2015-03-24
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Years 4/5 and 5 from Karama Primary School accompanied by Ms Mere Barlow, Mr Brian Morgan, Ms Sarah Behan and Ms Barbara Grant. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with great sadness that we learnt last week of the passing of Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister, John Malcolm Fraser AC CH GCL, at the age of 84. I ask all members to rise to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect for the passing of a former Prime Minister of Australia.
As a sign of respect members stood in silence for one minute.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker. I ask that leave of absence for today, tomorrow and Thursday be granted to the member for Namatjira on account of illness.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 125, I move that intervening business be postponed until after the Chief Minister moves a condolence motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its condolences at the passing of John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL, and extend deepest sympathy to his family and friends.
The Australian people have lost a giant in Australian politics with the death of Malcolm Fraser. He was a giant in stature and a giant in leadership. The former Liberal Prime Minister died early on Friday morning at the age of 84.
Mr Fraser first entered parliament in 1955 as its youngest MP, and spent nearly 20 years as a backbencher and in the ministry. He became Opposition Leader in 1975 and faced off against Gough Whitlam, becoming Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister after Whitlam’s dismissal by the Governor-General.
It is one of the best documented and most talked about moments in Australian political history. There is still persistent debate about the Fraser government’s legitimacy and Fraser’s role in the events of November 1975. However, in the following election he won 91 seats out of 127 in the House of Representatives and controlled the Senate with a six-seat majority. It was the largest majority in Australian political history and he continued to dominate the political landscape for three terms.
Malcolm Fraser was an extraordinary leader. He was a big strong-willed man who did not hesitate to insist on what he saw was the right outcome for this nation. He dominated federal parliament like few others, and the period 1975 to 1983 was known as the Fraser years; he owned them. He was the first federal politician, as far as we know, to use the word ‘multiculturalism’. The word was first used in a speech to the state Zionist Council of New South Wales in 1969, four years before Al Grassby, often labelled as the father of multiculturalism, became a minister.
Mr Fraser was an advocate of immigration being a means of boosting the population. This conviction took shape in a decision to bring refugees from mainland Southeast Asia to Australia after the Vietnam War. Thousands of families took advantage of that decision and have become an integral part of Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s society as our Vietnamese population.
He passionately opposed racism in any form, whether it was directed towards Indigenous Australians or in Africa. His vigorous attempts and efforts to stamp out racism in national and international affairs stand as his lasting legacy. He followed the proud tradition of former Liberal leaders such as Robert Menzies, who gave Aborigines the right to vote in the 1960s, and a Harold Holt government referendum in 1967 which removed clauses from the Australian Constitution which discriminated against Aboriginal people. Many do not know that it was Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Prime Minister, who enacted the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, giving land rights to Northern Territory Aborigines and implementing the recommendations of the Woodward Royal Commission into Aboriginal land rights. The act passed both houses of parliament with bipartisan support and created the first legal framework to allow claims for traditional ownership.
The elders of east and west Arnhem Land have asked for me to pass on their condolences today and broadcast that to the Fraser family. They know too well the significance of that legislation and the role Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser played in giving land rights to Aboriginal Territorians.
Mr Fraser awarded the Territory self-government in 1978. The then Prime Minister came to Darwin to mark the occasion and address the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 8 September 1978. He told the Assembly:
He conceded that for decades ultimate authority for administration of the laws governing the Territory’s day-to-day affairs was held by people thousands of miles away, people who did not always comprehend the Territory’s special needs.
He finished his speech by expressing his confidence in the people of the Northern Territory and saying he looked forward to the day when the Northern Territory finally becomes the seventh state of Australia, a dream we always seek to pursue.
Malcolm Fraser was also the man behind our most famous tourist icon in the Northern Territory, Kakadu. He declared the first stage of Kakadu National Park in 1979, and it has become one of Australia’s foremost outdoor experiences. Mr Fraser spent several weeks in the region looking closely at a number of aspects of Kakadu. He described Kakadu as an area of major consequence to Australia and one of the major national parks for the world. It still stands that way today. He had the foresight to understand that Kakadu needs preserving not only for present, but also future generations.
Every great parliamentary career must come to an end. In 1983 Fraser dissolved both houses of parliament and called a general election. He had planned to gain an advantage from the disunity in the federal Labor Party over Bob Hawke’s challenges to Bill Hayden’s leadership at the time. Twenty minutes after Fraser announced the election Hayden resigned as ALP leader and allowed Hawke to assume leadership. What followed was an election campaign largely focusing on Fraser’s and Hawke’s personalities. The ALP won a 25-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but the Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate. The morning following the election Malcolm Fraser announced his intention to resign from the Liberal leadership, and five days later he resigned from parliament as well. He had been Prime Minister for seven-and-a-half years, one of our nation’s longest-serving Prime Ministers.
His relationship with the Liberal Party since then has been the subject of great discussion. Politicians come and go, and many simply disappear into a comfortable retirement, but not Malcolm Fraser. He continued to fight for what he believed in for the rest of his life. He was critical of both Labor and Liberal parties and never took a backwards step when his critics tried to silence him.
He chaired a number of international panels and helped establish the foreign aid group, CARE, in Australia. His contribution to this country cannot be overstated, particularly his contribution to the Northern Territory. The right to vote and land rights for Aboriginal people and self-government for Territorians is the lasting legacy he leaves in the Northern Territory.
Someone whispered in my ear the other day, ‘Chief Minister, the Liberals delivered all the best outcomes for Aboriginal people when it comes to the right to vote, land rights, and the right to democracy, particularly in the Northern Territory with self-government for all Territorians’.
To Malcolm Fraser, his leadership, his colleagues at the time, I say thank you. He was a leader in every sense of the word.
To his wife Tammy, his four children, Mark, Phoebe, Angela and Hugh, our thoughts are with you. Long live the legacy of Malcolm Fraser.
Madam Speaker, thank you, this parliament and the children in the gallery for allowing this condolence motion today.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today on behalf of my Labor team I pay our respects to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
I acknowledge his many achievements as Prime Minister, including those that directly benefitted the Northern Territory. I honour his steadfast commitment to true liberalism and the effort and energy he put into those ideals in his leadership of our nation, and after he retired from the Australian parliament.
While the Whitlam government laid the groundwork for Aboriginal land rights, the Fraser government passed the legislation to deliver land rights to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. He appointed three Aboriginal Affairs ministers who shared his commitment to work to repair the damage that dispossession, racism and a total lack of empathy or respect had wrought on Indigenous Australians over centuries.
In 1978 Malcolm Fraser committed to self-government for our Northern Territory, claiming he wanted statehood for the Territory, though we are yet to see this come to pass. A fitting tribute for this great man would be a bipartisan push by this Assembly to realise his dream of statehood.
My first brush with Malcolm Fraser was in 1978 when he visited for self-government. As a child I had the job of serving hors d’oeuvres at the function in the parliamentary precinct afterwards. I sidled up next to the literally giant of a man who was in engaged in conversation and stood by his side quietly. He paused, noticed a child with a tray of food and stopped. He showed me kindness and the gentle nature he had. He was a very dignified man and I was very impressed.
Australians are indebted to Malcolm Fraser for protecting some of Australia’s iconic environment. He proclaimed Kakadu a national park, banned sand mining on Fraser Island, banned exploration and drilling for oil on the Great Barrier Reef and declared the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. During his tenure Australia banned whaling and lobbied for an international halt to this industry. Australia signed up to conventions to protect endangered species, the Antarctic and the world’s wetlands.
Malcolm Fraser was a strong opponent of apartheid and played a leading role in Commonwealth efforts to end it in South Africa, as well as efforts to end racial conflict in Rhodesia, which led to elections in the renamed Zimbabwe and an end to white rule.
He challenged Australians to open their minds and hearts to our Asian neighbours, welcoming 200 000 migrants from Asian countries and cementing multiculturalism and diversity as part of our Australian way of life. He granted asylum to more than 2000 Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the Northern Territory. He worked with other nations throughout Asia to organise safe haven and an orderly system for them to become refugees, both here and overseas. This truly marked the end of the White Australia Policy and the creation of a new nation for all regardless of colour, religion or political beliefs. A hallmark of our Northern Territory is our vibrant multicultural community, diversity and tolerance, and I thank Malcolm Fraser for his part in creating it.
Some of his greatest contributions to public life came after he retired from politics. While in office he established the Australian Human Rights Commission. Then, after retiring from parliament, he spent the rest of his life advocating the values it was established to nurture and protect. He remained committed to the human rights of asylum seekers and Indigenous people, challenging all governments, Liberal or Labor, when he perceived they were undermining those rights. He was passionate about individual liberties, and free and independent media to underpin them and hold governments and the powerful to account.
As the Territory Labor leader in this Assembly I recognise Malcolm Fraser was loathed by many Labor supporters for engineering the dismissal of the Whitlam government in controversial circumstances in 1975. I have spoken with many Labor supporters over the years who could never forgive him for that. However, they acknowledge that his commitment to his principles over the years softened their views and that the great majority of Australians will feel, as I do, that his passing leaves a big hole in our society.
I had the good fortune to play a small role in the reconciliation between Malcolm Fraser and his then implacable opponent, the great late Gough Whitlam. In 1991 I worked as an industrial officer for the Australian Journalists Association in Melbourne. Warwick Fairfax had decimated the family company that owned The Age and it was placed in receivership.
Various overseas media vultures were circling, none of them committed to the independent journalism practised by The Age. The staff of The Age and our union organised a rally to highlight the dangers to that fine newspaper titled cheekily, ‘Maintain your Age’ and invited both Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam to stand together to save this Australian institution. That was the first time since 1975 that the two great men had appeared on the same platform. I like to think our small union with a big cause helped establish their respect and friendship that grew in later years. That was my second brush with Malcolm Fraser, and again I found him to be kind, gentle and dignified.
Some great leaders rise above partisan politics. I believe Malcolm Fraser forged this path in becoming an outspoken advocate for human rights. Our condolences are extended to his family and many friends. May he rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I read with interest the article in today’s paper by Andrew Bolt which said he believed Malcolm Fraser had moved to the left. I think Malcolm Fraser stuck by true Liberal principles and stayed that way all his life. The Liberal Party has moved, not him. I believe the proof of that is shown by what he did when Prime Minister, which appeared to be no different than when he left the position.
The Chief Minister has already mentioned some of the things people like Andrew Bolt would regard as to the left, but I regard them as ideals a true Liberal Prime Minister would adhere to. For instance, there was establishment of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. He helped establish the position of the federal Ombudsman. He also established the FM radio service for the ABC, something people on that side of politics get a bit upset about. He helped established the national Aboriginal conference and SBS to provide multilingual radio and television services. He approved building of the new Parliament House. He established The Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, although I think that has now come to an end. He played a key role in ending racial war in the former UK colony of Rhodesia, enabling elections to be held and a new nation, Zimbabwe, to be established under black rule. He was part of a government that established the Australian Refugee Advisory Council to advise on the settlement of refugees, many of whom had been arriving as boat people from Vietnam since 1978. How different to today’s Liberal government.
He helped establish the Aboriginal Development Commission. In protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the government cut wheat sales to the Soviet Union and discouraged Australian participation in the Moscow Olympics. This was controversial at the time, but he showed leadership. He also declared 36 000 km of the Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef as a marine park. Someone could accuse him of being a greenie. He abolished appeals to the Privy Council. Although I would call him a monarchist, he broke some of the ties we had with the United Kingdom. He introduced a new migrant selection scheme based on criteria relating to family reunion and the need for skilled workers.
Malcolm Fraser came from a well-to-do background because he was born in Toorak. You might say he was born with silver spoon in his mouth, but he was raised on a sheep farm in New South Wales and eventually moved to Nareen in the western district of Victoria. He was educated at Geelong Grammar School and went to Oxford University, where he graduated with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
Late last night I was watching a documentary on Mr Fraser. He said he did not want to study agricultural science, but wanted to do something which gave him a much broader outlook on life, which is why he took up the degree in philosophy, politics and economics. When you see what he did through his life, along with the grassroots education of working on a sheep station, you can see how it gave him a good grounding to be our Prime Minister.
We have lost a great leader, regardless of the controversy around 1975, which I remember very well. Even though people might have loathed him, in the end, the people made a decision through a democratic election process which was a resounding signal that he was supported by the vast majority of people at the time. If we do not agree with that, it should not cloud our memory of him for all the great things he did for Australia.
He is a fine example of a Menzies-like leader who was willing to go against the grain when needed. He made decisions which would have been extremely unpopular today; one of those was allowing the tens of thousands of Vietnamese boat people to arrive on the shores of Darwin at Nightcliff Beach. Look at the contribution those people have made to Australia from a social and economic point of view. If it had not been for a Prime Minister with the strength to allow those people to come to Australia, we would not benefit from the great contribution those people have made to this country.
I support the Chief Minister’s condolence motion. We have lost a great person and a great leader. He contributed to the way many Australians believe we should be, even if we are drifting away from it somewhat. If anyone is looking for someone to admire and follow as an example of the way people should behave in the political sphere, you can go no further than Malcolm Fraser.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Chief Minister’s condolence motion on the passing of Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister, Right Hon John Malcolm Fraser.
Mr Fraser was an Oxford graduate and a grazier when he won the Victorian seat of Wannon for the Liberal Party in December 1955. Entering politics aged just 25 he was the youngest member of the 22nd Australian parliament. His first 10 years was spent as a backbencher in the Menzies’ government. When Harold Holt became Prime Minister in 1966, Mr Fraser was appointed as Minister for the Army. Mr Fraser also served as a minister in the governments of John Gorton and William McMahon.
After 20 years in parliament he became leader of the Liberal Party on 21 March 1975. Mr Fraser was appointed as caretaker Prime Minister on 11 November 1975 after Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government. The Fraser Coalition government won office a month later with the largest landslide of any federal election. That result has never been matched since. Sadly, almost 40 years to the day he became leader of the Liberals, he vacated his earthly seat after a short illness.
Most people associated with the world of politics know of Mr Fraser for his controversial role in the dismissal of the Whitman government, but it is Mr Fraser’s role in the protection of Aboriginal people he needs to be remembered for in my view. It is a well-known fact that the Labor Party thinks it is the only party for Aboriginal people. August 2012 changed that.
However, when we look at history one of the key moments for Indigenous equality was the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which happened under a federal Coalition government. We all know Labor is talk, talk, talk, but when it comes to real action it is always left to Coalition governments to make things happen. The act signed by the Governor-General on 16 December 1976 established the basis upon which Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory could, for the first time, claim rights to land based on traditional occupation. This was the first Australian law which allowed a claim of title if claimants could provide evidence of their traditional association with land. This act was a milestone for Aboriginal advancement in Australia. It allowed Indigenous Australians to acquire and manage Indigenous-held land sustainably and in a manner that provides cultural, social, economic and environmental benefits for themselves and future generations.
I remind all, including our land councils, that this is what the act is for. It was not to lock up land and keep Aboriginal people in poverty and Third World conditions, but to allow them to grow their communities, to participate in economic development, to build a future for their kids, to create real jobs in their communities, to own their own homes and businesses, to build infrastructure they need to support these opportunities, to better the health of their people to help them live longer, to give them hope instead of hopelessness, and to get kids to school to get an education that will change their and future generations and truly give Aboriginal people self-determination. This was the vision of Malcolm Fraser and of this side of the House. May his legacy continue.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I also support this motion and say on behalf of Indigenous people in Australia, the Northern Territory, especially my electorate and the electorate of Stuart where I live, that I had the opportunity once to meet Mr Fraser when I was pretty young. He was a good friend of my dad’s and many leaders in the Arnhem area, including Mr Yunupingu, and other great leaders who have now passed. One thing I remember about him is that he always said what was on his mind. Knowing Mr Fraser gave people like me the inspiration to reach out and go for what I really wanted in life and fight for what I believed in. It was not about the sides of politics – whether he was Liberal or Labor – it was liberty that he believed in, and that is what I stand for. Everybody deserves equality in this world.
It was not about party politics. He was not a man with that type of honour, and I really looked up to him. I am sure many Aboriginal people did. We admired his strength, vision and what he really stood for. Giving us land rights and giving us the right to vote was just a platform of his work which brought us a long way. The same party is trying to take that away from the first people. A minister in your government put it in place but you will blame Labor. That is a slap in the face. This is a condolence motion for one of the greatest men in history and we are playing party politics of black and white in this House, using Aboriginal people as a target. It is not good enough.
My grandfather was white. My grandmother was Indigenous. I stand in the middle of both of them. I never see it as two different sides of the story. I love them equally, but I will not use my background to attack another side. He was greater than that, and I am sure he is greater than the person on that side of the House who will speak about it, even greater than the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. You can never see it through his eyes or work to understand Aboriginal people through his eyes. No one can equal the great things he has done.
He knew what hard work was. He was raised in the country, the same as Aboriginal people. We were only paid rations back then – the stories my grandparents would tell us or my mother and father would tell me about. That is the great effort. We have never known money. We were paid in flour, milk and teabags back then. I am sure the two on the other side would understand that as they were born and raised in that era, I was not. I came after land rights and after the right to vote, but I heard the stories of what the great leaders before us did, and it was a privilege to meet him.
Let us embrace the good work this man did for everybody, Indigenous people especially. As well as being an Indigenous politician in the Northern Territory – the deep sadness we all have to face one day is that we lose great leaders like him, and it is pretty sad.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion to the House and I support it.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Hon Malcolm Fraser, AC CH, 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, who sadly passed away over the weekend.
Malcolm Fraser served as Prime Minister from November 1975 until March 1983, and was the fourth longest-serving Prime Minister in Australian history. His political career began in 1955 when, at the age of 25, he was elected to represent the rural Victorian seat of Wannon. He served as a minister in the government from 1966 until the defeat of the Liberal government on 2 December 1972, the first election I ever voted in.
Fraser was the last Prime Minister to come from a rural or regional seat so he understood the particular issues that faced regional Australians every day. While many people focus on the manner in which he became Prime Minister by the dismissal of the Labor government in November 1975, it is important that we focus on the positive aspects of his time in the top job.
Malcolm Fraser, as a junior minister, was part of the government that held the referendum in 1967 which acknowledged Indigenous people and counted them as part of the population of Australia. One of the most significant legacies of the Fraser government was the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This act was one of the most significant pieces of law in respect to the Northern Territory. It was the first of the Aboriginal land rights acts allowing for a claim of title if claimants can provide evidence of their traditional association with land.
