from the penguins of Antarctica.
Defence will continue to grow and prosper. With the Marine rotation there are 1150 this year, rising to 2500. We are already seeing a permanent basing of some equipment to support the logistical supply chain and management, which is a smart move. A small number of Marines are here on a 12-month basis to make sure the administration, management and maintenance of many of those logistical challenges are being met and the relationship with the Australian Defence Force continues.
I would like to see an increased presence from the US Marines and US Defence to work more closely and strategically with the Australian Defence Force in the Northern Territory. If that means locating a few additional US Defence here to work closer with Australian Defence, so be it. That is something I would welcome with open arms.
We heard statements from other members in the Chamber about different operations that occur, whether it is Talisman Sabre or others. There is a growing opportunity for increased operations and cooperation with an expanded role in terms of nations, whether that is in operations or training opportunities. We can open our arms as a north Australian partner to provide support. Without going into too much detail, there has been a range of Defence training operations in the Northern Territory over the last couple of years. Some were public, some not. Those activities are welcomed by Territorians. It is an opportunity for us not only to get economic benefits, but to share skills, abilities and expertise with the Australian Defence Force and Territorians.
I will be very keen to provide updates from time to time about how things are progressing from a Territory point of view in regard to Defence – without breaching Defence or commercial confidentiality – and sharing that with the general public and parliament as much as possible; as well as providing updates about some of the investment opportunities so Territorians know exactly where things are up to.
I commend the statement to the House. I thank all contributors for their comments in regard to Defence within the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Report for Member for Arafura
Election Report for Blain By-Election
April 2014
Travel Report for Member for Arafura
Election Report for Blain By-Election
April 2014
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table a travel report for the member for Arafura pursuant to paragraph 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination. I also table the election report for the Blain by-election April 2014.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mismanagement of Licence Allocations by
Minister for Land Resource Management
Mismanagement of Licence Allocations by
Minister for Land Resource Management
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Barkly.
- Dear Madam Speaker
I propose for discussion this day as a definite matter of public importance the mismanagement of licence allocations under the Water Act by the minister for Land Resource Management and the implication of the Supreme Court’s decision stating the minister erred in not conducting a merits-based review of the Water Controller’s decisions.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in bringing this matter of public importance to the parliament, it is important to note this has been of great concern to the community of the Northern Territory, Northern Territory environment groups, Northern Territory lands councils, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, the NT Farmers Association, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, and Northern Territory pastoralists. Recently it has been subject to very stringent scrutiny by the Northern Territory Supreme Court.
This is definitely a matter of public importance, and it relates to shared concerns across the community and stakeholders regarding the CLP’s allocation of water – a critical resource owned by Territorians, and a natural resource – that has now become a failed process that risks future economic development, detriment to the environment, and abuse of one of the most fundamental of all natural resources.
I will quote from Australian case law and a summary in regards to water:
- In Australia, water is a valuable, finite and fluctuating resource. Rights to use water are of critical importance not just to those who are interested in particular water entitlements but to society as a whole. Access to water requires sustainable and efficient management that balances environmental, economic and social considerations. In the case of groundwater, it has come to be accepted that use should be limited by the sustainable yield from the aquifer system.
That is from Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 6) [2013] NSWLEC 73. I could go on and quote from further case law studies; however, in relation to this matter of public importance for Territorians, what we see is water being allocated in vast volumes outside of the nationally accepted water allocation framework. The framework is set out in the agreement on the National Water Initiative to which the Northern Territory is a signatory. Critical water allocations are now in the CLP’s hands based on politics, not best practice science.
Alarm bells began ringing when the CLP took government. It scrapped Labor’s initiatives, the Community Water Advisory Groups and the draft water allocation plans, and started handing out water licences with complete disregard to the proper processes. The CLP cited economic development as the agenda. It was a one-liner; it did not stand up, the community did not accept that position, the environment groups challenged it, as did the Lands Councils, the North Australian Indigenous Land Sea Management Alliance, Northern Territory Farmers Association, AFANT and the pastoralists. Finally, the Supreme Court has now overturned that process.
That is a very important note to make in a matter of public importance. The CLP government has been politicised by its own hand, and that relates to the first mega water licence handed out to a CLP candidate. The minister in question spoke recently after the Supreme Court decision, and I will quote from the Katherine Times article by Stephanie Zillman on 12 June 2015, and the story is titled ‘Negative water licence ruling ‘quite small’ issue, says minister’:
- No major concern: Despite a negative Northern Territory Supreme Court finding, Land Resource Management Minister Willem Westra van Holthe says he believes the granting of 18 water licences is being used as ‘political hay’ by opponents of the Giles government.
The minister might live to regret that statement. I can run through the list of stakeholders and communities that are very interested in this issue which are not labelled opponents or people creating political hay.
To quote from the Katherine Times again:
- The Northern Territory Supreme Court has ruled that not only did the Minister for Land Resource Management, Willem Westra van Holthe, follow incorrect procedures in granting 18 new water licences in 2014 but actually the Territory government has been getting it wrong since 1992.
There is a lot of correcting to do here, minister. We can both learn lessons in this debate. The lesson that must be learnt is to use correct science and not cheap politics.
The issue between the Labor and the Liberal approaches to the allocation of water is quite distinct. The minister and the CLP government continue to carp on about economic development, making quite shallow promises and very quick decisions. They kept changing the nature of the process to fit their agenda and politicised this debate because there were more CLP-aligned individuals that emerged who received water allocations.
I will quote from an article ‘Water Rights in Never Never Land: Tina McFarlane denies reports Stylo Station sold for $4m’ by Bob Gosford on 10 June 2015. To give some background to the House on Labor’s approach, I quote from Mr Gosford’s article:
- Meanwhile the then NT Labor government, in partnership with the National Water Commission, was busy preparing a water allocation plan for the Tindall aquifer, which, as noted by the planners, is highly valued for cultural, social and economic values and the.
- … numerous pristine groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs), including thermal pools, natural springs, large wetlands and the Roper River, which are highly valued by the Mataranka community and its visitors for their social, cultural, environmental and economic significance. The Tindall Limestone Aquifer which supplies these GDEs also provides a high-quality and easily accessible resource for expanding water consumptive industries including irrigation, pastoral operations and watering for campgrounds that is the economic backbone for the area.
- A key component of the planning process was the establishment of the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee (MWAC), which provided a forum for government planners to provide information to the local community and use expertise and local knowledge of locals
- … to make decisions based on recommendations into the community values and perception relating to water resource management. This ensures that environmental, cultural, residential, horticultural and public water supply decisions will be at the community’s best interest.
No small matter, minister, for stakeholders, residents and the community in general.
Let us look at the CLP’s approach to water licences. I am quoting from Mr Gosford’s article where he talks about:
- … NT Treasurer Dave Tollner, speaking about the decision to grant a water licence to the McFarlane’s, agreed that the decision ‘may look bad’ and told the ABC that:
- This is a signal that we are going to be much easier to deal with than the former government, who of course were puppets of the extreme greenies … It would be inconsistent of us to deny Stylo Station water simply because the owners have an association with the Country Liberal Party.
This is a matter to be revisited, and this is why we are speaking about this tonight in the parliament.
The CLP changed the game plan when they talked about their new and improved modelling of the Tindall aquifer. They started to create stories to try to justify their decisions when major stakeholders in the Northern Territory and the community were saying, ‘Stop. Get a hold of this. This is a finite resource. This is a serious issue. Do not rush into this. We all support economic development but do not rush into this. Take the time to get it right.’
The CLP has mismanaged a critical Northern Territory resource: water. There has been no transparency in the process. Water licences have been allocated outside of best practice science. There has been a rush for economic development, completely ignoring important stakeholders, communities, the public and the national water allocation process the Labor government signed up to.
The CLP process has only been the supported by those who have been receiving water licences. There was a groundswell of opposition about the way this was conducted from day one when this government took its place in 2012.
In relation to agriculture, the CLP government has over-allocated Top End water resources, issuing more than the recommended water licences in the Oolloo Dolostone, Katherine Tindall Limestone and Mataranka Limestone Aquifers. The alarm bells started ringing when the CLP government commenced handing out water licences in 2012 with complete disregard for proper scientific processes and the nationally accredited scheme.
The minister now retreats to the Our Water Future Discussion Paper: A Conversation with Territorians – in reality a dry argument, with him having already over-allocated a series of NT water licences. The minister defines CLP policy as:
- … the first overarching strategic water plan in the history of the NT.
The court decision represents a damning judgment against the CLP government; however, it is a win for the fishing sector, farmers, pastoral producers, traditional owners, environmentalists and, importantly, the Northern Territory public, because the minister now has to reconsider management of our precious water resources.
This is where we as the opposition offer a positive alternative. This is in good faith to the minister because it took a number of years and the Supreme Court to take you back to the drawing board. That is where you should be and you would do well to pay heed to Territorians. Minister, you have been handed an opportunity. Community and stakeholders are now looking for a transparent, sustainable, accountable and scientific approach to reassess the licences issued.
The Supreme Court decision provides the minister the opportunity to reassess, to look at proper analysis of water allocations based on science. We are talking about 68 ML that have been brought back into play, and are to be properly managed, positively and transparently. We want to see the review of water allocations over the next 12 months based on science. It would not be hard to judge that time frame around politics when you have the opportunity to bring Territorians with you as we go into an election. This is an opportunity.