About 50% of Northern Territory land and 85% of its coastline are currently owned communally by Aboriginal people. The Land Rights Act established the four land councils and the Aboriginal Land Trust, and set up the mechanisms for how Aboriginal people manage their land. This act preceded the Mabo and Wik decisions by decades and ensured Aboriginal people maintained their vital relationship with their country and culture.
Another way in which we in the Territory can see a tangible legacy of Malcolm Fraser is through our multicultural society. Fraser, as a shadow minister for Labor and also Immigration, became the first member of parliament to refer to us having a multicultural society.
In talking about multiculturalism, he also established the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. In his first address to the institute he stated:
This statement could almost be written for Darwin. The significant population of Vietnamese in Darwin largely has its origin in the refugees who Australians accepted with open arms as they fled communist Vietnam. This is one of the most significant decisions the Fraser government took and it had a profound and positive effect on Darwin.
The extent of what was done with respect to people coming from Vietnam is made clear in this simple statistic: 300 000 people in refugee camps were from Indochina, 56 000 of whom came to Australia from Vietnam. This was an extraordinary change to our nation and an extraordinarily positive decision.
Malcolm Fraser’s tenure as Prime Minister covers the passing of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the legal birth certificate of the Northern Territory.
The Fraser government finally acceded to the long-pursued goal of Territorians and conferred self-government in 1978. This set the Northern Territory on the course we are sailing right now: Territorians having control over their own affairs and not being run by faceless public servants in Canberra.
The jewel in the crown of Territory tourism, Kakadu National Park, was declared a national park by the Fraser government. While the legislation was passed by the Whitlam government, it was Fraser as Prime Minister who grasped the buffalo by the horns and set about declaring the park. It is hard to imagine the Northern Territory without Kakadu, and this legacy will continue to all people for generations to come.
Australians continue to reap other benefits of the Fraser government’s reforms from the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service to the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Malcolm Fraser was a great man who cast a huge shadow over Australian politics and leaves a significant legacy for all Australians. He also leaves a specific legacy to all Territorians, and for that we should thank him and show our deepest respect. My condolences to Mrs Fraser and his wider family.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Steve Hatton. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on the motion of condolence for former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
Malcolm Fraser was a man of very strong convictions, particularly when it came to racism. As the Chief Minister mentioned, he strongly campaigned and championed equality for all individuals. He really was a true Liberal.
While many people remember Fraser for his part in the dismissal, his biggest legacy for my people is the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Though it was Gough Whitlam who poured the sand into Vincent Lingiari’s hands, it was the giant of a man, Malcolm Fraser, who pushed the legislation through parliament in 1976 giving Territorians rights to traditional land.
He also gave us Kakadu National Park, a special place in the Northern Territory, Australia and the world. It is because of him that future generations will see this natural beauty and culture that has been connected to us for thousands of years. These are just two of the many things Territorians can thank Mr Fraser for.
On behalf of my electorate I express condolences to Mr Fraser’s wife and children, and thank them for sharing him with us. Without him we would be far worse off.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also speak to this condolence motion. It is important to put somebody like Malcolm Fraser into the context of the time in which he was educated, held the office of Prime Minister and was in the Australian parliament.
Mr Fraser was in many respects a product of the times he lived in. In post-World War II Europe, the election of Clement Attlee’s left-leaning government immediately after the war then a shift to the left throughout the world was reflective of a desire to shed the world of the legacy of Nazism in particular, but also imperialism, which was generally seen as a right-wing philosophical construct.
During that time the economists of the world, particularly John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economics, had traction. That economic structure found its way into the economic thinking of the 1950s and 1960s, a period during which Mr Fraser was educated. That economic thinking was regulatorily structured and believed you could simply turn regulations on and off and money would flow through the economy in different ways. It was highly structured in the way you would put an economy together. That would have been the economics preferred and taught at Oxford when Fraser was there. Clearly, it had a profound effect on him because in the years that he was a member of the Australian parliament and Prime Minister he embraced and encouraged that system.
During the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam that step to the left lurched sharply. After two bitterly-contested elections, in 1972 and again in 1974, Whitlam was returned but with an ever-decreasing majority in the subsequent election. Whitlam introduced a number of things that Fraser continued to keep in place after he ascended to Prime Ministership in the 1970s. In fact, it is not until you look at the Prime Ministership and Treasurership of the Hawke/Keating era that you see the abandonment of Keynesian economics in Australia and a shift to the right, to the Friedman types of economics and monetary policies, a vehicle by which the economy was managed. It is a policy that the Western world and the OECD continue to use to this day.
I have heard several members refer to Fraser as a true liberal. However, liberals come in different flavours depending on how and through which lens you look at them. Liberalism exercised by some in the Liberal Party, even to this day, would be described as damper than other people’s forms of liberalism. You can see these ideas flow into legislation such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in the Northern Territory.
I consider myself a liberal before I ever consider myself a conservative. My opinion on gay marriage would stand me in strong contrast to conservatives in our community. I believe in freedom, I believe in liberty, but I also believe in personal responsibility. This is the difference between me and people like Malcolm Fraser regarding how legislation should affect people. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a good example.
I preface my comments by saying the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was an instrumental piece of legislation and long overdue. There was no doubt, particularly arising out of the judgment in the Nabalco case, that something had to be done to address the dispossession which had occurred, not only in this country but in this jurisdiction, to the title Aboriginal people may have had over their land. Whilst the title was never written down, it was ultimately recognised in cases such as Mabo and the idea that native title could have predated the settlement of Australia.
This is where Mr Fraser’s form of liberalism and mine take divergent paths. The structure of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act shows it is very much reflective of that Keynesian economic structure of control. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is structured to create a system of control which is collective in nature, and the existence of land trusts demonstrates this. Some land trusts do not reflect the traditional systems on the ground.
As member for Macdonnell for a number of years it became apparent that many of the land trusts not only go across different family groups, but extend to take in different language groups. By way of example, the Haasts Bluff land trust area, which has Warlpiri spoken on it, Luritja Pintabi and even some Arrernte, is about 30 000 km and is only mentioned as an example of what I am alluding to.
Because I am a true liberal of the more arid kind I believe in ownership of property, and property rights are at the heart of what it is to be human and exert your rights as a human. Clearly the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act delivers property rights to a series of trusts rather than individuals. My preference would be a land rights act which enabled anthropological study to be undertaken and the title of the land passed to individuals who had the songs and traditional authority over that land.
I remember Gus Williams from Ntaria railing and raging against a land rights decision because his surname started with W and, as a consequence, was way down the list of traditional owners. His authority was no greater under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act than any other individual named as a beneficiary of that trust.
The consequence is, whilst good in intent the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act does not reflect traditional systems of land ownership and the people who held songs for country were, in essence, the same people who had title rights over the land.
This, of course, cannot be undone in the modern world. If we were to undo it, it would invoke constitutional provisions which would say it was an acquisition of property. Even to change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to accommodate this idea would not be feasible because it would mean an acquisition of property rights of other people.
Whilst liberal in the intent of creating a system by which Aboriginal people got their land back, Aboriginal people were seen as a nebulous blob and not a group of individuals who may want to exert land title rights in a fashion other people in the community may.
Aboriginal people, like anybody else, see people coming through their families who have capacity over and above other people, and they have always traditionally passed on land by identifying those best suited to protect that land.
I have always believed that Aboriginal people have a strong and spiritual connection to the land and I accept that on face value. However, nowadays those people who carry songs for country are somewhat diminished by the operations of the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Perhaps one day, through a system of leasing, it can be addressed going forward.
Nevertheless, Malcolm Fraser introduced the act. Whilst I do not agree with the structure of it, clearly it intended to change the world for the better for Aboriginal people. For that I applaud Mr Fraser’s legacy.
I wish to touch on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam and the role Fraser played in it. I heard several times today that Mr Fraser manipulated the dismissal, but history will not bear that out, depending on who you read. I am still unsure how much influence Fraser had over Joh Bjelke-Petersen regarding the change in the structure of the Senate, which enabled the Senate to fall into the Coalition’s hands.
The Senate has never worked in the way the founding fathers of this country determined it should. It was always intended to be a states’ house and the method of appointing people to it was that when a vacancy occurred a state would nominate a replacement.
The convention formed over time was that a replacement would be found from within that person’s party. That did not occur in the early 1970s, when Joh Bjelke-Petersen offered an individual contrary to the political leanings of the person who had vacated the seat. There was also another incident where a similar thing occurred. I am not sure if it was in Queensland, but two senators were changed.
The effect of that was to take control of the Senate away from the crossbenches and land it firmly in the hands of Fraser. Fraser’s role at that point was to use the Senate position he had to block the money bills which had been passed by the lower house. Fraser made it clear that was his intent and his role in forcing the circumstances of the dismissal.
However, blocking supply was something Fraser considered a high political risk. He revealed that he was prepared to relent on blocking supply as a political tactic 24 hours after the dismissal had occurred. He did not have to make that decision because it was taken from him and made by the then Governor-General, exercising the reserve powers he held under the Australian constitutional system.
This is interesting because Garfield Barwick was the source of the advice, although some still allege that Justice Mason was also a strong influence. To give advice for the exercise of the reserve powers by the Governor-General, Sir Garfield Barwick had to distinguish the Westminster system as it was exercised in Great Britain and find a different way of interpreting the system in Australia. To do so, he distinguished the Westminster system by saying the House of Lords was not a representative or elected body and, as a consequence, was incapable of resisting any legislation that would come up from the House of Commons. That is true; the House of Lords at best can delay legislation but cannot stop legislation passing the House. That is proper when you consider it is not an elected body.
Sir Garfield Barwick distinguished the two systems as being different by saying that because the Senate is an elected body, a loss of confidence in or inability of the government to get its bills through the Senate was a loss of confidence in the government itself. That was the advice to Sir John Kerr.
Everybody knows what happened next. That advice was given on 10 November 1975 and by 11 November 1975 Sir John Kerr had summoned Gough Whitlam and dismissed him. This meant that Fraser was appointed as Prime Minister. He, of course, did not control the House of Representatives. As a consequence, a number of bills were not able to be passed and very quickly a vote of no confidence was taken in the government. This caused Fraser to go to Kerr and call for a double dissolution based on the bills that were not passed in the House.
Fraser would have done his polling and known the subsequent election would be a landslide to the Liberal Party. Indeed, it was. Fraser was elected with absolute control of both houses of parliament and governed the people of Australia for seven-and-a-half years.
No matter what you think of Fraser’s ascendancy, the choice he took and the way he stepped forward exonerated him of any residual historical guilt because every time politicians are re-elected they are essentially washed clean by public opinion. Malcolm Fraser had precisely that. He was given a mandate by the people of Australia to govern and did so for seven-and-a-half years. He became Australia’s second longest-serving Prime Minister. That has been bettered by John Howard, who also served this country particularly well.
From a historical point of view Aboriginal people, particularly those in the Northern Territory, were well served by Fraser’s government. It is disappointing that the wellspring of economic advancement identified by Viner in 1979 has not come to pass, but the critical matters are in the structure of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
I place on the record my thanks to Malcolm Fraser for his work in governing and keeping this country safe. I realise there has been a diversion with his brand of liberalism and liberalism practised in this nation today. However, circumstances are somewhat different today than they were when Vietnamese boat people were fleeing communism.
Malcolm Fraser was a giant. Clearly he occupied his position with presence for a number of years, and Australia did not suffer under his management and tutelage as Prime Minister. As economics changed, the world changed. Under the subsequent Labor government a freer economy was adopted which Malcolm could have engaged in, but it was not to be. As I said, he was a product of his time.
I am grateful we have a freer economy, and property rights in this country continue to be protected. I still hold dear to the principles of liberalism that Malcolm Fraser would: a person is judged by who they are not what religion they are, colour they are or background they come from. The consequence of that judgment is something Fraser and I would have differed on. Nevertheless, he well served the people of Australia and what he believed in and I thank him for his service.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 25 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this legislation before the Assembly and the opportunity to talk about that important third tier of government in the Northern Territory, local government.
The Territory opposition is behind the response, as always, representing the voice of the people. We are a small group that consults widely with limited resources, and engages stakeholders and constituents to put together not only constructive criticism, but also good advice for the House. That represents an effective opposition. I will not digress too far, but in the bush, minister, we are regarded as an effective opposition. We have certainly raised the bar in the bush on political assessment, analysis and commentary. I am here every chance I get to support the voice of the bush.
The Territory opposition notes that many of the proposed amendments arise from an independent review by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission of the 2012 local government elections, following the first full term of the new local government in the Northern Territory. That review was the work of our former Electoral Commissioner, Mr Bill Shepheard, a man well-known for his attention to detail and balancing the administrative burden and cost of elections with the important principle of maximising voter participation in the electoral process, the very foundation of our system of government. The Territory opposition acknowledges the great work ably continued by Iain Loganathan, appointed to head the commission in April 2014.
The Territory opposition does not oppose the bill as a whole, but has concerns about some elements of the bill as discussed in debate on the GBD motion brought forward by the member for Nelson in the last sittings. In our discussions with people in the local government sector we have heard concerns about a lack of consultation with elected members of councils, in particular the larger and more developed municipal councils. That concept of consultation cannot be stressed enough.
We raised this matter during the last local government amendments brought before the Assembly in August 2014. We said while the bill continued the work of improvement of our local government legislation, it was not clear how much consultation there had been with elected members of our councils. This is resonating right throughout the Northern Territory.
This still appears to be the case, with elected members of councils wanting more time and opportunity to consult with their own constituents on any changes to the Local Government Act. This is simple but important advice, minister, remembering the common goal of a strong and robust system built on a solid foundation of fair and democratic local government elections across the Territory. That is worth stressing, minister. With respect, in building the third tier of government in the Northern Territory it is important to hear the views of constituents and elected members, not just the administrators of local government legislation.
We do not oppose this bill, but I will flag the Territory opposition’s intention to go to the committee stage for further consideration of some elements of the bill. The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act and Local Government (Electoral) Regulations to improve administration and reduce the cost of local government elections. This bill provides for an extension of local government terms to avoid three elections in the Northern Territory in 2016, and for Dry Season August elections every four years after the next election in August 2017.
The extension is opposed by some, including the member for Nelson, and is not supported by the City of Darwin, our largest municipal council. Those opposed are concerned that it extends current councils by 18 months to a five-and-a-half year term and denies constituents their expected elections in 2016. We debated, in a motion from the member for Nelson in the last sittings of the Assembly, that we should continue with scheduled elections in 2016 but for a reduced term to meet the objective of future August Dry Season local government elections.
On the second point of Dry Season local government elections, this change provides for future elections in the Top End Dry Season, and the cooler months in Central Australia, every four years. It is a pragmatic change. This is supported on the basis it would assist in reducing the cost of conducting elections. More importantly, it would enhance the standard of these important elections as access and support would be easier for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, voters and candidates.
It has been argued strongly by some that the need for constituents to vote as scheduled in 2016 outweighs other considerations, such as the potential administrative burden of up to three elections in 2016. The Territory opposition knows this because we have consulted with elected members as well as constituents. We do not always agree with those opinions, but consultation is fundamental to successful legislation.
In debate the minister mentioned the opportunity to reduce voter fatigue. A response to that is to have more faith in the electorate, and properly acknowledge the desire of constituents to exercise their vote at an election. That response comes from consultation with Territorians. Many Territorians would love the opportunity of an early Legislative Assembly election to give voice to their concerns about the broken promises and direction of this government. That message is alive and well throughout the regions and, dare I say, in the meetings I have been privileged to be part of in the urban centres. It links to the debate the Territory opposition brings to the House today.
There was also considerable discussion about the government’s proposal to defer the next scheduled local government elections from 2016 to 2017. We are not sure what level of consultation was conducted. I remember attending the LGANT conference in Darwin in November last year, where the discussion took place and government was surely listening to that.
On balance, the majority of local government council representatives at that conference supported the one-off amendment to the fixed election term. A motion not to support the changes was debated but not supported at that conference. A key influence in supporting deferral of elections and extension of current council terms was that additional time would assist elected councillors, as well as local authority members in our bush councils, to get on with the job of bedding down the new arrangements involving local authorities. Our plan for the future development of local government in the bush is now being implemented by the Country Liberal Party, so I give credit where credit is due.
The bill also proposes extending the period in which casual vacancies can be filled by appointment, rather than by-elections, to 18 months before a general election. It is clear this amendment supports council-elected members choosing to retire after the current four-year term, not wanting to continue in the extended term to 2017. This has some merit, but we have heard concerns about the current open-ended nature of the process that can be employed to fill such a casual vacancy. I am sure the minister will comment on that in her response.
Some suggest that voters would have an expectation that a vacancy was filled from a previous candidate known to electors, usually the one with the next-highest vote. However, current arrangements allow for other mechanisms to fill vacancies. For example, an expression of interest process or a name pulled out of a hat. The Territory opposition suggests this area requires further consultation and review.
The bill gives councils the flexibility to conduct by-elections themselves, engage an external electoral service provider or use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for by-elections. We understand the desire of council to choose their own service provider or conduct their own election, especially in the case of relatively simple by-elections.
The proposed amendments also aim to improve capacity of councils to conduct by-elections at a lower cost. Cost is not the only consideration and, over time, changes should also be judged on how they impact on voter engagement and turn-out with the mechanism of consultation and review. I am sure the minister will comment on that.
The bill also allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. I noted in the briefing – and I thank the minister for that …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Karama Primary School accompanied by Mr Peter Slidders. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Mr McCarthy: And the principal, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Welcome, principal of Karama.
Mr McCarthy: It is always good to see the principal here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY: The bill also allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. I note the NT Electoral Commission does not fully support this amendment due to existing issues with maintaining accurate mailing databases, evidenced by the recent NTEC enrolment campaign with significant return-to-sender letters received. I would like the minister to consider that advice.
Being a bush member, no doubt the minister has had examples of mail-outs in regional and remote areas where there can be considerable return-to-sender. Australia Post has difficulty dealing with areas that do not have mainstream postal services like the urban areas with letterbox deliveries. Tennant Creek is a good example of the local post office not being able to deliver to street addresses only to post boxes. Borroloola also comes to mind, where I lived for six years. There is no street postal delivery; it is only available for post boxes. It is a rather inefficient system where mail is collected in the post office. We see the uncertain outcome where post is left at the post office then registered as a return-to-sender. In the case of electing community members, there would be a serious challenge. Noting the NT Electoral Commission’s concerns is another good process in consultation and review.
I have also heard concerns from some elected councillors that this may reduce informed voter participation in council elections and the opportunity for discussion with voters on local government issues. That important point from the constituency relates directly to good consultation. These councillors see direct contact with electors at a polling booth as an important part of the election process. That is a good, valid comment.
The bill proposes allowing future municipal councils to choose whether to fill the office of the principal member – the mayor or president – by appointment or election, while making a change that aligns municipal councils with regional councils. This seems a key example of where constituents of municipal councils – the voters – may have wanted more opportunity to express a view on that matter.
Expanded postal voting and early voting services to all voters is supported, but noting that in the bush success relies on a reliable postal service. Once again voter participation, not just potential cost saving, needs to be a key performance indicator. The Territory opposition looks forward to further review and analysis of the impact of this change in future reports from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
The bill contains another measure relating to absent voting services on polling day, allowing new capacity to limit this to designated polling places in regional centres. I was assured at the briefing that an elector in a regional council area, let us say the Barkly, will be able to vote at all polling booths in that council area. That was a concern I had, and I thank the public servants who attended the briefing and confirmed my concerns were not validated and that a voter can vote at all polling booths in that council area. We support this new provision on that basis, and would be very concerned about any negative impact to mobile bush voters who are unable to exercise a convenient absentee vote within their council area.
The bill proposes changing the time by which postal votes must be received from 6 pm to 12 noon on the sixth day after polling day. We agree with this administrative change given the changes to postal delivery time and the opportunity for quicker vote counting.
The bill provides the Electoral Commissioner with the power to set polling hours on polling day for by-elections, a minor administrative change we are sure the Northern Territory Electoral Commission will exercise ensuring appropriate opportunity for voting.
The bill provides for the transfer of jurisdiction of local government matters from the current local government tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Territory opposition supports this change, in line with development of the new NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal that now provides for review of a wide range of public administration matters.
The opposition is interested to see what further initiatives this government brings forward to continue development of a strong, mature system of local government across the Northern Territory. This includes the professional development of our elected councillors and a homegrown local government workforce in the Northern Territory, well-attuned to our circumstances, the local history, culture and needs of our communities, and the importance of good, reliable government services no matter where you live.
While we support work to improve the legislative framework for local government in the Northern Territory, it is regrettable that we are yet to see real progress in the work we started on the long-term financial sustainability of regional councils. That is an important point and, once again, one that has been generated through active engagement and consultation in the regions.
Whilst canvassing the government’s bill and consulting with constituents, stakeholders and elected members – an important point in this contribution to debate – the conversation moves very quickly to the grassroots of reform. That is enhanced to some degree by the promises made by the CLP. People in the bush have long memories which do not always support the member of Stuart’s version of history. The member for Stuart should revise those scripts before putting them on the public record because the constituents are challenging those statements and the member for Stuart is becoming quite famous for her contributions to the House. People on the ground in regional and remote areas know the full story. They live that story and will continue to do so.
It is good to debate legislation and contribute to the development of local government in the Northern Territory. The last point, in addition to the questions the Territory opposition has in the committee stages of the bill – the crux of the matter now relates to delivery of major reform. The member for Stuart alluded to the situation in a condolence motion, of all motions. In the lead-up to the 2012 Northern Territory general election big promises were made. There were extremely demanding and challenging promises relating to all of the Northern Territory, but specifically into regional and remote areas. I do not have the contract for Borroloola with me and I do not have the answers given by the government, but the semantics in those responses were enjoyable for a political laugh. The people on the ground in Borroloola are not happy with those responses or the twists, turns and complete denial of any fair and honest contractual obligation presented to people to gain their trust, which has now been discarded.
We always enjoy the opportunity to debate. Clear policy alternatives are acknowledged in the speech. I pay credit where credit is due, especially where the opposition mentioned the development of local authorities. This is an example of a good initiative which was continued under the CLP.
We now want to get some meat on the bone. We want to hear from the minister about the real reforms and outcomes, not in legislative management framework, but those promises. No doubt you are seriously engaged in the Cabinet budget process. The Territory opposition looks forward to the CLP’s 2015 budget. We expect to see a rush on delivering those promises because we have heard two-and-a-half years of rhetoric. There has been a widely talked about distraction in the agenda of the government with some serious internal divisions, but we look forward to those massive promises being delivered through a budget appropriation process, as well as the minister bringing more legislative reform to this House for the growth and development of our local government sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. I have some questions for a later stage in this process.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill today. It has been a pleasure to listen to the member for Barkly, the shadow spokesman for Local Government, speak on this issue.
It is a well-known fact that the member for Barkly was a rodeo clown. I do not say that in any negative way as I have immense admiration for rodeo clowns. From what I can gather, the member for Barkly made a very good rodeo clown. The attributes of a rodeo clown are – to coin a phrase from the Chief Minister – you need enormous testicular fortitude, a thick hide and quick feet to do a job like that. The member for Barkly has demonstrated all those traits aptly today. He has a thick hide, plenty of testicular fortitude and is quick on his feet. For him to say local authorities were an invention of the former Labor government shows an enormous disregard for history and a quick reinvention of what they stand for.
I know we are pretty thick on this side at times, but we can remember the former government and the toxic shires it put in place. We remember the last election campaign, where Labor paid a very heavy price for its disregard of councils in the bush and lost a number of seats. I remember talking to Labor luminaries who were joking and carrying on. At the time it become public that I was heading up the bush campaign, and people were laughing at me and asking what hope we had. Barbara McCarthy, Karl Hampton, the Labor candidate for Arafura and a range of others were unbeatable. These people had a right to the seats. They did not really care, and put in place a system of local government that took away people’s voices and their feeling of representation. Ultimately, they paid the price for that.
The member for Barkly was quick on his feet during the last election campaign. With a couple of weeks to go, he discovered he was in a bit of trouble and took some quick remedial measures to ensure he got over the line. I pay tribute to the member for Barkly for that. If others in his team were as connected with their electorate as the member for Barkly is, perhaps they would still be in government. Sadly, that was not the case for the Labor Party. It disregarded the bush, turned its back on Indigenous Territorians, paid the price and lost government.
The bush campaign was largely run around Labor’s former local government reforms, with super shires that Indigenous Territorians and people in the bush felt had taken away their voice. Since coming to government we have been keen to restore the voice of Indigenous Territorians. We have worked hard to make sure the local government sector has been heard. We looked at de-amalgamating councils. The only de-amalgamation was the council in the member for Daly’s electorate, but we listened.
Across the Territory we had a deep and long consultation period and got to the heart of what people in the bush were looking for. Fundamentally, they wanted their voices restored. This is where our Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, did such a wonderful job in opposition as the shadow Local Government spokesperson. He put together quite detailed policies and plans, and as Chief Minister has driven them through the Cabinet system. He worked particularly hard on me when I was Local Government minister, and I am assured that the member for Stuart is also constantly urged by the Chief Minister to drive these reforms, because ultimately we are in government because of the work we are doing with local government and the promises we made.
The local authorities are about restoring the voice of people in the bush. Most townships of any size now have a local authority operating, and the government has not only put these things in place but has backed them up with funding. The fact is local authorities are funded and people are meeting in their communities. It is not a lot of money, but it is something and a reason for local authorities, and the people who sit on the authorities, to get together and look at what their township and community requires and make some decisions in relation to that. Each local authority receives a small amount of money.
We are keen to continue that funding and, clearly, other aspects of getting local government financially sustainable is something government continues to work on. There is no quick fix for that. Not many people in the community are putting their hands up to pay more rates or would like to start paying rates. It is a difficult call, but government is moving in that direction.
This bill is about enabling regional councils to determine their affairs better. Part of the bill is about the timing of the next election, and I know the member for Nelson and others are somewhat opposed to extending the term. The member for Nelson probably has a good idea of how people in local government might react. It was my view, when I was minister for Local Government, that we would have a revolt from local government if we tried to bring the election date forward. If we tried to reduce the term of the current crop we would almost certainly have outrage and disquiet across the Northern Territory.
Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at things. Perhaps the member for Nelson is right and we should cut short the term rather than extend it, but I think most people agree for the top half of the Territory running elections in March is problematic given the Wet Season and the difficulties in rounding people up at that time of year. Even the member for Nelson would agree that March is not an appropriate time to be conducting elections across the Top End.
However, something had to give. The Local Government minister has made the correct decision to extend the term of the current crop, bearing in mind this will be a one-off extension. Somewhere along the line the term had to be increased or reduced. It is far simpler and far easier for people to accept if the term is extended.
It is interesting that the member for Barkly suddenly takes an interest in municipals saying they were not consulted about this. I believe municipals were consulted, and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory has been very involved in these discussions right from the get-go. The department, even when I was Local Government minister, had a very close working relationship with LGANT. We have transferred some NT government services to LGANT, which demonstrates that close working relationship with the local government sector. It also demonstrates we are consulting, so I disagree with the member for Barkly that municipals were not consulted.
Most of these reforms are about what happens in the bush and in regional councils where, for whatever reason, people up stumps and walk away. They turn their back on their job as a councillor and do not turn up. How does a local government organisation deal with those circumstances? They are not rare; they are quite common. One of the biggest complaints we heard from LGANT was the cost of elections through the Electoral Commission was starting to bite. The Electoral Commission is an expensive way of replacing councillors and they have asked that these reforms be put in place.
It is worthwhile supporting this legislation, and I appeal to the member for Barkly to look further than the tip of his nose and notice the work done by government with people from local authorities, regional councils and municipals as well as the local government sector.
I am thrilled to support this legislation. The member for Stuart is doing a fantastic job as the Local Government minister and has my 100% unwavering support. The reforms she is proposing are sensible. I am glad to hear the Labor Party is prepared to look at these reforms on their merit. It is interesting that they try to take credit for some of them, having dropped the ball on local government and lost an election on local government in the bush. They are now trying to take credit for the Giles government’s direction in local government.
Interestingly enough, a year or so ago we heard nothing but derision from the other side about our local government reforms. The member for Barkly is right when he says he listens to the grassroots. The penny has dropped, with the member for Barkly at least, that the government is having an effect in the local government area and people in the bush like it. That is a compliment to this government and the Local Government minister.
The member for Barkly has my complete admiration. He was a rodeo clown; he has a thick hide and is quick on his feet. Good luck to him if he can convince everybody that these reforms are Labor’s idea. I think most people will see through it and get on board and support the government.
In relation to municipals, extension of the term allows Darwin and Palmerston people to consider the future of these two councils along with the councils dotted around our harbour. It provides an opportunity for Territorians to seriously look at amalgamating our big municipal councils, especially Darwin and Palmerston. It is a question worth asking. In my mind we have a choice, and now is the time to start thinking about that. Do we want a local government system in Darwin similar to that in Sydney, where various suburbs have their own municipal council, or do we want to be more like Brisbane, with one council for the entire city?
I want to see one large local government with the economies of scale that brings. I understand a number of aldermen and councillors in Darwin and Palmerston will be offended by that idea, but it is time the people were consulted.
Possibly the next election is a good time for a plebiscite in the Top End to ask Territorians whether they think we should amalgamate Darwin and Palmerston or have a series of smaller local government authorities based on suburbs or townships within the greater Darwin region. Ultimately, it will be a question the minister for Local Government will have to decide on. I imagine if we have a plebiscite it would be a matter for discussion both within Cabinet and this Chamber. I am not holding my breath for that discussion; the government has a big legislative agenda. However, I would like to see it on the table and discussed.
I am sure the member for Nelson, with his long and distinguished career in local government, might have something to say on that. Looking at council boundaries around Darwin, greater Darwin and rural regions of Darwin, any talk about amalgamating Darwin and Palmerston councils would obviously impact on councils in the rural area as well. It would be interesting to hear the member for Nelson’s opinion on how to deal with Litchfield, Coomalie, Belyuen and some of the other councils and the impact of that type of merger.
It is a worthwhile discussion for Territorians to have. Local government is an extraordinarily important level of government. I was proud to be the Local Government minister. At the time I had a range of portfolios, and in my view none was as important as Local Government because you are dealing with how people are represented and how the democratic system in this great nation and Territory works. It is a very important portfolio.
Labor probably learnt that lesson too late. Had they heeded that message earlier they may still have Barb McCarthy and Karl Hampton within their ranks. We have Kenny now, which is great as well. The fewer of them the better – love them all but good things come in small doses. The fewer Labor members we have the better for all. My goal is to see the back of socialism and any shrinking in the size of Labor numbers can only benefit Territorians in the long run.
I support this bill. The Local Government minister is doing an excellent job. She is well supported by the bureaucracies around her. The public servants who work in the local government sector are particularly switched on. Over the last few months the Local Government minister has shown some real metal and strength of character in putting a number of councils under administration. It is not an easy decision to make, but when things break down to the level they had the minister, quite rightly and fittingly, put those councils under administration. To do otherwise would allow chaos to occur and undermine the confidence people have in the local government sector.
These amendments are completely sensible, warranted and will be welcomed by the local government sector at large.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the so-called joke the member for Fong Lim is peddling about the member for Barkly being a rodeo clown. That must be a joke I do not know. I was comparing the member for Fong Lim’s contribution on the Pete Davies show. We always get a great laugh out of that so I thought you were jealous.
The member for Fong Lim raised many issues, most of which do not deal with the amendments to the bill.
I feel sad about the state of affairs of local government at the moment because we have three local governments under administration. One is Belyuen, which is certainly well overdue for an elected council. I understand it has been kept together by using changes to the law made when the member for Fong Lim was the minister regarding restructuring of councils. They were able to continue with an administrator running Belyuen. That is going too far with the legislation, and I would like to know the state of affairs at Belyuen council. Regardless of whether there were good reasons for an administrator or a manager for some councils, the prime object of the government should be to bring them back to a fully representative council as soon as possible.
I will raise an issue in relation to that. Because the government is looking at extending this term of government for another year-and-a-half, how will that work if councils are sacked? For instance, if the Tiwi Islands Regional Council is dissolved and a new council is required, will that be for a four-year term or an 18-month term. It is the same with Litchfield. If the minister decides to scrap that council and start again, what are the mechanics for that to happen?
I support most of what is in this bill, but I have a fundamental problem with extending the life of the council for a year-and-a-half. I understand the reasoning but do not always agree with it. In all this a group is making a decision – the Electoral Commissioner, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory and politicians – which does not include the people. The people have elected a council for four years and it is a contract between the people and the council. I do not believe the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Electoral Commissioner or the government have the right to break that contract. There are circumstances where it can be moved slightly because of a cyclone, some other natural disaster or the clashing of a federal government election. This is not slightly; this is adding 35% to the term of a council. There is an important fundamental principle that the government should not break the contract between the people and the elected council.
There has been some confusion, and the minister highlighted that in our previous debate, as did the member for Fong Lim. I am not asking for this term to be shortened; I am asking for this term to remain the same and to shorten the next term. By keeping this term the same you tell the people that you support that contract of four years. If you decide the next term will be three-and-a-half years, people will make a contract to vote for that council for three-and-a-half years. That will be the contract and then you can get back to the four-year cycle. That is the problem with this. I do not disagree with many of the issues or amendments put forward, but if I support this bill I support something I feel is wrong. It is not democratic and that is the reason I cannot support this bill.
I support other sections of this bill and think they are good. I have concerns about the amendment extending the term to four years. Having a by-election every 18 months – that is one-third of a term. The original reason for having it at 12 months was to save local government having a by-election; you could appoint someone for that period. Now we are extending it. I am not sure if that is related to the new clause extending a council’s life for five-and-a-half-years, but I am reluctant to support that because you start to erode the democratic process by making appointments.
I know councils can decide to have a by-election and are not forced to make an appointment, but I am concerned because people see an easy way out of a difficult problem. The difficult problem is they cannot get people to stay on a council for four years. Is that a reason to change legislation, or should we educate people more about what a local government is about? If you put your hand up to be a member of local government you must make a serious decision and commitment to be a member of that local government. If they can get out so easily people will not take the commitment seriously.
By making the rules easier are we making local government weaker and destroying the ideals behind local government that many of us support? That is, grassroots democracy where people work for their community. You would hope people do it because they are committed and willing to work the full term. I am concerned about that.
I support councils running by-elections. I moved a motion in parliament last year and got support from the then minister for Local Government. The funny thing is, I do not think I have the support of the Electoral Commissioner. He is not overly happy with this, but councils should be able to run by-elections as they did before. If it is overseen by the Electoral Commissioner when he reviews all the elections occurring and saves councils money it is a good thing.
When this was debated I was advised of the costs of by-elections by some councils, and they were quite high. For a small council a considerable amount of money is needed to run a by-election, in some cases for a couple of hundred people. It seemed to be an extraordinary amount of money, so those changes are good. As with any changes, we will see as time goes on.
An interesting change allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. Some years ago I was looking at Tasmanian local government, especially in relation to proportional voting, and we now have proportional voting in the Northern Territory for local government. At that time Tasmania was considering postal voting and now has it.
Postal voting is interesting. The minister’s speech mentions an increase in the number of people using postal voting. The second reading speech says:
I have some figures from Tasmania on Australia-wide voting percentages. Interestingly, Tasmania does not have compulsory voting for local government elections, neither does Western Australia or South Australia. The House of Assembly Standing Committee on Community Development Inquiry into Local Government Elections shows in Tasmania, with postal voting only, the average state-wide participation rate is 54.31%.
In the Northern Territory, which has compulsory voting and attendance voting – we do not have postal voting – it is 49.8%.
There is not a lot of difference between those two. New South Wales has compulsory voting. Litchfield once had – perhaps it has gone – optional voting for non-residential ratepayers, which is important. People who pay rates but do not live in the electorate should have some say in their council. I am sure Litchfield Council, when I first started, had an option where people could write to the council and ask to vote. It was not automatic; you had to apply for it:
In New South Wales the average overall participation rate for attendance voting is 83.4%. That is very high for local government.
In Queensland, where they have compulsory postal voting and compulsory attendance voting, 79.6% was postal voting and 85% was attendance voting.
In Western Australia it is not compulsory. They only have postal voting, with a 33.4% participation rate. That is quite low.