Minister, you have been copped with a bad lot, because there are some heavyweights on that side who have dropped you right into this. You now have the opportunity to gain back some credibility; that trust deficit the Leader of the Opposition talks about, because this issue will not go away. This is about our precious water resources, and I have not even moved into the Barkly, the Wiso basin or Central Australian regions where those community groups and stakeholders are watching this very closely.
This is a positive step. This is what the opposition is putting forward tonight. It is an opportunity to get this right. We talk about bipartisanship. It should be bipartisan if we are talking about this precious, finite resource called Northern Territory water.
This issue will go to the next election. It is already on the agenda, clearly and squarely, and the minister has the opportunity to right the wrongs of minister Tollner. The legacy you guys have is that nobody trusts the Chief Minister or believes a word he says. The member for Katherine would have been the Chief Minister, but history will tell that story.
There are people in the Northern Territory who are depending on the member for Katherine to turn this around. They are really focused on this issue. This also relates to the bigger issue of hydrological studies and the management of Territory water. I will go to the depths of politics and remind people the redistribution has been dropped. The member for Katherine faces a couple of very serious issues in an election campaign – issues about the sale of TIO, hydrological fracturing for the exploration of oil and gas and, of course, this debate about water allocations.
The Katherine Times article shows the minister saying, ‘It’s a small issue. It’s not something we have to worry about.’
I would like to remind the minister that we offer that alternative. The Supreme Court has made a determination and there is now an opportunity, through your retrospective water paper and your conversations with Territorians, to do the right thing on behalf of Territorians who have the right to this water. I encourage the minister to also revisit traditional owners, their cultural connections with land, sea and water and the strategic Indigenous reserve, which is scientifically framed and looks at conservation, as well as future economic development. There are enormous elements to this debate that we can get right together on the floor, and the minister has carriage of it.
The epic debate about developing northern Australia, with the Prime Minister now articulating these opportunities, includes a $5bn investment over the next decade. One would suggest, as a grassroots Territorian, that we better get water right if we are talking about the development of northern Australia. At the moment Territorians have lost confidence and faith in this government. Frankly, nobody trusts the CLP.
Remember the Supreme Court decision was a bonus and took us back to the starting line. The Supreme Court decision has given the minister the ‘get out of gaol’ card. I hope it is used wisely.
This matter is of great concern. It is a definite matter of public importance. The issue of politicising water licences and the CLP-aligned recipients of them is resonating in the community. There is a lot of documentation about that. It is not a good look, and if you then amalgamate other issues the CLP is dealing with at the moment, it paints a picture of ‘not to be trusted’.
We can talk about travel, the Chief Minister and his behaviour as the first minister of the Northern Territory, but if you link this issue – critical, natural water resources – you have a trust deficit, to coin the phrase from the Leader of the Opposition. You had an opposition that had an alternative. You had a Labor government that was working through a defined process that was bringing the community with it.
The CLP scrapped it with a defined agenda based on a one-liner: ‘We support economic development.’ However, that tied to CLP-aligned members and candidates loses all credibility. There is no credibility left. The public knows it, as does the Northern Territory opposition, and we come here tonight to offer a clear alternative. I hope the minister takes Territorians with him to address the injustice of what has been done.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to this so-called matter of public importance around the Water Act and water issues in the Northern Territory. I am extremely disappointed that the opposition has chosen to once again waste this parliament’s time talking about this topic in this fashion.
Rather than focus on the real issues, those opposite are using this parliament to grandstand and try to score cheap political points. This parliament has debated water up hill and down dale. By my reckoning, we have had at least 18 questions, two ministerial statements, one censure motion, a number of motions raised by the opposition in General Business and Lord knows what else. No one could argue that we have not had numerous robust debates about water in this Chamber already, but, again, here we are, having another debate about water in this MPI.
MPIs, according to standing orders, are allowed a time limit of two hours, so we are about to spend another two hours of this parliament’s time discussing a matter that, as I said earlier, has already been debated up hill and down dale. I am advised that when you take into account all the costs, including staff, travel, salaries and operational costs, running this parliament costs in the order of about $20 000 per hour. This exercise is about to cost Territory taxpayers about $40 000 for the two hours it will take to complete this debate. The member for Barkly is spending $40 000 of taxpayers’ dollars to grandstand and try to score cheap political points. Or is it that the taxpayers will shell out this $40 000 for tonight’s effort so the member for Barkly can hear the sound of his own voice?
The opposition knows only too well that water allocations have been managed the way they are currently under the Water Act since 1992, but, in over a decade of government, the opposition never once raised any issues with water allocations or how they are managed.
To come into this House and raise this as a matter of public importance is hypocritical and an absolute disgrace. Where was the member for Barkly’s concern about water when he was a member of Cabinet in a Labor government? Did he raise this issue the Supreme Court ruled on with his colleagues then? Did he say, ‘I am concerned about the way the minister is considering appeals under the Water Act?’ Of course, he did not. But let me move on.
As the opposition is aware, not one of the 18 licences issued by the controller was revoked as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. Putting aside all the rubbish politics the member for Barkly wants to spew out across this Chamber, the Supreme Court provided clarity around the interpretation of section 30 of the Water Act in relation to the process that I, or any other minister who is in charge of water, must adhere to in consideration of a review of the Water Controller’s decision.
The court’s decision related strictly to the process ministers undertake in conducting the review of the Water Controller’s decision. It did not, and does not, despite what the member for Barkly would have everyone believe, relate to consideration of broader issues associated with water allocation policy. The decision related to the administrative process used by ministers in reviewing the decision of the Water Controller after the issue of a water extraction licence. It is an administrative procedure.
Some members in this House, hopefully all members, would know that administrative procedures are dealt with by courts for clarification on a fairly regular basis. Guess what? This was no different.
The same process has been consistently applied by all ministers since the inception of the act in 1992. It just so happens this is the first time this process has been the subject of a judicial review. I am sure those opposite are aware this decision could have easily involved them when they were in government, had that matter been taken to the Supreme Court for review. Of course, that was unlikely to happen because there probably were no licence decisions to review under the former Labor government, simply by virtue of the fact they made none.
What I will do today, rather than scaremonger to try to create hysteria as those opposite are doing, is reassure the 18 licensees that they have some certainty in this process. The court’s decision simply places the licensees back in the position they were in prior to the review. I now need to reconsider the review of those decisions. It is important to note the court’s decision does not call into legal question the broader operation of the act, the means by which water licences are granted under the Water Act, or the application of government policy in respect to water resources via the Water Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity. As I have said in the past, I welcome that decision and input. It is important to reassure Territorians today that this decision will not, and has not, hampered my resolve when it comes to water allocations being handled in a swift, responsive and open manner. The use of water in agriculture and horticulture goes hand in hand. These industries are key drivers for economic development in the bush. This government is using the water allocation planning and licensing framework to underpin sustainable use of the Territory’s water resources. It is as simple as that.
This sensible approach is a stark contrast to those who sit on the other side of this House. Despite governing for more than a decade, they were nothing short of incompetent with this issue. They left Territorians hanging, with no direction. There was a policy vacuum. An audit in April 2013 revealed a backlog of 75 water extraction licence applications which Labor never bothered to process. Their gross incompetence is astounding. That was comprised of 49 applications in the Katherine region, 22 in the Darwin region, along with four in the Alice Springs region. Nine of those applications had no action taken for more than eight years. Those applications sat for more than eight years without the former government even having the courtesy to contact the applicants and let them know the status of their water licence applications.
There is no way in the world I will accept the sanctimonious rubbish that comes from the member for Barkly and those opposite about water. They have no credibility in this area whatsoever. For eight years the Labor government sat on its hands ignoring those requests, and the best interests of Territorians. Those opposite left their constituents in limbo. How dare they raise those concerns here today? It is unbelievable. During a reign of more than 10 years, very few licences were issued by the Labor government. Why? Because members opposite had no backbone, there was no level of decision-making and no leadership in this field whatsoever.
Worst of all, they have no idea how to facilitate or run a diverse economy. They have no idea how to engage with the primary industry sector and work with farmers to see their sector grow and flourish. Let me make this clear for the House; since the end of April 2013, 189 applications have been accepted by the department, out of which 115 licences had been granted as at the end of last month. Processing is also underway on 38 of these more recent applications.
There will be no more holding Territorians to ransom, no more thinking we are above the people who voted us in to represent them. We are following due process, as outlined in the Water Act, unlike the Labor government when it was in power, which decided to ignore the Water Act and not deal with 75 water licence applications sitting somewhere in some office gathering dust or behind a filing cabinet.
Under Labor’s inertia there was simply the warehousing of water with no impetus provided for Territorians to develop economically. Labor cared so little about this matter that from 2005 to 2012 there were five separate ministers responsible for water. Let me name them for the record: Marion Scrymgour, the most junior minister in the Cabinet at the time; Delia Lawrie; Len Kiely; Alison Anderson; and how could we forget Karl Hampton, another very junior minister in their Cabinet.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in 2012, I am pleased, and proud, to say I have been the one and only minister responsible for the Water Act. Let me remind those opposite that it has only been under this current Country Liberals government that water reform has been firmly on the agenda. We have stepped up, are being strategic and exercising leadership. We are making decisions. Those words fall foul of the intent of the opposition and the way it would carry on business. We have cut the shackles that Labor left on water allocations and put this important matter on the agenda. This government is proud to optimise the use of the Territory’s water resources, providing stewardship and direction.
Since the Country Liberals government came to power, the amount of water released to support agricultural and horticultural production has more than doubled. I want to make that point; we have released water, not so it can drain away, evaporate or disappear into some ether, thereby wasting it. This is about horticultural and agricultural production and increasing the opportunities for NT farmers, and growing our economy. That means the area that can be irrigated for the production of crops in the Northern Territory has doubled, all in about two years.
There is currently a total of 407 GL per year licensed for extraction in the Northern Territory. Not all of that water is being extracted; only a fraction of it is - that is what is licensed to be extracted. That is the point the member for Barkly and those members opposite will not get.
Under Labor that figure sat at just 180 GL per year. As I touched on before, water is the key driving force of productivity for land across the Northern Territory. Our water future must be underpinned by responsible management principles and practical solutions that will further develop the north.
For example, water trading should be smooth, transparent and low cost. Make no mistake, water is the Territory’s biggest and most precious natural resource. This government is open in its desire to drive water reform and ensure our water is managed responsibly, unlike those opposite, who put their blinkers on and hold Territorians back. It was reckless mismanagement, nothing less.
Every government in this country knows water resources must be managed as best they can. The economic and social returns coming on the back of an overarching NT water policy are potentially enormous. These issues are simply too important to ignore or to make light of in politics, member for Barkly.
That is exactly what those opposite did when they were in government, yet they have the gall to raise this ridiculous matter of public importance. The discussion in this Chamber about water is ad nauseum because it is so repetitive.
I listened to the member for Barkly and I heard spewing forth the same rhetoric we have heard time and time again. There was nothing new. The only new thing is the Supreme Court decision, but that is just an excuse for the member for Barkly and those opposite to regurgitate all the same old claptrap they have been carrying on about for the last two years. It is a disgrace! You should be ashamed of yourselves!
If those opposite were seriously interested in this issue they would have asked what benefits farmers in the Northern Territory might get as a result of being allocated water from sustainable limits set by science.
The most important component of the water story for those interested in developing our Territory is water extraction licensing. That is the allocation of access entitlements for our water resources and the benefits that will flow from that. The Department of Land Resource Management considers the best information, data, records and modelling available from reliable and reputable sources before providing advice to the Controller of Water Resources, who then makes an informed decision about a licence application. This process ensures I, as the minister, am not involved in the decision-making process around water licences.
That being said, we all know the Territory legislation is outdated and we need to have more contemporary legislation to underpin water resource management. A legislative review of the Water Act will follow the development of the Northern Territory water policy to underpin that water policy direction.
The Country Liberals government remains committed to protecting the Territory’s water resources with the release of the Our Water Future Discussion Paper: A Conversation with Territorians. The member for Barkly touched on that before. This discussion paper is one of the most important documents driving the Territory’s social, cultural and economic future. We are serious about protecting our natural environment. We need to strike a perfect balance between northern development and sustainable water use.
Water is finite, a precious resource, and it is vital that government manages it responsibly and in a sustainable manner. Every Territorian is a stakeholder in our water future, and that is why we have asked Territorians to get involved in the conversation and help shape our policy.
The policy paper is the first overarching strategic water plan in the history of the NT. Despite all that rhetoric from on the other side of the House, they did nothing while they had 11 years in government. We have come into power and completely changed the face of water management because we recognise the importance of both economic development and having a strong overarching policy.
Six community forums were held across the Territory during May and June in Darwin, the Darwin rural area, Katherine, the Douglas Daly region, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Did the member for Barkly or any other members opposite attend any of those water forum meetings? I suspect the answer is no. Did any of the members opposite go to the water forums in Katherine? No, they did not. The only thing they did was have insiders there talking to the media and causing strife. That was the only representation from the opposition.
For the benefit of those opposite who could not be bothered turning up to these meetings, the discussion paper provides a framework for water planning with three main goals in mind. What we would like to achieve in the future is water for a prosperous economy, safe secure drinking water and healthy catchments, aquifers and aquatic ecosystems.
The Country Liberals government remains committed to the development and adoption of an adaptive water policy that supports economic growth. We are also protecting and enhancing our unique and envied lifestyle. The development of the strategic plan will provide the Northern Territory with best practice reform which recognises the value of water and the resources required for efficient management of those water resources, good water stewardship, sustainable development of water resources, protection of water quality and the role of water in public health. The best model for the efficient and effective regulation of public water supplies and sewerage services must be a key consideration in water policy development.
We are very proud to be leading our way on this. The member for Barkly talked about science. I will finish by asking the member for Barkly a question: you compared politics to science; how much science went into your dodgy decision to grant Stella Maris to your union mates?
Mr McCarthy: Tough guy.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Do not come and talk to me about politics and science. How much science went into that, member for Barkly? Tell me the answer.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for raising this very important matter of public importance on water resources. Hopefully, I can calm the room a little after that outburst from the minister.
He embarrassingly ran out of time, but he mentioned wasting time in this parliament - about a Labor opposition coming wasting time raising points in this parliament that Territorians want us to raise. Water allocation is a very important issue. That is what we do; as an opposition we bring the voices of Territorians who cannot have their voices heard in here, and the minister responds in an appropriate manner, hopefully.
Usually the member for Katherine, the Minister for Land Resource Management, who is in charge of the water resources allocations, is quite good at giving information. Normally, he is quite calm. Tonight he has obviously taken his angry pills and has an issue with us asking what Territorians want us to ask.
He has brought up wasting time and the cost to taxpayers of having this MPI debate in this House. I ask the minister if he could give the information that Territorians, the opposition and I are looking for: how much did that Supreme Court case cost Territory taxpayers because the minister stuffed it up? That is what I want to know, as do Territorians. I am happy for the minister, the member for Katherine, to give us that cost and see how that cost compares to us raising what Territorians want us to talk about.
Later this week we are expecting the Commonwealth government to release its long-awaited white paper on developing the north. This should be a time of excitement at the possibilities, as well as a time of optimism. Instead we have three years of a sloppy, self-indulgent government which looks set to blow that opportunity. Can they be trusted to advance the development of north Australia in a way that benefits all Territorians and protects our long-term interests, including the security of water supplies? Territorians approach the future with increasing caution and scepticism about the CLP government’s approach to both governance and regional development. It is now clear that it is not what they say, it is what they do which defines this CLP government.
Territorians can see the CLP government for what it is: a government for mates; a government that talks up cutting red tape as code for reducing standards and managing for the here and now, not the long-term best interests of the Northern Territory.
The CLP has fumbled its planning for the future, and Territorians are now staring down the barrel of a flattening economy after the INPEX construction boom. There is no better example of this government’s sloppy approach to government than the scandalous way it has approached the management of our most precious resource, ground water.
The CLP government has shown real disregard for its responsibility to govern for all Territorians - future Territorians, not just those mates with development plans.
Many of us, especially Territorians living in regional and remote towns, have been looking for the opportunity a joint government approach to developing the north could present for the Territory. Instead we have a government that stumbles from decision to decision and loses credibility every day under the leadership of Adam Giles.
Instead of having responsible government working with the Commonwealth on new opportunities for the Northern Territory, we have the disappointment of a government constantly tangled in controversy and poor administration, and one that has failed to demonstrate a properly balanced and responsible approach to development issues, whether they be related to urban planning in Darwin, the development of a new port, critical infrastructure like the new Palmerston Regional Hospital or the develop the north agenda.
One of the clearest examples of this government’s slapdash and blinkered approach to regional development has been this mishandling of the management of one of our most important natural resources: our precious ground water, water resources necessary to underpin both our domestic and commercial development needs. I remind you of the importance of that resource.
In the Northern Territory about 150 GL of ground water provides about 90% of the water we use. Irrigated agriculture and horticulture accounts for about 47 GL; the pastoral sector and cattle production accounts for about 23.5 GL; mining accounts for about 17 GL; urban and industrial use is 48 GL; and rural living is about 8.5 GL. Water use is fundamental to our current wellbeing, let alone our future wellbeing. Water is the lifeblood that sustains our whole environment.
Andrew Campbell from the CDU’s Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods made clear the importance of water to us all in his 2014 Eric Johnston lecture, ‘Busting the Myth that in the North, Water Currently Goes to Waste’. Professor Campbell made this point very clearly: all water is used and any additional extraction will have an impact. He stressed that connectivity is crucial in these systems.
The important thing is that Territorians have confidence that all potential impacts, as well as benefits, are well understood and properly considered in water allocation decisions. Territorians look to the minister responsible for the wise use and long-term protection of our water resources. They look to the minister to act properly and in the best interests of all Territorians, both now and in the future, whatever the future might bring.
Regretfully, the recent decision of our Supreme Court has demonstrated that the current minister responsible for the Water Act, the member for Katherine, has totally misunderstood his role in ensuring the protection and wise use of our water resources on behalf of all Territorians. The Supreme Court tested the question: had the minister failed to ask himself whether the decision under review was a decision that should have been made? The conclusion was yes, he had failed to do that.
In the Supreme Court judgment there is reference to the important public interest aspect of these decisions, quoting previous judgments that have concluded: in Australia, water and rights to use water are of critical importance not just to those who are immediately interested in particular water rights, but to society as a whole.