South Australia, where it is not compulsory, has a participation rate of 32.9%.
In Western Australia it is not compulsory to vote. It is done by postal vote and there is a 33.4% participation rate, and in South Australia it is not compulsory to vote but you have to attend and the participation rate is 32.9%.
I would be wary about this increasing the number of people voting. I have other concerns about postal voting. I am not against the principle because in Tasmania it is a reasonably high percentage – a bit higher than the Northern Territory. Although it applies to municipalities, I am worried it will disenfranchise a group of people.
In my electorate I have two Aboriginal communities, three if you count Tree Point. One is at Knuckey Lagoon and the other at 15 Mile. The 15 Mile community is in the Palmerston area and Knuckey Lagoon is in Litchfield. How can those people cast a postal vote? At the moment they cannot unless they have a post office box. I am not sure how they get mail.
Before we go down this path we need to ensure that what might look like a good idea for the majority of people may disenfranchise a minority. Many people also move in and out. The Army is in my electorate and posting things to the Defence forces is extremely difficult, not that they take much notice of local government. If you want to get something to people in the Army and check the rolls you will see Sergeant John Smith, Robertson Barracks. It will not be delivered because it does not work that way.
The section on postal votes needs more work to make sure Aboriginal people in my area are not disenfranchised. At the moment they only have to walk up to the polling booth and put their card in. Filling in a postal vote might be more difficult …
Mrs Price: Get a bus and pick them up. Labor does that for town camp voters.
Mr WOOD: I am not going over history; I am raising constructive criticism. I am not against the principle of postal voting, but some issues need to be looked at.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present an electronic petition not conforming with standing orders from 423 petitioners relating to the laws to protect innocent people and their properties. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Business, as he is unwell. Any questions for the minister are to be directed to the Treasurer.
Leave granted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that during the luncheon suspension the Speaker had placed on each member’s desk a copy of the latest sessional orders. These orders include changes to the Routine of Business as agreed to on 18 February 2015. The Speaker has also taken the opportunity to include the Speaker’s Determination DLA 05 of 2015 regarding media coverage of parliamentary proceedings.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly censures the Chief Minister for:
leading the most dysfunctional government in the Northern Territory’s history with fourteen reshuffles in two-and-a-half years
increasing the cost of living for Territory families and lying about the Power and Water tariff hikes
failing on land release for housing and ignoring consultation with affected residents
ignoring the crime wave across the Territory and failing to deliver the 120 extra police officers promised
presiding over horrendous job and program cuts across frontline services across our regions and remote communities
arrogantly refusing to seek a mandate from Territorians on public asset sales.
The Chief Minister has made the Northern Territory a laughing stock, leading the most dysfunctional, incompetent and arrogant government ever ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion should be circulated by now.
Madam SPEAKER: Can the motion be circulated ASAP, please?
Ms FYLES: In two-and-a-half years Territorians have been subjected to a circus. The CLP has demonstrated a chronic incapacity to govern the Territory to meet the standards Territorians expect. The current Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Katherine, in leading a coup against the Chief Minister, claimed he had the majority support and would lead a far more consultative government, and that discontent with the current government led to the challenge. He said he had been forced to seize the leadership because the party had lost confidence in Mr Giles and feared it was heading for a massive electoral defeat. On ABC radio, the member for Katherine said:
The member for Katherine also made specific reference to Chief Minister Adam Giles’ handling of the investigation into the former Police Commissioner as a reason for the leadership change. The member for Katherine said:
Yet he appointed him his deputy in a crude deal to keep his job. How can Territorians have confidence that the two people holding the highest office in government, who have publicly stated their disdain for each other’s capacity, can now be working together effectively? It is simply not believable. Despite the member for Braitling being put on notice by his colleagues regarding their concern over his mismanagement of the investigation into the former Police Commissioner, the Chief Minister launched a blistering attack against senior police and management when speaking against the coup. He said:
We have since seen the Chief Minister flip flop on these comments and whether he will provide the evidence he claimed to have to the inquiry.
Territorians no longer have confidence in anything the Chief Minister says. Perhaps the member for Araluen summed it up best when she said:
This is a parliamentary colleague speaking about you, Chief Minister. There is no confidence that this Chief Minister, arrogant Adam Giles, can create stability when he is at the heart of the dysfunction. Territorians see this clearly and have had enough of this circus of government members focused on themselves not the needs of Territorians.
The NT News ReachTEL poll conducted earlier this month across 18 seats indicated that almost half the Territorians polled wanted an early election. On the front page of our local paper was ‘Vote 1 Election Now’. Territorians are sick and tired of this circus. On the question of whether they would like to see an election held immediately, 48.5% said yes. The polling indicated that the CLP would face electoral wipeout in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. The NT News article of 4 March 2015 said:
In Alice Springs polling found support for the CLP had crashed, with just 42% two-party-preferred.
With just 32.7% of voters supporting the leadership of Adam Giles, he is polling below the Opposition Leader despite the millions in taxpayer dollars he spends on self-promotion. That is unprecedented so far out from an election. An additional $33m has gone to his department to spend on self-promotion and he still gets these polling figures.
Responding to the polling, the Chief Minister sought to shift the blame saying:
However, since the coup the CLP member for Greatorex announced he would not contest the next election following rumours he would not gain CLP preselection. Other rumours that senior Tiwi Island residents have been approached to stand for the CLP in the seat of Arafura were confirmed in an ABC report where the chairman of the Tiwi Land Council, Gibson Farmer, said he was asked but was too busy.
The CLP member for Araluen stated on ABC radio yesterday that she would consider her options including running as an Independent should she not gain CLP preselection. About the leadership of the member for Braitling she said:
That was the CLP member for Araluen yesterday afternoon on ABC radio. Extraordinary! A member of the CLP parliamentary wing has confirmed what Territorians are predicting: the Chief Minister is toxic and his days are truly numbered. How can Territorians have any confidence in the new consultative approach of this government when they cannot even consult with themselves?
The member for Goyder publically attacked the member for Port Darwin over land use. I quote from last Saturday’s NT News, ‘MP feels ‘jail’ is a done deal’:
In the report the member for Goyder said she yelled at Mr Elferink during a phone conversation about the proposed facility, and that there had been a total lack of community consultation about the proposed facility.
Even a member of the CLP parliamentary wing, a wider supporter of the Chief Minister, has no faith in the CLP’s capacity to consult with Territorians.
We know nine from the CLP parliamentary wing voted against the Chief Minister’s leadership. That was confirmed by the member for Araluen. Nine members continue to have concerns about the leadership of Adam Giles. Everyone is still trying to work out how nine beats five.
The ongoing infighting continues to distract the CLP from running government, and it is impacting on Territorians and the business community. We have seen 14 reshuffles since the CLP came to government. This is a musical chairs attitude to governance of the Territory and it is appalling.
Since 26 August 2012 the CLP has had two Chief Ministers plus one self-claimed Chief Minister, three Police ministers, five Deputy Chief Ministers, five Health ministers, six Treasurers, six Education ministers, six Housing ministers, six Business ministers and six Sport ministers. That is incredible. It is unprecedented in two-and-a-half years; no other government has come close to this.
The business community, the social sector, and the public service are all frustrated with the lack of continuity of ministers. That is a change every 60 days. If your child’s school teacher changed every 60 days you would be appalled, but Territorians, the business community and the public service face a new minister every 60 days.
Businesses wants to engage with government but have no confidence the minister they are speaking with today will be in the job tomorrow. This is unsettling for business confidence and not good for the Territory.
The Chamber of Commerce Executive Officer, representing the views of the business community, said about the CLP turmoil quote:
This is a fair comment.
The public service is waiting for the next reshuffle. You have now created widespread disappointment in the public service by appointing Ron Kelly as Chief Executive of the mining department. Chief Minister, what message does this appointment and these reshuffles send to potential investors in the Territory? We have had 14 reshuffles in two-and-a-half years, dysfunction, infighting and turmoil which continued as late as yesterday afternoon. We have a leader more interested in himself than Territorians. Even the Chief Minister said there is no doubt the Country Liberals have been divided for many years on a range of areas, policy and personalities.
The Chief Minister sacked the elected Chief Minister twice, once in a coup for the top job and once from a position he created for the former member for Blain.
The Chief Minister stated incredulously he only heard about Mr Mills being fired through the media. Mr Mills publically stated he found it unbelievable the current Chief Minister did not know about or approve the termination. I quote Mr Mills from the NT News:
Under the CLP government we have seen record power price increases which hurt Territory families. The increased power tariffs of 30% for water and 40% for sewerage are appalling. People cannot afford to live here.
The current Chief Minister did not reduce the increases as he tried to publically claim, he simply delayed the timing. On 1 July this year the full effects of the price increases will have hit family budgets. Families around the Territory are struggling under the burden of the increases. The CLP claimed the rises would add about $2000 to the average family bill, yet for many Territory families it is unaffordable.
People have to cut back on other spending and are doing it tough just to have the most basic essential service. You only had to look at social media and talk to friends who received their post-Christmas power and water bills. People thought their meters were wrong, that is how much bills had increased, but it was the CLP government pushing power bills up. People are struggling to have the basics; it is appalling. Arrogant Adam Giles continues to tell us Darwin has the cheapest cost of living of all capital cities. He is so out of touch. Has he spoken to the community? It is appalling when you drop your children at childcare and the workers are crying because they cannot afford to pay the increased bills and are living from week to week.
Businesses say people are not spending like they used to. They still want to spend and might have to lay-by because they cannot afford things. These are people who can normally afford to buy something.
Territorians are concerned about the CLP’s plans for privatisation and the impact on future price increases. It is appalling and you are so arrogant you will not acknowledge it.
This government has been the worst ever for Territory frontline services, and it continues. You have presided over successive budget cuts resulting in real job losses. A total of 125 teachers and 60 support staff have gone from our schools since the CLP came to government. That is 185 fewer teachers and support staff in our schools helping our students. That means less individual attention for Territory children.
Education has been cut to the bone yet the government continues with global budgets. School councils have been forced to make decisions about the next cuts under global budgets. They have been forced to cut more teaching positions and there are fewer subject choices for students. Less individual attention is putting more pressure on teachers.
We saw the government backflip under community pressure, but this new funding announced to smooth over the global budget mess has not gone far enough and is falling far short of reversing the cuts. This is despite the promise from the CLP that no school would be worse off – such hollow words. Numerous schools are far worse off under this government’s Education budget and it is appalling. Schools in my community have lost teachers and support staff. The global budgets process has proven to be what our teachers predicted: funding cuts by stealth. It has been a fiasco.
The government rushed it and expected hard-working parents on school councils, as well as principals and teachers, to deal with the mess. The full impacts of global budgets are still being bedded down and we are almost at the end of Term 1, forcing the schools to start the year in chaos. How is this improving educational outcomes for Territory kids? We know of schools that need more teachers but cannot afford them.
Our health system is in crisis under this CLP government led by Adam Giles. It has cut $11m from the Health budget. For two years the CLP government shut down the 100 new beds at Royal Darwin Hospital’s medi-hotel, which was designed to free up hospital beds and provide a place for those needing care but not a hospital bed. It was a basic concept where people could be moved from acute beds but would still be close to the hospital and be cared for. This government arrogantly used it for the wrong purpose and claimed that had no impact on Royal Darwin Hospital. That is rubbish. Royal Darwin Hospital is in crisis and has bed block and triple bunking.
The emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital is one of the busiest in the country, yet our arrogant Chief Minister laughed at our ED nurses when they had the confidence to speak up about their working situation. The hard-working staff at Royal Darwin Hospital are under enormous pressure, day-in, day-out. This government has not supported them and has cut the Health budget. There has been no action on Palmerston hospital; the government has dropped the ball completely. The arrogant Chief Minister simply laughs at emergency department nurses. It is appalling. I hope you never have to go to ED.
The move to use the medi-hotel was short-sighted and risked the improvements we had seen in emergency department wait times following Labor investment.
Despite this you have not learnt the lessons from the medi-hotel debacle, closing Stuart Lodge in Alice Springs which provided accommodation and support for remote health patients. The government has delayed construction of Palmerston hospital. It has moved it to an un-serviced site and poured some bitumen. How many media stunts have you done with diggers? Territorians are wondering if that will be another broken promise.
This CLP government is led by a Chief Minister who laughed at nurses petitioning this House for more resources to do their job. Territorians have a fundamental right to healthcare but the Chief Minister laughed at the nurses. The Chief Minister has failed to stand up for Territorians against federal primary health program cuts that have seen job losses.
The CLP has distorted priorities. It shamelessly appoints CLP mates to plum positions and boosts the Chief Minister’s own media and marketing budget by $33m on self-promotion while cutting health and education funding. It is appalling!
Small businesses across the Territory are doing it tough. Successive funding cuts by the government to infrastructure spending are hurting small businesses. The government hides behind economic data riding high on the INPEX project, but fails to understand there are many segments of the business community doing it really tough. I know of small businesses that have closed as they cannot afford to continue – businesses that should be thriving in this climate. The CLP’s cuts to repairs and maintenance, and infrastructure have cost jobs. You are not listening to small businesses.
You failed to release land or consult on land release. The CLP government has failed to deliver any new greenfield land release that was not on Labor’s funded land release program. You have arrogantly failed to consult with Territorians about land use. Even your own member for Goyder has called the Darwin land use plan released by the CLP – I quote from her Facebook page – as ‘crappy’. She also raised concerns about the CLP’s plans for Holtze. The consultation process has been dismal.
You are not listening to Territorians. You have shown it time and time again with the sale of TIO, hospital funding, education cuts and land use.
The CLP issued a notice of intent which said:
Is that not the most appalling thing you have heard? It shows arrogance towards people who want to live on a small acreage and raise their families. They want space to tinker with toys. They want a rural lifestyle. It is appalling. So much for the new consultative approach from our Chief Minister! You are not listening to the community and members of your own government.
You are changing our city and the Top End forever. Once you open up land release and have suburban blocks there it is gone. Darwin was a planned city. We are lucky, we are like Canberra. It is a beautiful planned tropical city and we should have had tropical cities – Darwin, Palmerston, Weddell – around the harbour making it one of the most appealing places to live. Under your government, with no greenfield land release, we have an ad hoc approach. Your planning is failing Territorians now, threatening their lifestyle, and will fail Territorians in the future.
You failed to deliver the 120 extra police officers you promised and I know, firsthand, this is affecting our police. The Territory is in the grip of a crime wave, with motor vehicle theft and house break-ins up significantly. House break-ins are up 65% in Darwin and 57% in Palmerston. Motor vehicle theft is up 35% in Darwin and 53% in Palmerston. Also, 159 Palmerston businesses were broken into last year, which is double that of the previous year. In Alice Springs it is up 17%.
In Alice Springs there are again calls for curfews in response to social issues following the CLP government’s cuts to youth service funding. Meanwhile, the CLP government has placed highly-trained police, including TRG officers, outside liquor outlets to plug the gap left after removing the Banned Drinker Register.
The arrogance of the CLP and the Chief Minister is breathtaking. You ignore the concerns of frontline police which were raised by the Police Association about sustainability of the temporary beat location expansion. Instead, the Chief Minister arrogantly dismissed the association’s longstanding leader and president, Vince Kelly, who represents 1400 police officers. Even the Australian Hotels Association has questioned the effect of TBLs on police morale and sustainability of the policy.
In line with the usual accountability, or lack of we have seen under this CLP, we no longer have reporting on the number of police utilised for TBLs and the cost. Early assessments indicate the TBLs are costing far more than the BDR. This is despite TBLs not providing the same Territory-wide coverage we saw with the BDR. The BDR was a simple, effective tool. People had to show their licence to purchase alcohol. It was not insulting, as the Treasurer would have you believe. We now have 700 people on Alcohol Protection Orders but no one knows who they are, so bottle shop employees have to make a split-second decision. Do they upset the person by looking through photos or do they sell the alcohol? On top of that, we have highly-trained police officers who want to do policing not be security guards at bottle shops.
Your government has ignored the recommendation of the Senate inquiry into domestic violence to reinstate the BDR as a matter of urgency. I know you do not want to hear it from us and you are not listening to Territorians because you are so arrogant, but why not listen to the Senate inquiry that said the BDR should be reinstated as a matter of urgency to help deal with the domestic violence epidemic we have. No, you are so arrogant. You failed to deliver 120 extra police and failed to listen to the community.
Police officers are not fooled by the CLP’s claim that the federally-funded positions will meet that commitment. Those federally-funded positions were delivered by the Labor government, and there was an expectation that the funding agreement would continue for some time. The 120 were extra officers. Police members will wait to see if the CLP comes good in the budget.
You failed to seek a mandate from Territorians before selling TIO. You failed Territorians. The sneaky sale deal exposed the true arrogance and contempt of Adam Giles and his government. To introduce and pass the bill on urgency – Territorians were appalled. The Chief Minister sold a public asset without a mandate, against the wishes of Territorians and despite the overwhelming opposition from Territorians to the sale.
In a short period of time thousands of Territorians rallied outside parliament and signed petitions. They could not believe how arrogant it was to use urgency to sell TIO. The NT News poll reported that 90% of Territorians were opposed to the sale of TIO. Mix 104.9 recorded over 80% opposition. In two weeks 4300 signatures were collected. A snap telephone poll undertaken across the CLP seats of Katherine, Port Darwin, Fong Lim, Sanderson, Goyder, Daly and Greatorex recorded that 80% of people opposed the sale of TIO. Who is so arrogant? Four-thousand-five-hundred signatures were collected in two weeks and a telephone poll showed overwhelming opposition to the sale. You are so arrogant, Chief Minister, you rammed the sale through, ignored everyone, pressured your colleagues into a rushed sale trying to pork barrel your way, and you hope to pork barrel your way to the next election. Territorians have had enough. They are sick of your government and its arrogance.
Member for Katherine, what did he promise you to support that sale? CLP members opposite have collectively failed to stand up for Territorians on the sale of TIO. You allowed the Chief Minister to bully you. He is hell-bent on creating his own election strategy and you are going along with it. You need to stand up. Did you not see this polling? Are you not listening to people in your community? Territorians will pay the price of TIO being sold with higher insurance premiums and the risk they may not be able to get coverage, while former TIO workers worry about their jobs.