In his speech on the first day of the Twelfth Assembly, his first speech as the minister of the Crown, the member for Katherine talked of the importance of what you do with the win. Well, now we know what he had in mind: disbanding local water allocation committees; disregarding draft water allocation plans; scrapping proposed strategic Indigenous water reserves because they stand as a barrier to immediate investment; making new arrangements for allocation of water rights; fast-tracking benefits for landholders, including some high-profile CLP supporters; and the selective use of water and rainfall data to support higher water allocation. Some called this retrofitting of data to fit an outcome.
More recently the minister came to the Assembly and announced a new engagement with Territorians about water policy. Too little, too late is a common response from sceptical Territorians. This government has already marked out its approach to water allocations in the Northern Territory. Now you seek to dress up your flawed approach with a cloak of community engagement nearly three years after coming to government. Part of this minister’s modus operandi has been to continually distance himself from water allocations made by his agency. Though he has admitted to private meetings with the beneficiaries of some of those decisions, he was been unwilling to be open and transparent with Territorians about the purpose and content of those meetings.
He has gone on about the independence of the Water Controller and his water allocation decisions. Now the Supreme Court has found the minister failed in his statutory responsibility to make a merit based review of those decisions requested under section 30 of the Water Act.
The Supreme Court has found him wanting. I contrast that finding with a separate Supreme Court review of water allocation decisions under our government. At the time, the court found a proper process, overseen by our minister and our government, had been followed in determining and reviewing the water allocation decision that did not suit the applicant: CLP candidate, Tina McFarlane.
In his first speech in this Assembly as government minister, the member for Katherine said:
- It is my belief that the best thing the government can do is get out of the way.
We know what he meant by that remark. He has shown his style; that is, sit back and let others do his dirty work for him - a classic backseat driver.
This is a man who would be Chief Minister, but he could not get that process right either. Now with a Supreme Court decision before him, the minister knows what he has to do to fulfil his ministerial responsibilities. He now has the opportunity to conduct a proper merit-based review of the water allocation decisions, as Territorians have every right to expect of him.
The member for Nelson nailed it in a previous debate on water resources when he said water should be given out for what is required, not for speculation. The member for Nelson has also highlighted the need for people obtaining water allocations to demonstrate they are using this valuable resource for its intended purpose: to bring land into production and help create jobs for local people. Water allocations are not a device to enhance the value of property for a middle-man entrepreneur.
One of my concerns about the way this minister and this government have approached water allocation is their dismissive attitude to concerns about water allocations’ impact on environmental flows in our rivers and streams. Again, a quote from the minister in his speech in government:
- We have pristine waterways and some of the best fishing in the world. I will not let the standard slip.
If that is the case, why has AFANT been at the forefront of community concerns about priorities used to underpin this government’s water allocation policy and the retrofitting of data to justify the preferred outcomes?
Why did we feel it necessary in 2013 to take the extraordinary step of calling for an immediate halt to this government’s flawed water allocations? Why did AFANT call for the government to re-establish a water planning process consistent with the Northern Territory’s national water initiative commitments and best practice planning?
Why does the CLP believe Territorians deserve less than that? What are the potential cumulative impacts of water allocations – whether it be ground water for agricultural production, mining or fracking – on our treasured Territory lifestyle, and recreational fishing, which has direct expenditure of around $100m per year?
I also mention the broader cultural value of our water bodies and waterways, whether they are the beautiful springs at Mataranka, the mighty Daly River, or the awesome Roper River. I sincerely hope that, in his expected merit-based review of water allocation decisions, proper and respectful consideration is given to the cultural, as well as physical, values of our water bodies and waterways, including Indigenous cultural values.
In previous debates on water policy in this Assembly, the Chief Minister has inferred that, while in government, Labor locked up water. This is simply not true. We charged local water allocation committees with developing draft plans that were on the cusp of finalising plans for greater use of ground water allocations, but our focus was sustainability, real production and real jobs, with an eye to potential risk and liabilities. We also had an eye on the need to consider water use in all of our industry sectors.
The Commonwealth inquiry to develop north Australia touched on this in its Pivot North report with a key recommendation that large-scale extraction of water from river systems and aquifers in northern Australia which may impact on the environment and the fisheries industry and other activities should be preceded by scientific investigation. Tellingly, the NT government’s own submission to the Commonwealth inquiry and discussion paper on northern development highlighted the need for dedicated funding.
The minister needs to review his decisions, as the Supreme Court has said. I have asked the minister if he could answer a question, by way of someone else contributing in this MPI, about how much the Supreme Court cost Territory taxpayers, instead of whingeing about the opposition bringing on issues Territory taxpayers want to know about, issues they are talking about because water is so precious, not only to the Territory and our agricultural industry, but our fisheries. It all connects. You changed the way the allocation is made, you changed the formula and now you need to change it back.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I am not wasting this parliament’s time.
Mr Tollner: Never!
Mr WOOD: Never, that is right. There is the member for bias.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I will make a few points about water allocations in general. I listened to the minister’s speech, and whilst I understand there was a backlog of water licences, maybe he needs to put it in perspective. Yes, there may have been a backlog, but I will give you an example of why that happens. A certain farm in Mataranka was offered some water. It was never used, so the water advisory committee, which might be defunct, it might not be – I have no idea at present – said, ‘Let us see if you can use that water then we will allocate you some more’.
That was reasonable. It is like saying to a young child, ‘I will give you this much, see if you can use that properly and if you can, I might give you more’. Water is a precious resource. What did the CLP do? It ignored all the sensible controls – there is nothing wrong with having some controls – and gave the person about eight times the amount of water. If the government thinks that was terrific, I would like to hear the minister for Primary Industry tell us what crops are being grown. That water was allocated about two-and-a-half years ago and there were promises crops would be grown. That is good. If crops were grown I will congratulate the people. Have crops been grown? There were promises of that happening.
If the Crown has given someone a large amount of water for nothing, at least the Crown can say, ‘Look what we have done! This person is now growing umpteen hundred hectares of a crop.’ I would say, ‘Fantastic!’ I am not against what the minister was saying. It is great that horticulture has expanded. Unfortunately, one of the downsides is we have too many diseases making it difficult for many of our horticultural growers to expand.
You can make grandiose statements about, ‘The CLP is making the world go’. That is fine, but it is foolish if you do not have proper regulations and controls over how it is all meant to work. I will not get onto that issue specifically, but the minister raised the point of how water licences had been held back. If you are saying that, let us come back to parliament and show us the benefits of a number of water licences, including the first one you handed out, because that was the controversial one.
I am concerned the government, with its new water strategy – which I find difficult to understand considering they have just handed out stacks of water licences – has a paper called Our Water Future Discuss Paper: A Conversation with Territorians. That is fine but this should have happened a couple of years ago. It is talking about not wasting water and having problems with how much water we should use in Darwin, and trying to reduce the amount by 25% so the government does not have to spend money on infrastructure building new dams. That is fantastic! I do not have a problem with that, but do not plant sweet potatoes down the middle of Tiger Brennan Drive and tell me you are fair dinkum. Water hungry plants in the middle of a road do not fit in with our water future.
It is good you have this, but I am cynical because when you say you have handed out all of these water licences, did you hand them out as part of a conversation with Territorians? No, because you scrapped the water allocation committees. I was on one, and I asked a question in 2014 of the minister.
I asked him what had happened to the Water Advisory Committees. I said it is now two years – this is on 18 February 2014 - since the Howard East Water Advisory Committee had a meeting. Here we are, another year and a bit on, and we have not even been informed. This is the cynicism that annoys me:
- The member for Nelson asked some specific questions about whether we intend to abandon Water Advisory Committees and the simple answer is no. They are in legislation and therefore we are not intending to get rid of them.
Then he said:
- You also specifically mentioned the Howard East Water Advisory Committee. You are quite right, it has been some time the committee last met; it is now three-and-a-half years nearly. I note for the public record that you, member for Nelson, are on the committee and the question popped into my head, ‘Why are you not driving some sort of meeting agenda or regime to get the committee back up and running?’ I also note that there is no chairperson and there is another vacant position as well. My humble suggestion is there should be some leadership coming from you as a parliamentarian to get this committee back up and running. I have seen nothing from you.
I asked the minister, ‘Where is it?’ That is the leadership. I cannot form a government committee. I have no power to do that. That was a ridiculous answer. What do we have now? No Howard Springs advisory committee!
I will give you a classic example where we could have had some useful input from an advisory committee. The prison is developing 37 ha of land. They want to clear it and put bores down. That is fantastic. There was a question asked of me at that meeting by one of the people there, ‘Will that water allocation affect Howard Springs?’ It happens that Howard Springs is in the Howard Springs aquifer and the prison is in what they call the crustaceous area, which is separate from the aquifer.
That is the type of the thing the local advisory committee could have had input into and asked questions like, ‘Would the bores impact on the water levels of Howard Springs?’ But we do not have anything. You scrapped Dr Mac. You said his time was up. It might have been up, I do not know. He did a lot of work. There was a pretty good group that worked together with local pastoralists, traditional owners and scientists. It was an important committee. The member for Daly was pretty cranky about the closure of that, not just me.
The member for Daly made a statement saying he was very disappointed. Where is the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee?
I note that in 2015 the minister made some statements about water. He talked about how he was developing catchment water advisory committees, and he said:
- The other types of advisory committees I have established are community-based Water Advisory Committees.
I do not know whether they were actually made defunct. No one has ever said to me that my position on the Howard East aquifer Water Advisory Committee has become defunct. No one ever sacked me; no one sent me a letter and said, ‘Thank you for your work’, and no one told – Elaine Gardiner had resigned at that time - Chris Makepeace, Darryl South, Lawrence Ah Toy, David George, Nigel Browne, Donna Jackson, David Kenyon, Kate Peake, Mark Smith, Melanie Bradley, Plaxy Purich - a pretty good range of people. Did anyone ring them up and say, ‘You are sacked. We are not having you anymore’? Why do you think I am cynical about the whole thing?
It was the same with Mataranka; many local people were on that committee, traditional owners and scientists, and the same with Dr Mac.
The minister went on to say:
- Water Advisory Committees fulfil an important role by providing valuable community input into issues referred to them by the Water Controller or the relevant minister. Water Advisory Committee are established by me …
And here he is asking me to establish one:
- … as the minister under section 23 of the Water Act. As the relevant minister I can appoint a Water Advisory Committee for a particular water control district, if a water allocation plan is in place, or to provide advice on the development of a water allocation plan.
- Water Advisory Committees are convened when new information or policies impact on existing water allocation plans or the development of water allocation plans. Water Advisory Committees provide valuable community input into the water allocation planning process.
Of all the licences the government has handed out, how many Water Advisory Committees had valuable input into that process? Can someone tell me?
- These committees ensure plans and policies are drafted clearly and that regulatory arrangements are easy to understand and implement by licence holders.
The minister said in his statement on 24 March this year:
- The Katherine Water Advisory Committee has already held three meetings this year.
That is good because they are still revising the Alice Springs water allocation plan and there has been a meeting of the Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee convened for 26 March:
- Work on redrafting the Mataranka and Oolloo water allocation plans has commenced and will be presented later this year to the respective committees for community feedback.
I do not know what the respective committees are. We did have a Mataranka Water Advisory Committee:
- Progression of the draft Berry Springs water allocation plan was postponed to allow additional information. … Briefing of the Berry Springs Water Advisory Committee and broader engagement with the Berry Springs community will be undertaken shortly.
- The Howard East water allocation planning processes is complex as it needs to recognise the needs of many different users in that region. There are some 2100 bores in this aquifer, with the majority of them providing the sole domestic water supply to rural households which do not have access to any other viable alternative. Protecting the sustainability of this resource for domestic supply will need to be the primary focus of the planning process.
The Howard East Water Advisory Committee will have an important role to play in this consultation process. I acknowledge the member for Nelson’s long-standing interest in the Howard Springs aquifer and welcome his commitment to participate in the planning process.
We still do not have a Howard East Water Advisory Committee. This is like a dog’s breakfast. We have given out these licences, and now we think it is good we start discussing them with the community again. We really do not know where we are. Then we put out this paper titled, ‘A Conversation with Territorians’. I cannot see the logic in this. This is a good paper – do not get me wrong – but it is like my desk; it is all over the place. I am concerned …
Mr Tollner: Just like your thinking, Gerry. You are all over the place, mate.
Mr WOOD: No, your planning process is all over the place ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I am sorry I mentioned planning, Mr Deputy Speaker. I digress, and I might not have the time.
The government has lost its vision. It is focused on one part of that vision, that is: we have to get as much growth going as possible. I understand; I am not against the development aspect of what they are trying to do, but it must be balanced. Even though this document is titled ‘A Conversation with Territorians’, so far the conversation has been only with the minister and his department; that is about it. Unfortunately, time has moved on and we should have had that conversation some years ago.
That does not mean that what the Labor Party ran was necessarily perfect. I heard complaints about how some of the licences were slow to proceed. It is like then going to the other extreme of the equation instead of trying to find a good balance. That is where this government is all over the place.
We need those Water Advisory Committees. The people I mentioned are all representatives. Chris Makepeace was in the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT; Darryl South was NT Nursery and Garden; Laurence Ah Toy owns Koolpinyah Station; I was a member of the community; not an MLA; David George was Power and Water Corporation, an expert; Nigel Browne, Larrakia Development Corporation; Donna Jackson, Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation; David Kenyon, Limilngan-Wulna Aboriginal Corporation; Kate Peak, NT Horticultural Association; Mark Smith, horticulture; Melanie Bradley, Environment Centre; and Plaxy Purich, Litchfield Shire. This is a good cross-section of people who had relationships with the water in that area.
I am passionate that we make sure the Territory moves ahead, but let us not stuff it up in the process. Let us make sure we have a conversation with Territorians. One way to do it is to get these Water Advisory Committees, regardless of whether they should have been operating two years ago, going now and encourage people to be part of that conversation, because at the moment it seems very hollow when you see nothing much has happened.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. I listened closely to a few things the members for Barkly and Nelson said.
The member for Barkly suggested this government’s decisions on water are:
- … based on politics, not best practice science.
I do not know what rock the member for Barkly has been living under, but to suggest the previous government acted on best practice science is a complete joke.
Anyone who believes that taking 20% of the recharge from the previous year’s rainfall is science has no clue about science. That has nothing to do with science; it is an arbitrary figure that somebody has pulled out of the top of their head. These friends of ours on the other side like to suggest that is science; you pull some arbitrary number out of your head and say it is based on science. It was not.
The member for Nelson knows that Darwin, Howard Springs and Palmerston would not exist if that rule applied to the Howard Springs aquifer. We are taking more than 20% of the recharge from the previous rainfall in that aquifer.
It is lunacy to suggest that 20% is the maximum sustainable amount of water you can take out of these aquifers. I understand there is pressure on the Howard Springs aquifer, but we are taking probably 100% of the previous year’s recharge and then some on top of that from the Howard Springs aquifer.
Similarly, the member for Barkly is from Central Australia. To suggest you can take 20% of the recharge sustainably from Central Australia – it would not water the horses in that area. For years we have been mining water in Central Australia, and doing it in a way that has kept people alive and communities prospering.
So this idea that Labor’s policy was based on best practice science is just mumbo jumbo. Prior to coming into this place, I was the federal member for Solomon. It was my privilege in that position to be nominated as a member of the Northern Land and Water Taskforce. That was some years ago; it goes back to around 2006 or 2007.
We did a lot of travelling across north Australia. There was a range of experts – Joe Ross from Western Australia. There were representatives from the Northern Land Council, with John Daly and a range of other stakeholders. Bill Heffernan was chair of that taskforce. We went right across north Australia looking at waterways and underground water supplies. It quickly became apparent that broad-scale farming would never be a commercial option in most of north Australia but there were opportunities to look at smaller sections. People were talking about mosaic farming at that time and finding areas where there were good soils.
We lost government at the end of 2007. You talk about no politics in this. The federal Labor government, under Kevin Rudd, was elected and that Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce was maintained but all the people on the taskforce were removed and replaced with Labor’s people, which included people from the Environment Centre, the Environmental Defenders Office and a range of fellow travellers. Lo and behold, that taskforce reported there was no ability to take any extra water at all from anywhere in north Australia and, if you do, everything will die. It was a pretty predictable response from the people they put on that committee. That is fundamentally how the agenda has run for Labor over the years. It is all about denying people access to water.
This is not about politics, member for Barkly, this is about a difference in ideology. The people on your side of the Chamber believe water is a privilege not a right. They believe the public should refrain from accessing water, and that water is best left in the ground and the rivers, and left to rain on the earth and flow out to the ocean. On this side we want to see water used for development. We want to see farming and a range of things that have water uses. For that reason, the government has been quite unapologetic about the issuing of water licences and making water available to Territorians and businesses that want to use it.
It has been interesting listening to this debate because there has been an overwhelming theme coming through. This is all about that horrible lady in Mataranka named Tina McFarlane who we know the Labor Party does not like. She had the audacity to stand for the Country Liberal Party at the last federal election. As far as they are concerned, that is a reason for her to be cut off from all government support, make sure she is denied everything and sent to the wall. Of course, if you own a property, water is crucial to the development of that property. Labor, for years and years, denied the McFarlane’s access to water. I think Lindsay and Tina McFarlane’s fight for water went on for eight years. For eight years they were desperately trying to get water onto that property and Labor constantly denied them access.
I look at some of the water allocations and see 5800 ML has been granted to the McFarlanes on Stylo Station, which is some 15 000 ha. I look at some of the allocations that have occurred in the past. For example, in Mataranka – we will not go into the names of places and identify people – there is a 1000 ha property that has 4780 ML water. That is 1000 ha compared to the MacFarlane’s 15 000 ha. A 900 ha block gets 5368 ML of water, compared to the McFarlane’s 15 000. But for some reason the McFarlanes are the ones Labor likes to target.
What has happened since the McFarlanes were granted that allocation of water? For a start, people are interested in investing in that land now. I understand that Tropical Forestry Services has made an offer and there are discussions about whether the sale will go through for that portion of the McFarlane’s property to Tropical Forestry Services.
I am hopeful the deal will be done. It is a sizeable portion of the McFarlane’s block on the western side of the Stuart Highway. TFS - a little background here – or Tropical Forestry Services, has spent $250m in the Northern Territory since 2009, and more than $150m in the last couple of years.