The sad reality is the Giles CLP government lacks the leadership, unity and competence to deliver the decent government Territorians expect, end of story. Territorians expected more from you. They gave you an opportunity only two-and-a-half years ago by saying you could lead this beautiful place, the Northern Territory. They voted you in and, since then, you have repaid them with arrogance and have not consulted or listened. You are muddling along under the leadership of Adam Giles and Territorians have had enough. Recent polling shows that, and as soon as you step out in the community they let you know. We have become the laughing stock of the nation. Last night on Q&A something came up about the Northern Territory and everyone on the panel broke into laughter asking, ‘Have they worked out who is leading them?’
Statehood was mentioned in the condolence motion for our former Prime Minister. Are you serious? You have no plans for statehood. Do you believe this laughing stock of a government could achieve statehood? That is one issue we should be discussing. You need to speak up, members opposite, as Territorians expect more of you. I would love the opportunity to be a minister and help Territorians, but you are more worried about yourselves.
Significant funding cuts from the federal government will affect our communities and frontline services across the Territory, and there is silence from that side of the House. Amity provides alcohol and substance abuse programs in Darwin, Palmerston and the Top End; it goes into town camps and works with retailers. There was a $480 000 funding cut, 23% of their funding, and there is silence from the government. You have not stood up for Territory organisations. The list goes on across Katherine, and our rural and remote areas will feel the full impact. These are vital frontline services that help young people and those who are disadvantaged.
The Territory has some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians, yet you sit idle while the federal government cuts $0.5bn from those services across Australia. Senator Nigel Scullion said no frontline services will be affected, but no one believes that. His language has changed from, ‘Absolutely no frontline services will be affected’ to ‘Hoping frontline services will not be affected’. Next we will hear, ‘Frontline services will be affected’.
This chaotic and dysfunctional government is so focused on itself and Adam Giles keeping his position that it allows nine members to vote against him but he still has the top job. Meanwhile, Territorians are suffering with Health and Education cuts, with the cost of living going through the roof. People have had enough and are packing up, saying they had a great time and it was a great place, and are leaving.
The Chief Minister’s extraordinary comments, leaked from the Alice Springs branch meeting, shed some light on his government being able to focus on delivering for Territorians. He referred to his colleagues as a bunch of idiots. This is the Chief Minister speaking about his colleagues and it is appalling. I do not care if it was in a private or public meeting, you do not say that unless you have the dysfunction visible in this government. Territorians have had enough. It is clear from talking to the community, reading social media and looking at the newspaper that people are sick of this government and want an early election. They gave you a chance but they have had enough.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the member’s speech demonstrates the lack of research that has gone into her debate. There have been no cuts to Health.
Ms Fyles: Eleven million dollars is gone.
Mr ELFERINK: There have been no cuts to Health. That is dishonest and a complete …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I listened in silence to the member’s rant for 20 minutes. I wonder if she could extend the same courtesy to me while I deal with her conduct in a rational and sober fashion.
She was fundamentally dishonest in a number of things she brought to this House. Her fixation with the Country Liberals does not pursue matters which are good for the people of the Northern Territory. For those listening, watching or sitting in the public gallery, you have just heard exactly the same speech, almost word for word, delivered one month ago by a member opposite; I think it was the same member. Clearly, in the last month she has done almost nothing to advance her cause.
The philosophy of what she is doing can be discovered in the repeated use of the word ‘arrogant’. She does that because if you use the word often enough, hopefully you can make it stick. This government has made tough decisions, but there was not a single utterance, word or syllable as to what Labor would do in government.
Let us take the Territory Insurance Office, which she referred to on a number of occasions. I wonder what a Labor government would have done if presented with the fact that the exposure of the Northern Territory as its own reinsurer could have obliterated it financially.
The former Labor government decided to take a risk with the Territory Insurance Office because it chose not to go down this path, despite having received exactly the same advice. It feared the electoral backlash that would come. Perhaps it will come, but electoral backlash is a risk you have to take. If the financial reality was that we as taxpayers had to underwrite an insurance company for destruction on the scale of Cyclone Tracy, we would cease to exist. Jurisdiction would have been taken from us.
Because I care enough about the people of the Northern Territory I am prepared to make that decision. That is not because I am afraid of an electoral backlash, but I am afraid of the Territory being exposed to a circumstance where the foundations of self-government would be threatened if we did not take tough decisions. That is a difficult thing to argue and not easy to explain when you juxtapose it with the screeching from the member opposite, spraying around the room all the things wrong in the world according to that member.
It is worth noting some facts in relation to the condition and position of the Northern Territory sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I will share some with the House. The Territory’s economy grew by 6.5% to $21.2bn in 2013-14. It was the highest growth rate of all jurisdictions and well above the national growth rate of 2.5%. Growth in the Territory’s gross state product was driven by increases in private investment, household consumption and net exports. Household consumption was a growth area, but the member opposite told this House that people had no money to spend. She is not telling the truth.
Private investment in the Northern Territory is currently at a record level of $11.8bn, nearly three times the level recorded in 2010-11. Compared to the previous quarter, the 2014 Sensis Business Index recorded that confidence levels of Territory small to medium enterprises in their business prospects for the next 12 months decreased to +46%. The statement from the member opposite that she has heard of businesses struggling may well be true, but they are the exception not the rule in a +46% jurisdiction. This was the highest net balance confidence level of all jurisdictions. Once again, it is easy for the member to have her spray around the room, but a quick look at the Sensis Business Index reveals it is not true.
The Territory’s SMEs recorded a net even balance regarding their attitude towards Territory government policies. In other jurisdictions the net balance ranged between -31% in South Australia to +6% in Queensland. We are just behind Queensland with a net even balance.
In 2014 the Territory retail trade turnover increased by 4.2% to $3.1bn. Retail trade increased to 5.3% nationally over the same period. Nationally, and in the Territory, people are spending more in retail. This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The trick of the Australian Labor Party is to hell with the facts, they will say anything they like, lie to Territorians and try to tell people this place is a basket case and tumbleweed is rolling down Mitchell Street. That is not right. It is a lie and it is fundamentality dishonest to do so to Territorians.
I imagine people listening to this broadcast, or people sitting in the bleachers, would have been impressed with the passionate tirade from the member opposite, but she must tell the truth and …
A member: She is.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I am not making this up. This is from the Sensis Business Index, and this stuff is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. What we find …
Mr McCarthy: That is right. Thank heavens for Ichthys. Come to the regions, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection, ‘Thank heavens for Ichthys’. The shadow Treasurer is saying times are good. Why then is he allowing his shadow minister to lie to Territorians when times are good?
Mr McCarthy: Come to the regions. You get real.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the dishonesty …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCarthy: Come to the regions.
Mr ELFERINK: … that even in his own stupid, foolish, ill-considered interjection …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: … demonstrates that she is not telling the truth …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: … and that is what we have come to expect from this Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Withdraw those comments. It might be a censure motion, but parliamentary behaviour must still be maintained.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw ...
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … but it goes to show the shadow Treasurer acknowledges, even if he is trying to claim credit for it, that times are a lot better than the shadow minister would …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49: addressing the Speaker. Instead of trying to intimidate the member for Barkly, could he do it properly.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. Direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the shadow Treasurer has just demonstrated, by his own ill-considered interjection, that this member is misleading Territorians and trying, through her …
Mr McCarthy: All you have is words, John. I am talking about businesses.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, please cease interjecting across the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: … trying desperately …
Mr McCarthy: Ask Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, pursuant to Standing Order 240A I ask you to leave the Chamber for one hour.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in 2014 the value of engineering work done in the Territory increased 106.2% to $5.8bn, the highest level on record. It is Australian Bureau of Statistics catalogue number 8755. Look it up.
Labour force figures: in the year January 2015 the Territory had the highest employment growth of all jurisdictions at 3.2%. Nationally employment grew by 1.1%. The year-on-year increase was driven by full-time employment up 5% to 109 478 persons. This was partly offset by a minor decline in part-time employment, which was down 4.2%. These are the people who, according to the member opposite, do not have any wealth. It would make sense that with more people in jobs the retail trade figures would make sense, and they do. More people are employed and more people are spending money.
I understand, and do not wish to diminish, that certain parts of the economy struggle and there are a number of reasons for that. One is because government may need to do more work in those areas, and another is because trends are changing. The number of people who buy books at bookstores is going down because the number of people buying online is increasing. It is the same with clothing, household products and appliances, and other things. There is a change in retail not only in the Northern Territory, but everywhere. The internet is, in many respects for many people, the new store.
Compared to January 2014 the Territory’s trend unemployment rate decreased 0.3 percentage points compared to January this year. Private sector residential construction work increased 19.9% to $724m in the year to September 2014. In trend terms, the number of residential building improvements in the Territory decreased 1.9% to 156% in December 2014. This was the second-largest decrease of all jurisdictions.
We understand there are ups and downs, and I am happy to talk about them. Let us do it with a sober tongue in our head and some temperance in our language. The member who delivered this to the House was intemperate and lacked sobriety in her language.
This government is extraordinarily proud of a number of achievements that fall outside the economic domain. These are our social policies, which make a difference to the people of the Northern Territory on a daily basis.
Indefinite detention of sex offenders who pose a high risk to the community is legislation we passed and these people were critical of. They wanted to make sure the rights of the sex offender somehow had supremacy over the rights of the community, and we heard them talking behind the scenes. However, when it came to saying that in parliament they were ambivalent and allowed the legislation to pass.
The people opposite were, once again, running the whispering campaign behind the scenes on mandatory sentencing for assaults on workers. That is the sacred place of employment, the place where people make the money to provide food and shelter for themselves as well as their dependents. They were concerned about the introduction of mandatory sentencing regimes. We were not because we introduced them to make sure workers who were assaulted in the workplace were protected and people who punched and assaulted workers in the workplace – the person behind the McDonald’s counter – would see those offenders sent to gaol for a minimum of three months. A number of people have now gone to gaol for doing exactly that, and will continue to go to gaol because we believe people should be allowed to go about their business.
I do not claim for one second that the Territory is crime free, but we have made substantial inroads in relation to property crime and crime against the person over the last few years.
Whilst other jurisdictions continue to struggle with one-punch legislation, we introduced it two years ago. Our property forfeiture legislation was protected by this government in the High Court of Australia. Members opposite joked that we would go to the High Court of Australia after declared drug traffickers. We made sure we went to the High Court and protected legislation which took the house of a drug trafficker away, and the members opposite laughed at the idea.
The Civil and Administrative Tribunal continues to work on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. The domestic violence reduction strategy is well ahead of its time. I note the federal government and COAG is finally elevating domestic violence to a COAG agenda item, and I expect big things. We are already there, and the Territory is proud to be working with Tasmania on, hopefully, introducing a system of recognition of interstate domestic violence orders across state boundaries.
We will introduce Daniel’s Law to enable Territorians to visit a public sex offender website so we, and parents, can find out who the child sex offenders are in our communities.
We are building new courthouse infrastructure. The courthouse in Alice Springs is long overdue for updating and construction has already started on the new Supreme Court in Alice Springs.
Methamphetamines: the government will set up a parliamentary committee to inform us on the presence of ice and how badly it affects the community. We release crime statistics monthly. The members opposite promised to do it quarterly, did for a short while, then did it annually ...
Mr Chandler: Do not mention the war.
Mr ELFERINK: Do not mention the war – precisely. We release them monthly because we are open and honest with Territorians.
Advance personal planning is another thing, along with hit and run legislation, bail legislation for domestic violence situations and unit title amendments. Youth boot camps continue to operate and be rolled out across the Northern Territory, and I will make some new announcements regarding that in the not-so-distant future. Sentenced to a Job continues to go from strength to strength. People in the Bees Creek area were concerned recently, but even then they said they believed what the Northern Territory government was doing in the Corrections environment was generally sound and sober policy. We are proud of that.
I will pause here to ask members on the back of that shortlist if this is a dysfunctional government. This government continues to produce results. Whilst the members opposite predictably say, ‘Yes, you are dysfunctional’, all they have to offer the people of the Northern Territory is a negative focus on the CLP. They have not learnt their lesson.
What the newspapers were saying, particularly in Darwin but also the Territory and other places, was they were sick of politicians fighting amongst themselves. What did we hear today? Did we hear a constructive way forward? Did we hear statements from the members opposite saying how we should make the Territory a better place? No. We heard dishonesty, misrepresentation of the facts and a focus on ‘us’. They are still talking about ‘us’. It costs about $7000 an hour to keep this building running when we sit as a parliament and these guys are still talking about ‘us’.
Beyond the front door of this House is the rest of the Northern Territory. That is where the people affected by the policies of government and our legislation live. However, most of that speech was targeted at this Chief Minister as a personality attack. That is the vision for the Northern Territory from the members opposite. It is nothing more than the politics of personality. They have nothing to offer the people of the Northern Territory other than snide contempt and the inability to climb out of the hole of self-interest to ask what we can do to make the Territory a better place for all Territorians.
The members opposite also play an interesting game. I alluded to how they go about their business earlier. So often they do not support legislation but do not really oppose it either. We commonly hear, ‘We will not oppose this legislation’. They do that because they want an each-way bet on the issues we raise.
When we have a legislative instrument – an example is Permanent Care Orders – we hear, ‘We won’t oppose this legislation but will ask some critical questions. We will then give a ringing endorsement to organisations like NAAJA and AMSANT, which have raised critical issues about this.’ They do not say no or back themselves. They do not back the belief in NAAJA’s or AMSANT’s correctness. They say, ‘AMSANT said this and we agree with them. AMSANT says Permanent Care Orders are bad legislation, as does NAAJA. They say this is rushed. You have to speak to people.’ This is despite the fact the idea was first mooted in 2011. Because they know it is good law they say they will not oppose it. Behind the scenes – I am getting this information now – they are whispering that this is another stolen generation. They will do the stirring behind the scenes, but do not have the courage, temerity or testicular fortitude to run their argument in this House.
This is the alternative government of the Northern Territory. These people say they know how to govern for the people of the Northern Territory but do not articulate anything. They misrepresent what people on this side of the House are doing and it is becoming frustrating.
I am proud to be a member of the Country Liberals government, proud to be a member of the Giles government, and I am damned proud of producing results in my various portfolio areas.
The former government – the member mentioned Palmerston hospital – paid to have a bunch of vehicles sitting idle on the block with a fence around them for a few months with a ‘Future Palmerston Hospital’ sign. It was to convince people there was equipment on that site, despite the fact that equipment barely turned a sod in the whole time it was parked there. They now claim a moral high ground on Palmerston hospital. Palmerston hospital will be built, and in the second quarter of next year people will see work commence on the site. That is something we, as a government, will deliver.
We are also seeing a pincer movement. I draw honourable members’ attention to the comments made by Senator Nova Peris. In her attack and attempt to diminish the Northern Territory government, but more to the point the member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, who has been in my ear about the future of Palmerston hospital, which will service both Palmerston and regional areas – in her attack to use the Senate to promote Luke Gosling, the Labor taxpayer-funded candidate for Solomon, Nova Peris said the Northern Territory had the worst hospital system in the country.
In Labor’s enthusiasm to play political games they insulted thousands of nurses, doctors and other allied health workers delivering services in our hospital systems across the Northern Territory. This was so much so that I had to write to the head of the Health department asking him to reassure all health workers that I continued to have full and utter confidence in their capacity to be part of one of the finest hospital systems in the Northern Territory.
Members opposite, in their enthusiasm to play politics, will create victims. That is what happens when they do foolhardy and reckless things. We saw it played out in the Senate with Senator Nova Peris, and we see it played out today with attacks on public servants and departments which deliver good services to the people of the Northern Territory. I find it frustrating beyond all words that in one month the member opposite has not updated her speech to give it greater currency.
The evidence of that is she is still calling for dissolution of this House, despite the fact the House dealt with the issue a month ago. She has not even whited out that section of her speech.
This government will not be supporting this ill-considered, dishonest, emotive, reckless, stupid and demeaning censure motion. We will not waste another $7000 of taxpayers’ money. As a consequence I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the Assembly censure the Chief Minister.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I continue my comments on the changes the government is proposing under the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill.
When we broke for lunch I was talking about postal voting. I asked whether people could be disenfranchised and if it would make more people vote. I raised that as constructive criticism or comment because they are areas the government needs to take into consideration.
The other issue is the amendment that allows municipal councils to choose whether to fill the office of the principal member by appointment or election. My understanding is there will have to be some changes. For instance, in the case of Litchfield with four wards, the mayor is elected by the people. If they decided to elect their mayor from within you need to have another ward or, theoretically, drop a ward, which would not be good in a council which only has five members. Obviously other changes will need to occur if councils with wards decide to elect their mayor or president. There are arguments for and against electing or appointing the mayor or president.
I do not know if people remember the documentary titled Rats in the Rank. It followed the lives of councillors in Leichhardt Council, Sydney. It dealt with the processes for a mayor to be appointed within the council. What muddied the waters is there are political parties in councils in New South Wales. In this council the mayor was a member of the Labor Party but had an agreement where, when he finished his one-year term, he would give it to another member of the party. They would work it so he would step down and someone else would be voted in. Of course, they had a majority on the council so the next person would have a one-year term as mayor. In other words, everyone wanted a term as mayor of that council. He decided he did not like that and did some manoeuvring, back-yard manipulating and eventually was re-elected.
What worries me is you could open up the position to not necessarily the best person, and when there are political affiliations there are ways to ensure a person from a particular party is the only one elected. Of course, sometimes you get factions within the party. Whilst it may not occur in the Northern Territory thankfully – we have few formal party affiliations in our councils except, unfortunately, the Greens have changed that to some extent …
Mr Giles: And Labor.
Mr WOOD: The only official party in local government is the Greens. I am disappointed about that and would prefer no party affiliations in local government. There should not be a party political policy to fix potholes because there is no need for that. Issues in local government should be dealt with on their merit not whether a political party has a policy in that direction.
Be that as it may, the issue of whether a mayor or president should be elected will be up to a particular council. If a council was deciding to change it may be worth a plebiscite amongst the community to find out what people think. If a council like Litchfield changes, even Palmerston – I am not sure if it would work in Darwin because there are three members per ward, but in Litchfield, where you have wards, if you decide to appoint the president from within you would probably need another ward and that would require redistribution in Litchfield. I am not against that, but I raise those as things that should be taken into consideration.