At the end of the planting season this year, there will be 4500 ha of sandalwood plantation operating. Each hectare is worth $1.6m in returns to that company every year. That is based on pharmaceutical sandalwood oil being valued at around US$4500 per kilogram, so 1 ha of land with those trees returns about $1.6m, which is incredible.
In Katherine and the Douglas Daly they have more than 40 full-time employees with 140 employees during peak planning and trimming and pruning. Tropical Forestry Services provides huge benefits to the Northern Territory. I have been to the plantations to the west of Katherine; and it is amazing to see what they are doing with those sandalwood plantations.
That company picking up a substantial chunk of the McFarlane’s property would, one would imagine, spur on a huge amount of investment in the Mataranka region, and create a huge number of jobs.
I hope I am not speaking out of school, but the money paid to the McFarlanes would allow them to fund further subdivisions of their land on the eastern side of the Stuart Highway and see more people and opportunities become available in the Mataranka region.
None of this would have happened under the previous Labor government, because for eight years they denied the McFarlanes a water licence. All of a sudden we are now looking at tens of millions of dollars being invested in Mataranka, with dozens of jobs, and opportunities in the future for other people to purchase in the Mataranka region. What can possibly be wrong with that? The only thing wrong is that Tina McFarlane had the audacity to stand for the Country Liberal Party at the last election.
If they were really concerned about these things, they might like to explain what they did with Mick Pierce when he bought a block in Katherine. Mick Pierce was a former candidate for the Labor Party. He ran a couple of times in the late 1990s and early 2000s for the Labor Party in Katherine. He bought a block of a couple of hundred hectares at the farms in Katherine, was immediately awarded a 2000 ML licence, walked away only a short time after that and sold the block for a considerable amount of money. Do we make issue with that on this side of the Chamber? No.
Do Labor members acknowledge they have done what they accuse the CLP of doing with the McFarlanes? They allocated a water licence to a bloke who stood for the Labor Party. Of course they do not. This is not about objectivity; this is about trying to label the Country Liberals as a politically corrupt organisation.
I am proud to be part of a government driving development, making water available for Territorians and creating jobs. I congratulate the minister for the decisions he has made, and I support the government in releasing more water across the Territory.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I offer the opposition’s condolences to the Toyne family on the death of Phillip, a great Australian and a great contributor to the Northern Territory.
Phillip Toyne passed away on 14 June 2015 after a long struggle against bowel cancer. He was 67. He leaves behind his wife, Molly Olsen, and three children. Phillip was the brother of former Labor Attorney-General and Health minister Peter Toyne. I spoke to Peter and passed on my and the party’s condolences, thoughts and prayers to the Toyne family.
By any measure, Phillip Toyne was an extraordinary Australian. For a significant part of his life he lived and worked in Central Australia. Although trained as a lawyer he was a school teacher in the Territory, initially teaching at Haasts Bluff in the late 1970s. Later, in the early 1980s, he worked as lawyer and advocate, particularly for Pitjantjatjara people.
During a 2012 ABC radio interview Mr Toyne said he was drawn to Indigenous culture after spending a gap year travelling around Australia:
- I well remember going in to Uluru at a time when it was a much more remote place and very undeveloped at the time.
I was awestruck by the sight of the rock and the really significant thing for me was stopping off at this little, ramshackle collection of humpies next to a roadhouse and realising quite dramatically that here were people who were ancient Australians that I couldn’t communicate with.
They didn’t speak English and I didn’t speak Pitjantjatjara.’
This initial encounter had a deep effect on Phillip and led to a committed life of service.
In 1985 Phillip and his colleagues successfully lobbied the Hawke government for the direct grant of title to the traditional owners of Ayers Rock, now Uluru. He described how false rumours were spread at the time suggesting that tourists would not be allowed to visit once Indigenous owners took over.
As has already been publically noted, Phillip Toyne’s life was one of continuous achievement. That was nowhere more evident than in his advocacy for the environment. From 1986 to 1992 he was the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. In 1989 he was instrumental in helping to establish that uniquely Australian environment organisation, Landcare, along with Rick Farley who was formerly the head of the National Farmers’ Federation. It speaks volumes to the character of Phillip that he was able to help form Landcare in 1989 when he was head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and that one of his closest collaborators was the head of the National Farmers’ Federation, Rick Farley. As many have noted, it is probably not a partnership you would see happen in the current political climate.
Phillip also served as Deputy Secretary for the federal Department of the Environment, and, as President of Bush Heritage Australia, developed further environment policy for the federal government.
Former NT government minister and Northern Land Council Director, Jack Ah Kit, said this week:
- Phillip Toyne was highly respected for his commitment and work during his time in the Territory. His work in and around Central Australia was often tough and Phillip was not afraid to strongly put the position of the people he was representing. Sometimes that could rub people up the wrong way, but he was always wanting to do the best job he could for people. His views were also strongly driven by those elders who informed him.
The Territory is a better place for the work and life of Phillip Toyne. A public memorial service will be held for Phillip in July.
I also want to place on the record the Labor Party’s deep regret at the passing of Mr Dougal Brett from Waterloo Station on the weekend. Mr Brett was a young man, a good husband, and a father of three small children. This is a tragedy for his family and is also a tragedy for the Territory. Mr Brett was a well-regarded Territory cattleman. The cattle industry holds an important place in our past and future. Cattle have been worked here for more than 100 years. They form a crucial part of our employment and economy.
Mr Brett was a son of the Territory. He was a decent bloke and was prepared to have a go. I would like his parents, wife and children to know their husband, father and son, held an important place in this magnificent Territory of ours, and his passing causes us all a great deal of sadness.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to talk about a few of the young residents in the rural area, not necessarily constituents because they are under the age of 18. One over the age of 18 is Damien Shaw, who is the captain of the Humpty Doo Volunteer Fire Brigade under the NT Fire Service Management.
Last night I attended the Darwin Rotary Club’s presentation of the Volunteer Fire Fighter of the Year Award and the Professional Fire Fighter of the Year Award. Damien Shaw was awarded this very prestigious award for his dedication and commitment to firefighting and community service.
He did not start with the Humpty Doo brigade; he started with the Koolpinyah brigade and moved to Humpty Doo. He has spent countless hours fighting fires, doing controlled burns, doing the very successful and popular Santa runs, and helping and encouraging many other young people to get involved with community service.
It was good to see his work, dedication and commitment to the community rewarded. I wish him well and congratulate him on his very prestigious award that Rotary Club has set up.
The other two young people I would like to acknowledge this evening are both involved in BMX racing, which has been around for many years and is a very popular sport across the Territory, Australia and the world.
The first young fellow I acknowledge is Luke Taheny-Grubb. He is 12 years old; he is in Year 7 at Taminmin high school, or he might be in Year 8 now. When he gets older he says he wants to be an architect and a professional BMX rider. He is aiming to be in the Olympics in 2020, and I think he will get there.
He has been racing since he was eight years old and has been placed every year at the NT Titles, except one year due to an injury. I am sure if any of us know about BMX riding, the way they throw themselves up in the air on those bikes I am not surprised they get injured. He has won two NT titles and two club championships, and he has been runner up. He says his idol is Caroline Buchanan, who is an Olympic medallist in the sport, for her achievements and good sportsmanship.
He sought sponsorship from many people in the rural area, and I was happy to support him. He has been racing not only in Darwin but elsewhere. He has raced at Satellite City, the Three Round Series, the Satellite City Thunder, he has been first cruiser for eight to 12 year old boys, he went to the NT Titles in Alice Springs, he has been in the October Jingili Round Series and Senior Club Champion. He has many points and has done a lot of hard work.
He won the 2013 Coromal Caravans Open at Jingili, the 2013 Tropic Thunder, the Jeep Series Jingili, NT Titles in 2013 and was runner-up club champion. He is a dedicated young sportsperson. His father looks after him well and supports him. I am pleased to support him and I wish him well. I am sure he will get to the Olympic Games in the year that he is aiming to, because he is dedicated. I am sure he has his mind set on bringing a gold medal, or some other medal home, not only to Australia but to the Territory.
The other person I wanted to acknowledge is a young fellow by the name of Jayden Walker. He has also been involved in the sport of BMX since he was eight years old. They get involved in this sport at a very young age.
He is now 15 and aspires to be a racer at the elite level of the competition. He has attended many interstate race meetings over the years, including the Australian Titles in Shepparton, Cairns, Mount Gambier and Brisbane, and he has represented the Territory as part of the NT team and qualified as dynamic representative.
He has raced also in the NT Titles at Satellite City, Jingili, Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy, with fantastic results, receiving an NT Plate at all events. He is currently No. 1 in the cruiser class and NT eighth in the 20-inch class after a crash in the final. I think that has something to do with the size of the bike.
He said to me with the benefit of the roof over the track at the Jingili BMX Club, they were able to train and prepare for the upcoming Australian Titles in Brisbane. They went there in May. They drove over in April to get some early track time and get familiar with the course before they competed.
He also is a very dedicated young sportsperson. Many people think of BMX as just riding pushbikes, but those who know the sport know there is a lot more to it than that. They have to be very fit and agile to do the things they do. He has done an enormous amount of work and achieved a lot through his BMX, including the 2014 NT titles, the Tropic Thunder Dash for Cash, Race 4 A Plate Round 3 series, and Track Attacks. I wish him well and know he will achieve bigger things, not only in the Territory but across Australia.
To both those young fellows, well done, congratulations, and I am happy to keep supporting you because I know you really love your sport and want to take it further, not only for yourselves and your family, but for the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Tony Moran, who sadly passed away after a battle with cancer in May this year.
Tony could have been a character in a Banjo Paterson poem. I was fortunate enough to have known Tony, and since his passing I continue to be amazed at the huge amount of people whose lives he touched and whose lives are now less for his passing.
Tony was a character, a great mate, a hand up when you needed help, a great teacher and a great Territorian. He had expert horsemanship skills, great expertise at handling cattle and took a great interest in training and mentoring staff. Well regarded by industry, he was the teller of tales, and a larger than life character. As Territory old timers would say, Tony was a man you would be lucky to have in your stock camp.
On 25 May 1981 Tony began to work as a stock inspector for the then Department of Primary Production. On Tony’s recruitment to the department he was asked about his relevant skills and experience with the cattle industry in general and stock handling in particular. I understand he was told, ‘Oh, it will also help if you can fight a bit’. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then.
In the 1980s, with the BTEC program in full swing, his work as a stock inspector saw Tony working on most of the Northern Territory cattle stations, helping eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis from our cattle herd.
During his time as a stock inspector Tony was based at Lake Nash, Borroloola, Daly Waters and Katherine. I first met Tony when he was based at Daly Waters and I was a police officer stationed at either Maranboy or Mataranka, I cannot quite recall, but it was certainly in the late 1980s. Tony took over managing the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries’ Kidman Springs Research Station in August 2005 and stayed there until earlier this year.
Always up for a cup of tea or a rum, Tony told a great yarn and was a font of knowledge of all things outback.
I will recite a poem written by Tom Stockwell of Sunday Creek Station. Tony’s sister, Trish Geraghty, has kindly given permission for me to read this poem tonight.
- Tony Moran
Tony Moran was a gentle man, a stock inspector too
And with the straightest face could he properly bulldust you.
He would play at looking cold and hard, that blank and distant stare
But the eyes would give that twinkle and the smile begin to share.
That look that lured the fillies, equine or human kind
It was a strength of character, perhaps with weakness lined.
But the heart was good, and empathy for people of the land
Was the very centre of the Tony Moran brand.
He reckoned that he’d get assigned to work with all the stations
Run by people who were different or, indiff’rent to legislation.
‘Deserved’ I thought, but didn’t say, and remembered that the folk
Put in charge of running Tony, were also oft to play the joke.
He stockied on the Plenty, out east of Alice Springs
On the Barkly, Lake Nash Station, with the BTEC in full swing.
From there to Borroloola where scrub and characters were thick
To the courthouse, Daly Waters, Tony’d finally won a trick.
He had room for all his horses and the house was on the tar
Good people on most the stations – fifty metres to the bar.
Pubs and tourists right there on tap – but BTEC busy – there’s the rub
Making time and an impression he rode the mare right in the pub.
As a stockie of the old school he was straight and he was fair
Did the time on ground, in choppers, and of shooting did he share.
Long days in needling cattle, tagging ears and banging tails
Checking fences and reactors, ‘watch out – scrub bull!’ climb the rails.
His gear was neat and tidy, well-maintained and in its place,
There was pride in his appearance at the draft, or by the race.
Well respected by the stations and the chopper pilots, too
The old captain speaks in grateful tones of jobs done by the two.
He ‘flew beneath the radar’ recalled the Barkly DVO
Of course he’d have played some tricks coz all of ‘em had a go,
I caught Freddy driving old Slot’s trucks when the testing job was slow
But Tony just did the job and the rest I didn’t know.
He didn’t know for instance that in the BTEC catcher,
Fred and Tony managed scrubbers not worried by the scratches,
More accurately described as scalping, by the nurses at the Loo
‘Falling panels’ said the paperwork the bosses got to view.
‘Doctor Death’ the Katherine DVO, called him ‘The Diplomat’
‘Got on well with station people, never complaining where he sat’.
His station people were close to him, they knew that Tony tried,
While families wept at funerals, he too was caught damp-eyed.
But with the end of BTEC, the stockies’ work was in decline
So Tony thought it must be time to chase a different line.
If Old Jack and Bruno Hogan could pull the research strings,
He was sure that he could handle the crew at Kidman Springs.
There were horses, cows and pastures – it all seemed that much greener
A bonus for the drafter was the new ‘Don Cherry Horse Arena’
Young staff and district visitors all keen to learn the trade
Talked fondly of the manager and the impression that he made.
So,… the drafting is all over and the cattle quite in camp,
Tony’s rolled his final smoke and swag and finally doused the lamp.
And he’s joined the other bushmen resting on the Kath’rine’s banks
Spinning yarns, recalling stories, he’ll be welcome in their ranks.
He could ride and fight and laugh and love but also shed a tear.
He was maudlin, mad or just mumblin’ as he talked into his beer.
Ahh – Yes mate, Fox and Stumpy remember that time too,
And all like all our other Stockies past Mate,… we’ll sure remember you.
The Northern Territory, and the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, has a lost a bright light in the passing of Tony Moran. I extend my and the people of Katherine’s sincere condolences to his family and many friends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk on two very different subjects. One is marriage. I find it very disappointing to see our four members of federal parliament line up in support of so-called gay marriage, which for me is a contradictory term.
I find it hard to accept they look at marriage as something simply to do with love or equality. Marriage is something more than that. It is a very special relationship between a man and a woman that has been recognised over thousands of years as having a special place in many cultures or religions.
In many places it is blessed by a formal religious or civil rite which is held in high regard, with lots of celebrations as the new couple begin their new phase in life.
In Western society it is based on love and romance, but in other societies or cultures a partner is selected by others and a dowry is required or, as in Aboriginal society, one is promised to another person usually of the same skin group. By the very design of a man and a woman, they are able to join together in a sexual relationship that not only creates a loving bond between one another, but also creates a family which brings much joy and even more unity to that bond between husband and wife.
They create a child, and just in case you have forgotten, that child is made up of 23 chromosomes from mum and 23 from dad, with the sex chromosomes defining whether the child will be a girl or a boy. Having babies also enables the human race to produce the next generation, but over the last few years we seem, in our so-called enlightened Western society, to have certain groups who believe they should also be classified as married if they live together, even though they do not fit the description I have just given.
They believe people of the same gender are married if they live together, presumably if they live in a sexual relationship, which, by its very nature, does not produce children.
They might love one another, but so do others who live together, such as brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, brothers and sisters, widows and widowers, none of whom are living in a sexual relationship. They are living together for companionship and security. Are our federal members trying to say that they should all be allowed to be married? After all, Bill Shorten’s private members’ bill proposes replacement of the words ‘man and woman’ with the term ‘two people’ to define who can be legally married.
Some may say, ‘Who cares? The roof will not fall in if we have gay marriage’, but sometimes the roof may fall in slowly as our society wanders all over the place like a headless chook, with nobody believing anything except what is on the latest iPhone.
It seems we have a society that is driven by a few people who want to attack marriage by trying to be part of something they could not be part of up until now. They are the ones who have the ear of the media or the talk shows. Their views are continually publicised and supported by the so-called media experts until people believe this is the popular way to go and must be right, and people like me who hold views against gay marriage are just bigots, homophobic or worse – old.
Our four federal parliament members just go with the flow. I find it amazing that Bill Shorten’s deputy, Tanya Plibersek, claims that marriage equality is a matter of legal discrimination. It can only be discrimination if two same things are treated differently. In this case, a relationship between a man and a woman – that is, of two different genders – is not the same as a relationship between two people of the same gender. They may pretend to be the same, but they are not the same. A lemon and an orange are both citrus fruits but no matter how much the lemon tries, it can never be an orange. If the government brings down a decree that all lemons will now be oranges, the fact remains that the orange and the lemon are not the same. There is no discrimination.
Some will say that marriage fails, that there are many breakups and that two men or two women can do the same job. By what standard do they base that argument? Marriages fail but that does not mean that marriage is at fault and, therefore, we should try the latest modern new age popular alternative – gay marriage. If the supporters of gay marriages are saying marriage is the failure, why do they want to get married? Marriage failure may mean some people made the wrong choice, had a violent partner or were ill-prepared for what was ahead of them. It does not make marriage a failure. In all of this, have we forgotten about the right of a child to know its mother and father?
The reality is that people live together for whatever reason. I support the idea that Phillip Ruddick recently presented on Q & A, which was similar to an idea pushed forward by a Liberal MP I knew in the early 2000s. It looked at a way of giving a relationship where two people resided together a legal basis. People who live together should be able to legalise that relationship which can enable financial and social benefits that may come from the recognition of that relationship. Whether the relationship is sexual or not would be irrelevant, and of course it would be purely a voluntary agreement. That way, the state can legalise what it wants and can leave marriage alone.
I am married to a wonderful and very forgiving woman. I look back on my parent’s life together, and my grandparents. I look at the Aboriginal side of my family and see the extended family of nanas, uncles, aunties, cousins, nieces and nephews, and see a family that goes back over thousands of years all because of a relationship between a man and a woman.
That relationship, marriage, should stay the centrepiece of our society and give security to a family. That relationship highlights that we are designed differently for a natural purpose which no other relationship is designed for, and that relationship should remain and be supported.