There is an expansion of postal voting and an early voting service to all voters. I gather from the briefing I had – I thank the minister – there will be less constraint on why people use the early voting service. Whilst I do not mind that, you start to wonder if there should be more restrictions on – I gave notice of this for General Business Day – electoral advertising and that type of thing when you allow a longer term of polling as a normal part of the voting service.
There is also a retargeting of absent voting services, and the member for Barkly mentioned that. I understand the Electoral Commissioner mentioned the number of ballot papers that have to be printed. At the briefing I raised the possibility of electronic voting. Obviously there are some issues in relation to that, but is it feasible for each polling booth to have a connection which allows people voting outside their electorate to vote through the Electoral Commission mobile site or whatever site they have – able to produce those ballot papers electronically? I understand that is not practical at the moment and there are other reasons why that cannot happen, but I raised that during the briefing.
There is also the change of time, which makes sense. Closing time for postal votes will be at 12 noon on the sixth day after polling day. It was explained no mail comes in after that normally so it makes sense and also saves people working late hours. The Electoral Commissioner will have the power to set polling hours on polling day for by-elections, a good idea. The Electoral Commissioner will talk to people within communities to assess the best hours for a by-election.
There is transfer of the Local Government Tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I note in Darwin City Council’s submission they did not agree with that although I am not sure why. Perhaps they felt the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal did not have the expertise the Local Government Tribunal had.
That will depend on whether the government, as I understand it, will pick particular people to be on the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal according to the matter it has to deal with. I imagine the government will put local government experts on the tribunal to deal with local government issues, and it would be interesting to see if that is what the minister thinks too.
It is also to streamline and align the rules for publishing election material to reduce costs and frequency of publication in newspapers and on council websites. I have no problem with that as long as people are still able to see what they need to. At times there is a lot of emphasis on electronic media, but it is amazing how the good old-fashioned newspaper still has an influence, even just a headline.
People still use newspapers. Not everyone uses social media; I am one who does not. It is not everybody’s cup of tea. I was at a meeting recently and the member for Goyder asked how many people were on Facebook. These people were my age, maybe a bit older, and 35% to 40% said they were.
Sometimes we must take into consideration that not everybody uses social media or is interested in social media. We have to account for all tastes, all ages and everyone’s ability to use social media.
In general the changes are reasonable. I have issues with extending the existing term for councillors by a year-and-a-half. I might have been satisfied if the government said councils conduct a plebiscite to see what voters think.
If a plebiscite was conducted and voters said, ‘We understand the reasons and believe they make sense’ – I understand where they are coming from so I am not knocking the reasons – I might have said that was fair enough. I feel people would accept that but it has not happened.
It is as if the voters have been ignored. I hear our bush councils feel they need more time. That is not in itself a reason to extend the period of a council. That is life. The council is elected for four years. If you are not up-to-date with what happened in the four years put your hand up for the next four. That is not a good reason at all.
Extending it because of the Wet Season is reasonable, but we could have persevered with that for one more term then bring it into line with a more sensible date. That is the way I feel it should go.
The member for Fong Lim raised amalgamation and spoke about Palmerston and Darwin. That issue has been up and down for many years. He sometimes throws the issue of Litchfield in. Regardless of whether I think amalgamating Palmerston and Darwin is a good thing, Litchfield is still a rural electorate. It is growing as a rural shire, but it is not the same as Darwin and Palmerston. Many people will not have a bar of being urban, which is why they are fighting the greater Darwin plan. They do not believe Litchfield should be turned into a suburb of Palmerston.
Amalgamation is an important issue and needs debating. How long has it been since this discussion has occurred? I was on Litchfield Council when it discussed amalgamation of Coomalie – adding Dundee, Cox Peninsula, Marrakai and Douglas Daly. This has gone on for a long time. I attended meetings at the Marrakai pub, went to Dundee at one stage and out to the Douglas Daly. I have heard all this before. No one has been brave enough to make a decision on it.
I believe you have two councils, one being Coomalie and expanding down to the Douglas Daly, and Litchfield expanding out to Dundee and …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Geography has to be taken into account when dealing with amalgamations. At some time the government will have to look at areas that do not have local government. The government has already presented the Darwin Rates Amendment Bill, which is designed to rate areas without any representation. If the government decides to go ahead there will be a big hue and cry because people will then be taxed without representation. The government needs to tread very carefully there as it is a controversial area.
A community member could say, ‘I don’t think it’s fair that people not far away from me do not pay rates yet they get the same services even though they might be minimal’. We should all be on a level playing field. The government needs to let us know if it plans to amalgamate councils or not because this has been going on for a long time.
Should Palmerston and Darwin be one council, or Coomalie, Litchfield and the unincorporated area be one, two or none is a discussion for another day.
I thank the minister for moving these local government amendments. I hope you appreciate where I am coming from. I cannot accept the length of the extension. I understand there are times when ours could clash with a federal government election, and most states allow some movement around it so local government elections do not clash. However, not one council has the power to extend a council for a year-and-a-half, which is far too much. I will leave it at that.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill and thank the minister for providing me with a briefing. I strongly support the changes it will make to the legislation surrounding local government elections.
I will talk about local government on the Tiwi Islands in my electorate. As a former councillor on the Tiwi Islands Regional Council I strongly support the role of local government. I was sad to see the council go into administration earlier this year. Some people have asked why a former councillor like me would support the minister’s decision to remove the council from its position. I supported it because the council was broken, and its relationship with the traditional owners through the Tiwi Land Council was broken. Over the last few years the relationship has reached the point where people are no longer talking to each other. Decisions in the best interests of the community are not being made because of this broken relationship between the land council and the regional council.
Decisions on roads upgrading, land tenure and community facilities were not being made. The residents and landowners were affected by this. One of the major points of concern is separation of responsibilities, and often if one organisation requires approval from the other I understand that our government has a policy of local authority.
This policy is to allow for greater representation of people across larger regional council areas. For example, in west Arnhem the needs of people in Maningrida are significantly different to those in Gunbalanya or Jabiru. Local government authorities in these areas are needed to help get ideas and concerns to regional councils.
On the Tiwi Islands, while needs vary from island to island and community to community, the issues are largely the same. Because of this I believe a regional authority should be set up on the Tiwi Islands.
This regional authority should be a combined authority that includes the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Islands Regional Council. This authority would be responsible for everything, ruling out the clashes between the regional council and the land council.
I believe the creation of this authority is a merger of function and resources, and simplifying the process would greatly benefit the Tiwi Islands and the people. I understand the former minister and the Chief Minister had discussions with local people around this idea of a regional authority. Creation of a regional authority on the Tiwi Islands would be the first in the country, and it would put traditional owners and community members on the same page. It would mean local government in their community.
I strongly support the amendments this bill will make to the legislation surrounding local government elections and commend it to the Chamber.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened to this debate with great interest. I thank the member for Barkly for his contribution as our spokesperson for local government. I listened with interest to the contribution from the member for Fong Lim, who has held the local government portfolio, and my interest is twofold as a bush member in ensuring the voices of people in the bush are heard. I also held this portfolio in our shadow Cabinet for a couple of years so I have an interest in it.
I am always interested to hear what the member for Nelson has to say in his contributions to local government. He is very passionate about local government issues, and a good deal of what he says is well-considered and well-consulted; he is often on the money. He often takes the opportunity during GBD days to raise local government issues.
I was interested in the contribution from the member for Arafura, who no doubt has had his speech prepared for him by the inner sanctions of the CLP. There is clearly an agenda there, flagging movement to a regional advisory authority. Knowing the Tiwi Islands Regional Council is under administration – I do not want to be too cynical or suspicious – I wonder if there is a bigger agenda afoot.
That model of local government was talked about when the CLP came into government; it was one of the first things they did. The member for Braitling was the Local Government minister then, after becoming Chief Minister after knifing the member for Blain in the back, then the member for Namatjira stepped into the role of Local Government minister. We must be up to Local Government minister number four or five. We lose count in this House.
The contribution from the member for Arafura was interesting. I wonder if he discussed it with the elected councillors who have stepped aside from their roles, including Mayor Lynette De Santis.
I believe we will hear a lot more about this issue. We will not roll out that model of local government. It was one option in the options paper the member for Braitling put out during community consultations around the Territory on what model of local government people wanted. They decided it was not the right time to go to a regional authority level so they implemented local authorities, which was the direction the former Labor government was going in the lead-up to the election.
We were reviewing local government in the reforms we brought in in 2008. Under consideration was formation of local authorities, perhaps under a different name, but recognising the contribution those people make by having a one-stop shop. Stakeholders, or anybody who wants to consult with the community, have a go-to group in the local authority. This recognises meeting fatigue in our communities and councils, and recognises the contribution people make by allowing them to be paid a sitting fee when they are meeting.
The Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill is all about balancing the administrative burden and the cost of elections with the important principle of maximising voter participation in the electoral process. This, as we all know, is a foundation of our system of government. Obviously the main purpose of this bill is to amend the Local Government Act, particularly with regard to local government electoral regulations, to improve the administration and reduce the costs of local government elections.
The bill will provide for the extension of local government terms to avoid three elections in the Northern Territory in 2016 across the three tiers of government, and will push local government elections out to August 2017, from which point forward they will be every four years. It is problematic for some stakeholders. The member for Nelson has made his position very clear. People have raised some concerns with me but I guess the government, in trying to relieve the pressure on voters and the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission, took this position. Mark my words, it was out of the question that the Legislative Assembly election would be pushed out by 18 months.
The prospect of five-and-a-half years under the CLP would have seen civil disobedience in the streets of the Territory. We would have seen rioting in the streets at the prospect of handing the CLP government an 18-month extension. The third tier of local government across our regional and municipal councils will have the longer terms.
It is a dilemma. It is not democratic and is problematic, but I appreciate the government is required to find a solution. I guess this is the most convenient one given, for reasons I have already stated, they cannot do it for the Legislative Assembly, and obviously the federal government election scheduled for late 2016 is well outside the government’s control.
The member for Barkly has a number of questions and will be taking them to committee stage. I believe this is the first bill the member for Stuart has dealt with as the Local Government minister. Local government is an important portfolio for government service delivery. We saw significant changes under the Labor government and the CLP has made further changes. These were not the sweeping changes they said they would make, and they have not been as successful as they said they would. The member for Barkly asked them where they were with the important work commenced under Labor regarding examining the financial sustainability of regional councils, or shires as they were at that time.
It is not clear where the government is at and when the next report will be available. However, the indicators are that the very politically-driven decision to establish West Daly Shire, and split the Victoria Daly Shire into two halves to satisfy the political electoral needs of the member for Daly, has proceeded. From everything we hear on this side of the House that split was financially difficult. I am sure the minister is aware of that, given that many of her constituents sit across the old Victoria Daly Shire, as well as their struggles since the new breakaway regional council has been legislated. No doubt estimates in June will provide a perfect opportunity to ask the minister all manner of questions on how that split is progressing.
The opposition is not opposing these amendments. We have issues with some, and the member for Barkly will take the minister into committee stage to further scrutinise the bill. I suspect the member for Nelson will have some questions as we go to that stage as he cannot quite help himself.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I get to the main part of my speech I wish to specifically address a couple of issues. The opposition member representing Local Government suggested there has been little consultation on this bill. The truth is quite the opposite. There has been over 12 months of continuous consultation. The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2012 elections was released at the end of December 2013.
In January 2014 there was a general call for submissions from the public or anyone else interested in issues raised in the report’s recommendations. Advertisements were placed in newspapers across the Territory. The matter was publicised and there was information on the department’s website. Electoral reform and ideas for change were discussed by councils and at stakeholder meetings such as the Local Government Administration and Legislation Advisory Committee.
A committee consisting of the Electoral Commissioner, the CEO of LGANT and the CEO of the department of Local Government was formed to assess submissions and agree on a recommended way forward. I am very grateful to that committee for its expertise and the way in which it approached the task. As far as legislative changes go, the bill today is the result of that committee’s work.
After that, departmental officers attended a meeting of each council across the Territory to explain the proposed changes and to receive council feedback. Councils were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Alice Springs and Darwin councils had something to say about extending the period during which an appointment may be made to fill a vacancy. What exactly did the councils say? Only Alice Springs and Darwin councils voiced issues on this matter. Alice Springs opposed the extension but Darwin did not, wanting it extended further. The City of Darwin submitted that the period during which a vacancy can be filled by appointment should run from March 2015. That is a lot more than 18 months; that is two years and five months.
Most councils want the six-month extension, one is against it, and one wants the extension to be nearly two years more. It is not difficult to see we have made the correct decision to go with the suggestions of the NTEC and the support of most councils.
I want to talk about Belyuen, and I thank the member for Nelson for raising the matter. I have become aware of the complexity of this matter since becoming minister for Local Government. I assure this House that I also have concerns about what the previous government allowed to happen. Belyuen was put under administration in 2007 and the previous government did nothing to extradite it from its predicament.
This government has not used any legislation to affect Belyuen. I have asked my department to provide me with an options paper in relation to the future of Belyuen. I have already ensured a committee is established consisting of representatives from Belyuen, Coomalie and Wagait to discuss common issues relating to these councils. When I receive the options paper from the department I will consider the best way forward. There will be consultation regarding options for the future and we will go from there.
I thank members who have contributed to this debate. I understand some of the progressive things being introduced are brand new for the Territory, but this bill shows we are moving with the times. Every change this bill makes is either at the request of the Electoral Commissioner or the councils.
I will run through some of the comments raised about the bill. First there is a change to the date of the next periodic general elections to 26 August 2017. I am aware of the member for Nelson’s argument that the election should be held in 2016, but that is not practical. The Electoral Commissioner, who is an expert in this field, has advised it is simply too much for the public and the administration to have too many elections in one year. To have elections for local government, the Legislative Assembly, the Commonwealth, as well as the national Census all in one year would cause electorate fatigue.
Some people do not appreciate the enormous amount of work and resources that go into the preparation and running of general elections. I am convinced this change of date is good for Territorians and for local government.
If current members do not wish to continue after their term, which will end in March 2016, they do not have to; they can resign. They can do so knowing the council does not have to go through the expense of a by-election to replace them.
The date from which a council can appoint to a vacancy rather than hold a by-election is 27 February 2016. It has been questioned whether extending the time during which a council may appoint someone to fill a vacancy to 18 months prior to the next general election as opposed to 12 months is stretching the balance between democracy and efficiency. This measure is in response to councils raising the issue that the frequency of casual vacancies resulting in by-elections has placed significant strain on the council’s resources.
Yes, I heard the suggestion that there could be a count back system so the person who came second in the ballot can replace the existing member. There are pros and cons to the various suggestions put forward. The person who came second may no longer be interested and may only have received a tiny number of votes.
At the end of the day, the expert committee which looked at the options came to the conclusion that a council should make the decision on how the vacancy is to be filled in the 18-month period before the next general election. It will depend on the circumstances. There is nothing preventing a council from using the count back method to fill a vacancy in the 18-month period.
There are also other ways, such as calling for expressions of interest. It would be an opportune time for the councils to encourage people who may not usually think of running for council to have a taste of it. For example, young people, Indigenous people or people with particular skills and knowledge which may benefit the council could be considered. The decision will be made by the democratically elected members in accordance with their policy.
The decision to allow councils to have the flexibility to conduct by-elections by themselves, engage an external electoral service provider, or use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has been a popular one debated and supported previously in this Assembly.
I thank people who have supported giving councils the opportunity. I know LGANT and the Electoral Commission will endeavour to ensure that councils have sound advice in relation to the running of by-elections. I am pleased that LGANT will organise manuals and guides for the councils.
The next change we have been debating is that municipal councils will now have the option of conducting by-elections by postal voting only. There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Councils believe this may increase voter participation. I know the member for Nelson is not sure. At the end of the day, municipal councils have been calling for this measure. It is already mandatory in Tasmania and South Australia, and optional in Victoria.
If other Australian councils are allowed mandatory postal voting and do it successfully, why should Territory councils be denied the opportunity to give it a go? Yes, it will be a new thing. I promise members that after the first mandatory postal by-election there will be a rigorous assessment of the system.
In drafting the legislation we have broadly followed the Victorian system, which is optional for council, as ours will be. We are not blind to the possible complications that may arise. Some have argued that mandatory postal voting may disenfranchise certain groups. On the other hand, it can be argued that it will make participation easier and more convenient.
The Electoral Commissioner has raised concerns about the accuracy of the roll for postal addresses. The option of mandatory postal voting will only be open to municipal councils. We will wait to see if they take up the option. I know the Electoral Commissioner intends to give councils sage advice about the risks they must carefully consider in deciding whether to have a postal only election.
The other matter raised concerning mandatory postal elections is if the candidate’s statement is allowed, at the discretion of the returning officer, to be mailed to voters. I say at the discretion of the returning officer because the final decision on whether a candidate’s statement will be allowed will rest with the returning officer.
A candidate’s statement must only include a statement of 150 words or less and a photograph of the candidate. There are strict time frames about the lodgement of candidate statements. The regulations require the candidate to declare the statement is true and correct, is not defamatory, does not contain misleading or deceptive material and that the candidate understands he or she is liable to prosecution if the statement contains a defamatory statement or misleading or deceptive material.
The regulations also require the returning officer to reject a candidate’s statement which contains offensive or obscene material. The returning officer is further permitted to reject a candidate’s statement if the returning officer is of the opinion that the statement may not meet the requirements of the regulations. These safeguards have been adopted from the Victorian model.
As I mentioned before, once the first mandatory postal vote by-election has been held we can properly assess the success or otherwise of the process.
I turn to the option that has opened up for municipal councils: to choose whether to fill the office of a principal member by appointment or election. This is not a new concept and is already available to the regional councils. Where municipal councils decide to take this step I have asked my department to ensure the resulting council has an appropriate number of members to facilitate good decision-making.
One municipal council I can think of is used to having four members and an elected mayor. If such a council decided not to have a properly elected mayor its numbers would decrease to four. In my opinion that is too small a number of council members to effectively govern a municipal council. The department would ask such a council to review its representation with a view to increasing the number of council members.
I turn to the expansion of postal voting and early voting services to all voters. This is known in electoral circles as ‘convenience voting’. It is something voters now expect, given this approach is already taken in Commonwealth elections. Convenience is definitely an encouragement for electoral participation. Being able to vote on days other than a specified polling day is necessary for shift workers, sportspeople, people with children and those who want to go fishing on the weekend, just to name a few.