Our members of federal parliament should stand up for something that has stood the test of time and protect marriage, not diminish or dilute it with something that it is not. Many people who are not Catholic look to the new Pope Francis as a breath of fresh air. I do too, and think he is a man of vision and of the people who has a strong faith and speaks the truth.
I finish with a number of his quotes this year when he visited the Philippines and Italy. He said:
- The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.
He went on and said:
- I wonder … if the so-called gender theory is not also an expression of a frustration and of a resignation, which aims to cancel the sexual difference because it no longer knows how to address it. Yes, we risk taking a step backward. The removal of the difference, in fact, is the problem, not the solution … With these human bases, sustained by the grace of God, it is possible to plan the matrimonial and family union for the whole of life. The matrimonial and family bond is something serious and it is for everyone, not only for believers.
I have not thrown my support behind marriage as we know it just because of what the Pope said, but because I can think for myself about it. I agree with what he says, not simply because I am a Catholic, but I believe what he says is right. He is a wise person and what he says makes good sense.
I will quickly talk about something completely different. This is about the state of Gunn Point Road. This is a letter I received today and it is addressed to Hon Gary Higgins and Hon Peter Chandler.
I have communicated with Mr Gerry Wood and had correspondence back from him regarding a pending response relating to the condition and maintenance, or lack thereof, of Gunn Point Road.
My situation is that I am investing my personal funds, in collaboration with Tourism NT and the Commonwealth funding schemes, to enhance the tourism experience for local, interstate and overseas visitors, therefore contributing to earning tourism dollars for the NT. This is effectively and directly assisting the hospitality business and contributing to employment.
Historically speaking, Leaders Creek has always been an iconic fishing destination and is very popular because of its close proximity to central Darwin. It offers easy access to the Tiwis, Vernons, Cape Totham, and Ruby Islands, Saltwater Arm, Adelaide River and Gunn Point Blue Holes, which is quite spectacular.
Fishos also launch from here, tripping to Shady Camp, Cape Don and beyond. Leader’s Creek fishing base also offers various forms of accommodation options and security parking. Future marketing plans include fishing club comps, combined corporate business conference events with chartered fishing, including family-orientated facilities.
I am not a ‘Johnny come lately’ businessman. I have started, owned and operated various successful businesses in Darwin since the early 1980s, and employed in excess of 200 staff. My industry experience began in 1968, so I fully understand the pros and cons of business operations.
Currently, I am having many challenges attracting customers to Leaders Creek, mainly due to the adverse and dangerous road conditions. Guiding fishing charter operators, local and interstate fishing businesses and supply and service operators refuse to traverse Gunn Point Road, except when it is freshly graded.
I know this for a fact, as they ring me in advance for road conditions. I prefer to be honest with my response to everyone, rather than see them having an accident or getting killed trying to get here. This is seriously how bad the road is. Others that travel this road are police, water police, Power and Water officials, fishery officers, conservation, parks and wildlife officers, custom officers, army convoys, professional fishermen and licenced crabbers. In addition, there are caravaners and 100 to 300 campers on Gunn Point beach on long weekends.
The potential to develop Leaders Creek as a fishing resort due to its very popular location has been considered based on the feedback I have received from all fishos and their families. This future development aspect can favourably proceed if power and water can be provided to my property by the respective government departments.
In summary, the viability of his business is threatened by the state of Gunn Point Road. He is asking is for that road to be upgraded so he can continue to expand what is a very successful business.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I give a big shout out to the Minister for Arts and Museums tonight on behalf of the Northern Territory arts community.
I talked briefly at estimates and alerted you to the Take Action to Protect Australian Arts from Deadly Cuts campaign, contact at freehearts.com.au. I will quote from their document. I hope you use the considerable resources available to you to make sure we speak up, stand up and are heard in Canberra on behalf of the Territory arts community.
I quote:
- The key problems facing the arts sector at a national level are chronic under funding and the lack of a credible evidence-based policy framework. Despite a failure to grow investment in arts and culture in the last Federal budget, or to develop a national arts and culture policy to replace the one axed last year, Federal Arts Minister, George Brandis, has recklessly cut $104.8m over four years from the Australia Council to establish a new national program for excellence in the Arts MPEA, under his own control as Arts minister.
This move puts extraordinary pressure on artists, funding agencies and philanthropists across the country. Inexplicably, it comes just months into the implementation of the new Australia Council strategic plan that Senator Brandis publically launched last August.
Initiatives like NPEA have no strategic connection to the new plan and seriously undermine the capacity of the Australia Council to deliver. An amount of $240m per year of leveraged investment is at serious risk just as a result of the suspension of six-year funding for small to medium companies. We call on Senator Bandis to put an immediate halt to his current actions in order to limit the growing damage to the arts sector and communities across the country.
Senator Brandis needs to urgently consult with the sector and key stakeholders, including the state arts agencies and the philanthropic bodies as a first step to developing an inclusive, coherent, evidence-based solution that grows arts and culture in Australia. Small to medium arts companies are in serious danger. The federal budget is set to pass through the lower house next week. It contains 30% in cuts to the Australia Council. If the proposed changes are implemented the axe will fall on grants to small to medium arts organisations and individual artists.
Current government announcements show that the NPEA will not provide multi-operational funding for small to medium companies. Similarly, since suspending its new six-year program, the Australia Council has not made any public commitment to supporting multiyear operational funding for small to medium arts companies. State and territory arts agencies are also yet to confirm any commitment to multiyear operational funding for the small to medium sector. We need to get active and vocal right now to save the small to medium sector from extinction.
Arts, jobs and income are at stake. Under its new strategic plan, the Australia Council had allocated $30m to the vitally important six-year organisation’s funding program. Australia Council data shows that in the trial of the six-year funding model with the 11 key producer companies 2008-13, these companies leveraged on average an additional $8 of income for every $1 invested by the Australia Council. Without the security of six-year funding from the Australia Council, this leveraging is not achievable.
If the $30m investment by the Australia Council in six-year funding for small to medium companies does not go ahead as planned what is at risk is $240m per year of leveraged funds, or a staggering total of $1.44bn over the next six years. This equates to thousands of lost jobs in communities across the country. The impact of this is huge, and we need to get the message out across the county.
Actions, how we can make a difference? A mapping project: data about the impact is being gathered to present to the major political parties in Canberra next week. You can contribute your data to a national mapping project. All projects and six year applicants to the Australia Council should contribute. Letter writing and MP meetings - if you have not already written to your local member and both the federal and state Arts minister and the Prime Minister, you should do it now.
You should also organise to meet with your local federal member and specifically ask them to raise this issue with the federal Arts minister as a matter of urgency. If you want more access to information, there is a website http://placestories.com/project/160311#!v=links.
The Australia Council meets in Sydney on Thursday 18 June 2015. You should e-mail now to the Australia Council Chair, Rupert Meyer, and CEO Tony Groybowski, calling for the council to stand up for the small to medium sector and give a binding commitment to the six-year funding program and support for individual artists.
Local media stories - we need more stories in local newspapers about the impact of the cuts to the Australia Council budget. E-mail contact@freehearts.com.au if you want any help. There is a Canberra delegation and a national day of action on 18 June 2015. You can join a whole-of-arts sector delegation gathering at Parliament House Canberra next Thursday to meet with each of the major parties. If you would like to join the delegation or contribute to the joint statement, e-mail contact@freehearts.com.au. If you cannot make it to Canberra but want to get involved in local actions then go to https://www.facebook.com/freehearts2015.
There is a petition running. If you have not signed the petition, please do so. The ‘Art of Brandis’ is a campaign running; no better tonic than the sublime on Twitter. There is an Instagram campaign. For more information please e-mail: contact@freethearts.com.au.
This is what I was talking about at estimates. This is about cuts in the federal budget, back to back with Northern Territory government cuts, and what I have argued as being the Northern Territory government’s missed priorities.
We are talking about small to medium enterprises right across the Territory. Community arts organisations are now facing drastic cuts, the closure of their operations in some cases and thousands of jobs being lost. When the CLP government talks about economic development in the regions, you can be sure in the regional or remote communities, in most cases, the art centres, the small to medium businesses, are the most powerful economic drivers in the community and will be the bodies most affected.
Barkly Regional Arts in Tennant Creek has been a key producer. The evidence of its output and programs, its input into the community, is quite evident and has been over a number of years. It is now facing serious cuts and job losses, and the ability to support arts activities as well as the wellbeing of the community, including our festivals, will be troubled.
I hope you will use the considerable resources at your fingertips to engage with Senator Brandis to acknowledge the concern of the small to medium businesses in the arts sector across the Northern Territory. Make contact with the Australia Council and lobby on behalf of Territory artists, the Territory arts community and the small to medium arts and cultural centres which represent the dynamic cultural identity of the Northern Territory. That is who we are, who we represent and what we want to promote.
I could continue talking about the benefits to Indigenous, regional and remote communities and the big end of town such as Darwin, but time is running out. We need to make contact by 18 June. I urge you to lend your privileged position as a minister in the Northern Territory government, and make contact with your Liberal colleague in Canberra to get behind our arts community and back them up. We need these changes reversed. In your case the cash is there. It is about the priorities of the appropriation. We must listen to the constituents. It is in our interests and is our duty to do so.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016