The member for Nelson raised the question of advertising leading up to an election now that voting day might almost be considered voting fortnight. I understand the concerns and comments raised. It is not an argument about convenience voting, it is an argument about when advertising should cease for an election.
Electoral advertising is not covered by the legislation before the House today; it is covered by Commonwealth broadcasting legislation. I am advised that the federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will soon be releasing its report. I expect the report will make a recommendation in relation to the Commonwealth broadcasting legislation addressing new early voting practices.
I turn to the retargeting of absent voting services on polling day to designated polling places in regional centres. The member for Nelson has suggested it should not be difficult to provide full services at all polling stations, but he may be forgetting the difficulties that can be experienced in regional and remote areas.
The cost of printing and transporting 350 000 extra ballot papers in case of unexpected votes proved to be an unnecessary drain on resources during the last local government general election. The Electoral Commissioner has made it clear that the intention is people can still vote at any polling booth in their council area. The public will be advised of places in all areas where absent vote services will be offered. It might affect people from Darwin who find themselves in Alice Springs on polling day. Rather than being able to vote at any booth, advertisements will advise voters of which polling booths in Alice Springs have absentee voting available on polling day. It will still be convenient, but will also be a significant saving on costs and transport of ballot papers.
Again, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I thank the members of the opposition, and particularly the member for Nelson, who has obviously given considerable thought to the matters at hand. Let me assure you, I am keen to do the very best for local government in the Northern Territory.
The content of this bill has been put together after careful consideration by Territory experts. I give warm thanks to Mr Iain Loganathan, the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tony Tapsell, CEO of LGANT, and both Mr Allan McGill and Mr Mike Chiodo, who have presided over the department during the development of this legislation.
Implementation of the legislation will be monitored and assessed. We will continue to refine the local government electoral system in the Territory so we have the very best fit for our people.
I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, Part 1, clause 2 relating to the commencement – this bill allows for a staggered commencement of the amendments. Can you outline the reasons for a staggered commencement and what advice you have given LGANT regarding that staggering?
Mrs PRICE: Which amendment?
Mr McCARTHY: Part 1, clause 2 of the bill refers to commencement.
Mrs PRICE: Part 1, clause 2 says:
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to what you just provided to the House, can you outline your thoughts on staggering the commencement of the amendments and any negotiations with LGANT?
Mrs PRICE: The matter is before the tribunal. We cannot elaborate on that.
Mr McCARTHY: The amplification is not working well. I did not hear you.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, there is a matter before the tribunal which will require a delay in the commencement. That is why there is a change of date in the commencement, but amendment of the bill will commence on a date fixed by the Administrator. There is a delay because there is something currently before the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Can the minister elaborate on what that matter is?
Mrs PRICE: It is confidential.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to Part 2, clause 4, provisions relating to the transfer of Local Government Tribunal matters to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, are there any matters of a technical nature where there may be a lack of expertise in the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal?
Mrs PRICE: Not that I am aware of.
Mr McCARTHY: Would you take advice on that and perhaps outline an answer to that question?
Mrs PRICE: There is nothing.
Mr McCARTHY: I will take the answer there is nothing back to the constituents. Are there any matters of a technical nature where there may be a lack of expertise in the new tribunal?
Mrs PRICE: That is the same question you asked previously. I have confidence in the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Let me put it this way, minister, did you receive any comments or concerns from the local government sector about a loss of expertise?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! It is quite clear the member is being belligerent in his questioning. Labor has been obstructionist in relation to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, a policy we put in place to remove red tape, cut regulation and make appeals easier in the Northern Territory. There have been hundreds of appellant tribunals in the Northern Territory. NTCAT is one body that seeks to provide a seamless process.
In regard to removing the tribunal to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal – NTCAT as we call it – this is just another process to remove red tape and make things easier. The member for Barkly does not like it, neither does Labor. Quite clearly, they want to attack members of the tribunal, which is what they are doing today. A question has been asked three times in a row. I ask that the minister be given the opportunity to get through the bill rather than have these personal attacks.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I ask that you keep the questions relevant to the committee stage of the bill and not be too repetitive.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to the Chief Minister leading the committee stage amendments, we are not into cheap shots; we are into investigating the nature and complexity of the bill. A major change from a local government sector to the Administrative and Civil Tribunal is worth questioning and worth answers. Your reference to ‘belligerent’ after a couple of questions in committee stage – I can remember being a minister in government and having four hours of prosecution by CLP members ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! Is this a statement or Question Time?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, please get to the question.
Mr McCARTHY: What is the process for confidentiality in relation to the tribunal? Is it commercial-in-confidence?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is just a change from the Local Government Tribunal to the new tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: I will move to the next section of the bill, minister, if you have completed your answers.
Clause 8 – it was interesting to hear the member for Fong Lim’s contribution where he reinforced the extensive consultation which took place with the municipal councils. What consultation took place with municipal councils regarding the potential change from a popularly-elected presiding officer, mayor or president, to self-selection by the council?
Mrs PRICE: Consultation took place over 12 months. I made it clear in my speech there had been numerous consultations with councillors and councils during that 12 months.
Mr McCARTHY: That gives us a time frame to work from. Can you be more specific about municipal councils and perhaps provide some evidence about the views of each of the municipals throughout the Northern Territory?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, if you want to know that I suggest you ask the councillors because we are here to talk about the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I was hoping you would be able to provide some information about the consultation process. You have provided a time frame; the government consulted for 12 months. Could you provide any further information about each of those municipals?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, as there are no amendments before the committee the policy parameters of this bill were set in the second reading speech. You are limited to asking questions on each clause of the bill and what it might mean.
If you want an explanation regarding each clause you can ask questions, but you cannot ask questions relating to the policy parameters of the bill. Please keep to the parameters and the structure of this committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly, Mr Chair. Minister, clause 10 allows for decisions of a council or local authority ...
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned in your summing up a member being appointed or elected to the office. You said if a council does not have enough councillors, like Litchfield – I think that is the one you are referring to – you would need more councillors.
In the case of Litchfield you would need more wards. Is that not what we are talking about? If you have a new ward you still have five councillors. I hope that makes sense ...
Mr Giles: Not to me.
Mr WOOD: Litchfield has four wards but five people are elected. If the council decides to appoint a mayor it does not need more councillors, it needs an extra ward.
Mrs PRICE: Member for Nelson, we would have to consult with the council in regard to that.
Mr WOOD: I was trying to clarify what you said before.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, clause 10 allows for decisions of a council or local authority to be made void consequent to review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Are there any council decisions or classes of decisions not subject to review and potentially being made void by a tribunal decision?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is just a change of the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you may not have heard that question correctly. Are there any council decisions or classes of decisions not subject to review?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! These are the questions you ask in a briefing. If you want clarity around a component of a clause seeking amendment fair enough, but just asking questions you did not ask at a briefing shows the depth of the briefing you took. These things could have been asked at the briefing and you could have greater clarity. Technical experts would have been on hand to assist you with answers as well.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, speaking to the point of order, this is exactly what the committee stage is about. Yes, members have the opportunity during briefings, but often you may have had further briefings with other stakeholders. This is what the committee stage is for and it is quite within order. Clearly the Chief Minister is trying to protect his minister.
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair. I have been in this parliament for a long time and I remember this argument. Briefings are fine, but you do not have to attend a briefing. You can ask the same questions at this important stage. Briefings are good, but we should not find excuses to truncate the committee stage because someone did not attend a briefing.
Mr CHAIR: Okay.
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, at briefings you often ask for a lot of information and do a lot of research. That is appreciated and respected. The member for Barkly asked a few questions and now comes in here blind and asks for this detail. For the smooth running of parliament and to get good debate on issues rather than trying to create a show – this is not the right way to go. I take your point this is what it is about, but there is a preparation process you generally follow, and have done on this bill, and I encourage the opposition to do the same.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr CHAIR: Let us not discuss the virtues of the committee stage and what it does and does not mean. While members should make themselves available for briefings as much as they possibly can, it is not incumbent on them to do so. The committee stage is so members can scrutinise government legislation, and that is precisely what we are doing.
I ask you, member for Barkly, to keep it to the context of the bill. As I said, the function of this committee is to consider the bill as the policy parameters have been set already. If you can please keep it within that context and that structure, by all means continue.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I have thanked the members of the public service for their briefing. I attended an extensive briefing and take offence to the Chief Minister, once again, being consistently careless with the truth and trying to fast-track legislation through this House in complete denial of democracy and normal parliamentary protocols and conventions.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, again, can we please keep this to scrutiny of the legislation, clause by clause if you like. It is not an opportunity to debate the policy parameters or the intention of the government with the bill. Can you please keep it, clause by clause if you like, but as I say …
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have a question on clause 10 and you have technical experts sitting in the box to your left. You might want to ignore the Chief Minister to your right, who is certainly not doing anything for parliamentary processes and convention.
What obligation is the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal under to advise and explain to council a tribunal action that may lead to a council decision becoming void?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, I know you have been in the game longer than me and have had the opportunity to get your head around local government, housing and all the other portfolios. Both you and the member for Nelson had briefings as well. If you give me some slack I will answer your questions.
Ms Fyles: You are a minister of the Crown.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Mrs PRICE: I know I am a minister, but I have been in the job for just three weeks.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, from the briefing and subsequent consultation with stakeholders and constituents, what obligation is the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal under to advise and explain to council a tribunal action that may lead to the council decision becoming void? It is a very important question in the process of the amendments.
Mr CHAIR: The member for Port Darwin on a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not on a point of order, but I can assist the House. The question the shadow minister is asking relates to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which has its own discretionary powers and functions. If the shadow minister was interested in this subject he should have raised questions about how things were done when we passed the NTCAT legislation.
The discretionary powers to which you are referring have nothing to do with the legislative instrument before the House. The fact the shadow minister is unaware of this demonstrates how thunderously blind and inept he is in his role.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, what clause are you speaking to?
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 10.
Mr CHAIR: Can you keep your questions contained to clause 10 and we will continue. Do you have any more questions?
Mr McCARTHY: I believe I have still not received an answer. The committee stage is the perfect opportunity for a discussion. Do not worry about how long you have been in the job; we should have the conversation. The two distracting you need to step out of this so we can have the conversation.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, what is the question?
Mr McCARTHY: The next question is about clause 13. New section 85(2) allows for the Electoral Commissioner to change the date of a periodic general election for local government if it clashes with Legislative Assembly or Commonwealth elections. The new section allows for the date to change by two months to create a situation where local government elections could be conducted in the same year as other elections, is that correct?
Mrs PRICE: That is highly unlikely because there are provisions to avoid the clash.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it possible that could happen in the same year?
Mrs PRICE: Not with the Territory election. The federal election is where we thought it would clash.
Mr McCARTHY: I am not sure of that answer; the question was around the capacity of this amendment. Could it happen in the same year?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, the minister has answered the question and I am satisfied with the answer.
Mr McCARTHY: What was the answer?
Mr CHAIR: If you are not satisfied that is a matter for you.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I was asking politely. I did not hear the answer. If you did, can you …
Mr CHAIR: No, I will not repeat the answer. Minister, will you please repeat the answer one final time for the member for Barkly before I consider this to be petulance. We will then move on.
Mrs PRICE: It had to be provisioned. It is highly unlikely.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 14 allows for a council to appoint a returning officer for by-elections rather than the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner. What are the minimum qualifications for a council-appointed returning officer?
Mrs PRICE: It is up to the council.
Mr McCARTHY: I am sorry, if you could lean into the microphone that might help me
Mr CHAIR: Are you seriously having trouble hearing? Minister, would you please speak up for the member for Barkly?
Mrs PRICE: It is up to the council.
Mr McCARTHY: What qualifications would be necessary to become a returning officer?
Mrs PRICE: It is basically up to the council.
Mr WOOD: Mandatory postal vote elections are only for by-elections, is that correct? Why are they not allowed for a full municipal election? If you have that for a municipal by-election, why is it not allowed for a full election?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Nelson, it has not been tested before so this is all new.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is fine.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 18 relates to regulatory requirements for a returning officer relating to elections. What are the key elements of those regulatory requirements and what training will be available to council-appointed returning officers?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, LGANT and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission are producing manuals. Does that answer your question?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, that answers my question. Regarding clauses 20 and 21, what process will have to be followed by council-appointed returning officers in relation to disputed returns?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is exactly the same process councils go through.
Mr McCARTHY: Am I correct in assuming that LGANT is writing the manuals that will decide the process?
Mrs PRICE: Yes, at the moment.
Mr McCARTHY: This legislation is passing through the House without those protocols in place?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it has not been assented to yet.
Mr McCARTHY: Have you a time frame for when they will be produced, minister?
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I seek clarification. My understanding is a Court of Disputed Returns operates under the Electoral Act and will continue to operate in exactly the same way. If the member for Barkly would like to know more about how the Court of Disputed Returns works I am happy to provide him with a briefing as it falls under a different purview.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the Chief Minister for his offer. I understand the current protocols are in draft form and are to be written and completed at some stage. Is that correct, minister?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, there is no change; they are already in place.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, the minister has sufficiently answered your questions. Please move on.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 45 …
Mr WOOD: Hang on. Clause 41 – I want to make sure we are in the right area of clause 41 which is about Regulations 10A and 10B inserted. Is that correct?
Mr CHAIR: Yes, we are.
Mr WOOD: Regulation 10A is Lodgement of candidate statement. I refer to Regulation 10A(5)(b). This covers someone including a statement of 150 words or less, plus a photograph, with the mandatory postal vote. Regulation 10A(5)(b) states that the candidate statement should not contain a defamatory statement. What is regarded as defamatory? Are there any guidelines to what a person cannot put in their statement of 150 words?
Mr GILES: What was it?
Mr WOOD: It is clause 41 and refers to Regulation 10A and 10B to be inserted after Regulation 10.
Mr GILES: I cannot answer this definitively for you member for Nelson, but my understanding is it is a matter of law what is defamatory and what is not. As to any parameters around that, I would not mind some advice as well.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I was in the lobby listening to this statement. I presume this is in reference to ‘defamatory’?
It captures the principles that have long been held in Australia about politicians. The seminal case on this matter, if memory serves me, is Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an Australian court case arising out of a Four Corners program on former New Zealand Prime Minister Lange.
Basically it establishes that the threshold for politicians being able to defame a politician has to, by necessity of our democratic system, be a much higher threshold. That is, it is much more difficult to defame a politician than it is a citizen. The reason we create these instruments and have this common law on the books is to reach that threshold not only do you have to be wrong, but you have to knowingly be wrong before you can defame a politician.
The essence of that means people are freer to say what they like about politicians in the interests of public information and public scrutiny. Therefore it does not end up in a situation similar to that in Malaysia a few years ago, where if somebody said something critical about a politician all of a sudden they were in the courtroom having to answer a defamatory comment.
If somebody calls the member for Port Darwin a liar on a particular issue, it may be defamatory in citizen street but not in the political domain. That is the way we protect the broad scope of freedom of speech for people seeking elected office. I hope that assists with the overall approach taken.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General. Any further questions, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I understand if is defamatory you can still be prosecuted. I move to Regulation 10A(7) which says:
I go to (b):
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I can answer that.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, defer to the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: You will find that language – section 47 of the Summary Offences Act deals with things like offensive and objectionable words. Offensive or objectionable is not defined in the Summary Offences Act, but there is a body of case law which will determine what is offensive and objectionable. Even that can change over time. The ‘n’ word, which was used in common parlance 30 or 40 years ago in relation to Aboriginal people, was considered somewhat offensive. Nowadays it is considered extremely offensive.
Generally speaking you will find it refers to things you would reasonably expect to be offensive. The test applied, if you are using the test the courts do, is of the reasonable or ordinary person similarly circumstanced. The ‘f’ word, the ‘c’ word and those things are automatically offensive material. Using the recent Toyota ad, ‘bugger’ was measured by advertising standards as to whether it was too offensive in an ad or not.
Authorities looking at these things in advertising will be guided by the same things the courts are. You run into this subjective area of the common man test or the reasonable person similarly circumstanced. If you tried to define what offensive was in a bill like this you would end up with a piece of paper so thick dealing with the definition of what is offensive or objectionable. Of course, it is appellable to NTCAT, a court-like body anyhow.
Mr WOOD: What concerns me is the returning officer will make a ruling not NTCAT. In fact, you can appeal and he can make another ruling and after that it is too bad. I am not necessarily talking about bad language but someone saying, ‘Vote for me because I don’t like left-handers. Left-handers are stupid and there is no way you should vote for left-handers. They could be Independents if you are not careful.’ Although I am making fun of that, what would be regarded as offensive in someone standing for election and saying, ‘Vote for me not that person’.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us use that example. Some left-handers would be offended by that. Would the ordinary person, similarly circumstanced, be offended by it? That is the test the courts are asked to apply every day. Somebody has to ultimately make a ruling. That ruling can be made by the returning officer, or alternatively, it is appellable to the NTCAT. There is an appellant body and that is where it stops. That is how a court system works as well. In truth, you will find that a person asked to read offensive material will have to look at obscene language and those types of things. Mere criticism, or even the statement of a policy position which may be considered offensive – ‘I am a Nazi, I don’t like Jewish people’ – without going into vilification legislation – is part of your core policy of ‘I don’t like left-handers’, you have to express that. It is unlikely that would be found offensive.
What you would find offensive is the use of expletives and the use of very suggestive phraseology which brings offence to an ordinary person similarly circumstanced. The case law on that is volumes thick.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General.
Mr WOOD: We have this debate in the federal parliament but the issue is more than offensive words. It could be racist, sexist or religious; it could be a range of things. Is there guidance for the returning officer who has to make a ruling on whether something is offensive? This could get into a tricky area if there is no guidance. Someone could say, ‘That’s a load of rubbish, that’s not offensive at all’. The returning officer has to make a ruling and I wonder if there should be some guidelines for the returning officer.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I will allow one further question.
Mr ELFERINK: I suggest the guidelines exist in the case law and are voluminous on these issues. The rulings and guidelines are there in the common law and are rich sources to be tapped into and mined for information as to what may be considered offensive or otherwise.
Mr CHAIR: That has satisfactorily answered the question.
Are there any further questions?
Mr McCARTHY: A lead off that question while we have the CLP legal counsel here, will that voluminous litigation be written into the LGANT handbook around protocols for returning officers?
Mr ELFERINK: That is what I would expect the Labor Party to do because they are control freaks. If you open the case law you are guided by it. You are trying to describe a word and say it is not defined. So many words are not defined in the statute book, partly because if you go beyond the statute book to what the courts have to do to interpret what a particular word means – if it is not defined in the definition section of the statute itself they go for the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word. You will find there are many cases which touch on the offensive nature of particular words.
You do not have to write them into the LGANT rules. All you have to do is, as a matter of interpretation, turn your mind to these cases and they will guide you as to whether something is offensive or not. That is not rocket science, and anybody who interprets legislation for a living would come to that conclusion very quickly.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 45 relates to designation of polling places where an absentee vote can be taken. What are the minimum requirements in relation to absentee voting in council polling booths, and what legislative or regulative guarantees exist in relation to access for absentee voting within a local government area? In my contribution to debate, I use the example of the Barkly Regional Council.
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is a matter for the council and the returning officer.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 78 relates to the amendment to Schedule 1. This question relates to the amalgamation of ballot papers with the same value during the exclusion of a candidate in a single member vacancy count. The Electoral Commissioner recommended in his 2012 election report that the government provides the Electoral Commissioner with a discretion in regard to any decision to amalgamate votes in single member vacancy count. The amendment before us infers that this change is mandatory and not at the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner. I quote from page 28 of the explanatory statement:
Is that the case? If so, why did you decide not to follow the Electoral Commissioner’s advice to make that a discretionary power?
Mrs PRICE: It makes no difference to the counting of votes.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it semantically wrong in the explanatory statement?
Mrs PRICE: No, it is not wrong.
Mr McCARTHY: We read that as meaning the ballot papers must be transferred. Why did you decide not to follow the Electoral Commissioner’s advice?
Mrs PRICE: The Electoral Commissioner supports it and has approved it.
Mr McCARTHY: It is an interesting response, minister. What are the benefits for voters of that change?
Mrs PRICE: It is more efficient, I have been told, for counting.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, and also to your advisers. Welcome to the job as a minister of the Crown. This is on the public record, and I can take the information you have supplied to the constituency. Thank you for the process. I look forward to the passage of this legislation through the House. As I said, the opposition does not oppose this legislation but had some important questions in relation to it.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, today I update the House on a number of things, including the establishment of the Northern Territory’s water advisory committees.
The Territory’s future relies on the wise use of our land and water resources to ensure sound economic development and general wellbeing for all Territorians. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring that development using our natural resources is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy. The most critical natural resource for our economy is water.
This government’s approach to the management of our water resources is based on four central components:
(1) a sound legislative base
(2) an overarching water policy for the Territory
(3) an appropriate water allocation and water licensing framework
(4) scientific monitoring and research to provide the evidence base for adaptive water management.
This approach embraces the government’s Framing the Future vision of establishing a prosperous economy and achieving a balanced environment.
Today I refer to the development of an overarching water policy for the Territory, specifically the crucial role water advisory committees play in determining the safe, sound and sensible use of water. My Department of Land Resource Management is drafting the Northern Territory water policy which will provide a framework for water management in the Territory and ensure we are aligned with national best practice in this regard.
As I have informed this House previously, supporting development of the NT water policy is the operation of community advisory bodies that provide independent advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets. This government values and recognises the importance of community involvement in decision-making regarding use of our water.
To this end I have established two distinct types of advisory committees. The first is the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee, or NTCAC, which was formed last year to provide advice directly to me on strategic water policy issues. The NT Catchments Advisory Committee is a strategic water policy advisory committee whose members have extensive experience in environmental science, water resource management and community engagement. The NTCAC members have knowledge on a diverse range of water resource issues which is essential for strategic water policy development.
The establishment of NTCAC has enabled independent input into water policy development as well as providing the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. To date, this committee has held four meetings and has heard presentations on issues as diverse as Darwin’s future water supply options, northern development and the Commonwealth white paper, water quality in Darwin Harbour, water allocation planning and the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. I have attended several of the Northern Territory CAC meetings, and the discussion and outcomes from these meetings are important in providing a broad prospective of water issues directly to my office.
The Northern Territory CAC will now be taking an active role in supporting our water policy development by engaging directly with stakeholder groups on water issues Territory wide. Northern Territory CAC will be responsible for developing a plan to promote water stewardship and empower stakeholders in catchment protection, water conservation, water efficiency strategies and solutions to water issues.
The other type of advisory committee I have established are community-based water advisory committees which focus on issues within a single water control district or catchment. 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 committees are established by me 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. These committees ensure plans and policies are drafted clearly, and that regulatory arrangements are easy to understand and implement by licence holders.
The Katherine Water Advisory Committee has already held three meetings this year, and is well under way with work on the five-year review of the Katherine Tindall Limestone Aquifer Water Allocation Plan. The perspective of licence holders and the community on the operation of the plan will help identify any changes needed to improve its operation over the next five years. This review is expected to be completed in time for reporting to participants at the water forum in Katherine on 15 May this year.
Revision of the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan by my Department of Land Resource Management has been completed. This plan addresses how the public water supply for Alice Springs can be managed into the future, and includes provision of sensible allocations for future industry and agricultural needs. It also includes a detailed analysis of the future water supply scenarios for water management in Alice Springs.
A meeting of the Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee has been convened for 26 March 2015 to enable my department to fully brief members on these revisions. A second meeting is scheduled for 16 April 2015 to enable their feedback to be included in the final report that will be prepared for my consideration.
Development of the scientific modelling that forms the foundation of new water allocations plans is time consuming. In order to ensure committee members can be properly briefed, meetings are progressively convened as this work is completed.
Work on redrafting the Mataranka and Oolloo Water Allocation Plans has also commenced, and the revised plans will be presented later this year to the respective committees for community feedback. Progression of the draft Berry Springs Water Allocation Plan was postponed to allow additional information on spring flows to be gathered during 2014. This ensured the underpinning modelling was based on the very best information available. 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 process 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 longstanding interest in the Howard East Aquifer and welcome his commitment to participate in the planning process.
This government is committed to ongoing community input into water resource management, and the annual water forum in Katherine is a practical demonstration of this commitment. The water forum allows the community, and in particular licence holders, to be briefed on water resource management and provides a mechanism for stakeholder feedback directly to my Department of Land Resource Management.
While water advisory committees have a role to play in water resource planning they should not be the only vehicle for community participation. In May we will release our discussion paper called ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’.
The Country Liberals government is committed to wide-ranging consultation with Territorians about sensible and contemporary water policies, long-term strategies and legislative reform, which are essential for the growth of the Territory economy and the sustainable use of our most precious resource.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in September 2012 there have been 130 water extraction licences for 178 003 ML per year processed across the Territory. This includes a mix of surface water licences and ground water licences. The purpose of these water extraction licences include horticulture, agriculture, industry, tourism, forestry, aquaculture and public water supply.
I have good news which seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the Territory and certainly in the media. I am not surprised by this, but will come back to that in a moment. Pleasingly, I can report that a number of water extraction licences have now been issued to Indigenous landholders during the last few months, mostly in the Mataranka and Katherine regions ...
Mr Elferink: Is that a 100% preservation policy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is reserved for them under their licence.
These four extraction licences were issued on 14 January 2015 and granted to TopEndfarm acting for the Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust, the Mangarrayi Aboriginal Land Trust and the Wubalawun Aboriginal Land Trust. Each licence was for 1650 ML, a total of some 6600 ML. That is a fantastic outcome for Indigenous people in that region. This is a watershed moment, especially after the controversy around some water allocations in recent years and the debate about the strategic Indigenous reserve.
Firstly, let us put these water licences into context. They jointly represent about 6600 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. It will allow for the development of four separate areas on Indigenous lands for four separate enterprises. Guess what, it was all done without the need for a strategic Indigenous reserve.
Some might remember comments I made over the past few years about this topic which have rung true. Having a strategic Indigenous reserve was detrimental to the timely development of economic opportunities for Aboriginal people. Moreover, the stated position of this government of not having a strategic Indigenous reserve has done exactly what I wanted and foreshadowed would happen: the application for and subsequent granting of water licences to Aboriginal people from the consumptive pool available to all Territorians. I said this would happen and it did, and I am delighted that these licences have been issued to Indigenous Territorians for horticulture and tourism projects.
Why does no one know about these licences in the same way they knew about some other controversial water licences issued since the Country Liberals came to government?
Mr Barrett: Because they do not like good news.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You are right, member for Blain. The other side of the House does not like good news.
They went through the same process as every other applicant for a licence. It was advertised on application, considered by the Water Resources Division in the Department of Land Resource Management, and the intention to make a decision by the Water Controller was advertised. They went through the whole gambit.
Was a single objection raised to taking a further 6600 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer? According to my advice, no.
All of the water critics and protagonists who screamed blue murder about other water licences issued under this government were silent, not a word.
There was nothing from the Labor Party or the Environment Centre, not a squeak. There was nothing from those who, a few short months ago, were becrying the fate of the Roper River and the systems downstream. That tells me the feigned indignation of both the Labor Party and the Environment Centre, their so-called care for the environment, is a thin veneer behind which sits nothing more than cheap political rhetoric full of lies.
The water story in the NT is a good one to tell. I am proud to be a part of a government that will make the story even better for Indigenous people, non-Indigenous people and all Territorians.
I move that the Assembly takes note of the statement on the progress of the work of our water advisory committees.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important statement. I realise you get a short period to investigate the matter. It has been controversial; there is no doubt about it. It is great that some Aboriginal people are using water licences. This water policy comes two-and-a-half years into the government’s term of office, yet many big decisions were made. You could say governments have to do things, but many big decisions were made without a water policy. Whilst the government said, ‘We are moving forward because the previous government didn’t issue enough water licences’, there is nothing wrong with a little caution.
Water is a valuable and variable asset, and my understanding is unless the cyclone brings rain to the Roper it will not reach its usual level. If that happens some of the licences might not be used to the extent they might be in a normal year …
Mr Westra van Holthe: There is a policy in place for that already.
Mr WOOD: No, this paper says we will now have a water policy.
Mr Westra van Holthe: There are plenty of water policies, but we will have an overarching strategic one.
Mr WOOD: I did not interrupt you, minister. I am trying to be rational, but we did have some things in place, believe it or not. We had water advisory committees. We had the Howard East Water Advisory Committee with a range of people on it, and we had terms of reference. I am not sure if this is the same water advisory committee we will have now.
Is Greening the Territory the previous government or this one? The website says the committee was formed by the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. Was the previous water advisory committee disbanded? I did not receive anything to tell me I was not on the water advisory committee, but the government is now setting up a Howard East Water Advisory Committee under the Department of Land Resource Management. It looks exactly the same as it was under the previous government. I am not knocking the idea; I am confused about what happened to the previous water advisory committee and where the new committee is.
It is good there are other water advisory committees. There is one in Katherine, and one at Berry Springs, which was established by the previous government. The Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee was also established by the previous government. From memory there was also one at Mataranka. Those water advisory committees were made up of scientists and the community. The DRMAC was a water advisory committee. These advisory committees were established before so the government cannot say it is a new idea. To say it is re-establishing them would be fair.
The only new part of the policy is the government has decided to have a catchment authority, which seems to be broader and applies to more than small catchments; it is regional. From the statement it is not easy to see the major difference in the catchment advisory committee.
The NTCAC – I presume this is a Darwin version – is or has been looking at Darwin’s future water supply options, northern development, the Commonwealth white paper, water quality in Darwin Harbour – we had a Darwin Harbour catchment management group at one stage which was dropped – water allocation planning and the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. I am not sure those matters can be looked at by a water advisory committee.
What concerns me is two committees will overlap so there will be wastage of resources and energy. The difference between a catchment advisory committee and a water advisory committee is not clearly defined. Perhaps they take into account some broader elements, but I would not want these committees tripping over each other doing their jobs.
I do not have the details because I did not have time to chase it up, but there has been much discussion about an Indigenous water policy to reserve water in case some Indigenous groups want to use it. It is good people in the Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust have a water licence.
However, the government should recognise that the idea of the extractive water reserve we are discussing came from that water advisory committee. They helped develop that idea. The people in the area should not be rubbished simply because the government had a different policy. It is forgetting it was not necessarily a land council or Labor Party point of view. I understand some of that came from discussions amongst the local people on those water advisory committees. They were concerned about handing too much water out. Some of the scientists also said that before people got a water licence they should prove they can use the amount of water they already have. We have moved on from that. You can argue about what one group or another said.
This government has now set a policy and we understand where it is coming from. They want the Territory to grow. They believe there was not enough progress in handing out water licences, and the government gave out lots and lots of water.
That is fine, but the government has a responsibility to explain whether water has been used by the people granted a water licence. I remember the first famous water licence because it had a connection with the CLP and promises were made on the ABC Country Hour that certain crops would be grown. I expect this government to check whether crops were grown, bores were drilled and water was used because one issue not mentioned in this document is water trading.
I understand the government will only allow X amount of water to be extracted. A bathtub full of water can be used for irrigation. When it is all used and another farmer wants some water, the question not debated is should that farmer be entitled to some water? If the government says, ‘You have to talk to one of the farmers’, and that farmer says, ‘Yes, you can have some of my water but it will cost you $10 000 per litre’ – it would not be that much, but the original farmer got the water for nothing.
There are some fundamental questions. Will we have a water trading system where water provided by the government at no cost is available for people to make a profit? For example, I could have water on my farm but subdivide it. A farmer says, ‘Thanks for the land but I have no water’. I say, ‘I have extra water. If you want to pay for it you can have some of my water licence.’
Down south water trading occurs, but I find it hard to believe that water owned by the Crown is given to farmers who have applied for a water licence at no charge. They have a lot of money to put a bore down and irrigation equipment in. That is a big cost, but the water costs nothing. Is it right that the person can sell that water for a profit?
I believe if you do not need the water you should hand it back and it should be given to another person. You should not sell it for a profit because it is our water given for nothing.
People may disagree with that, but I am trying to highlight there has been enough debate about this issue. There will come a time when we cannot issue more water licences for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, the Oolloo Aquifer or the Berry Springs Aquifer. We will have used up all the water licences.
What is the system for trading water? Is it returned to the government to give to another person to use, or will a grower be allowed to sell it? That is an important debate that has to be part of a water policy but is not mentioned here.
The government has said it wants the Territory to grow and I do not have a problem with that. Therefore it has said, ‘We will issue lots of licences because the previous government did not’. Obviously it expects the people given a water licence to grow something. In some cases people might not be quite ready and that is fair enough. It takes a while to get established, but it would be great to know a person who had a tomato farm and said they needed water to grow another 50 acres of tomatoes …
A member: A banana farmer.
Mr WOOD: I have picked tomatoes because it is fairly safe … was doing that. That person was not keeping the water in the hope they could trade it later. It would be good if the government could respond to some of these issues so we know issuing licences is working the way the government said it would.
My area, which would come under the Howard East Water Advisory Committee, is a difficult one. I understand Power and Water will put more bores down in the rural area. They have a water extraction licence with a limit to what they can pump and are moving in that direction. That is why it is really important to have a water advisory committee. The sad thing is for the last two-and-a-half years we have not had a water advisory committee. The water advisory committee normally has a representative from Power and Water and one can keep in contact with Power and Water through the advisory committee and learn their policies in relation to more extraction of water from the rural area.
This is a very sensitive area for people with bores. The minister said there are 2100 bores in the rural area, but I think there might be more. For two-and-a-half years rural people have not had a say in what is happening with their water. We now have a water policy after Power and Water plans to put in more bores. I believe they are already planning to build some extra roads to their bore field in Girraween and will extract more water.
It is a little late for a resurrected water advisory committee that has been defunct for two-and-a-half years when there have been major changes in how much water Power and Water can take out.
They are quite within their rights if their licence enables them to do that, but if we get a long Dry Season people will ring me to say, ‘My bore is not pumping water’. They usually blame Power and Water. That may not be correct, but it has always been an issue with the Howard East Aquifer.
I thank the minister for the statement, which could have had more teeth. I would like the minister to come back – I do not know when this will come back because our Notice Paper has so many statements on it you wonder what is going on. We need statements earlier and need to debate them through. I can make points today about what farmers are growing with their water licences or about water trading, but this statement will be adjourned and I might get an answer in September.
It does not make sense for a statement to just disappear. To be honest, I will have forgotten what I said by September. It makes the debate a little disjointed. It was bad enough today, half way through a local government debate, having lunch, Question Time, a censure motion and then trying to remember what I was talking about. To wait a long period for answers does not give statements much value. It is important to discuss these things, and I hope the minister can come back earlier than September with answers because this is really important.
The minister said there would be a water forum in Katherine on 15 May. I would like to attend that, on the back seat, because it would be nice to hear what the growers and local community have to say. The centre for horticulture and agriculture is not small around the Darwin rural area. A range of crops are grown in the area such as vegetables, sandalwood, new banana plantations and opium poppy. I am interested in what people have to say about the government’s new water policy.
I thank the minister for the statement. I hope we can get back to the old system of receiving statements the day before so I can do some proper research instead of five minutes on the computer. This will improve the quality of debate in this House.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on the important topic of water in the Territory.
Following on from the member for Nelson’s comments – I raise this regularly in parliament – debate of ministerial statements has become a farce. We want to come into the Chamber, have the statement delivered and then have a detailed, constructive debate and ensure people can make phone calls. They can then do more research rather than half listen to the minister deliver his statement while trying to check information.
People want thorough debate in this Chamber. They want to know members of parliament are looking into important topics like water in some depth and detail. Instead, this government seems determined to gag constructive debate, which is why it changed the process around delivering ministerial statements.
To be frank, I thought the minister would come into the Chamber wanting to spruik his water advisory committees and saying the CLP government is adopting a consultative approach with people across the Territory. I thought he would be happy to spread the good word of the so-called good work he is doing, and would want to make sure there was thorough debate on this topic. Given I have not had much time to prepare, I will comment on some of the things the minister mentioned but not in the detail I would like to as shadow minister for natural resources.
Water is a critical natural resource. It is the lifeblood of the Territory and life without water does not exist. It is vital to the future of the Territory. Water is critical to our environment, but it also plays an important role in the economic development of the Northern Territory. It is critical to get usage right. We have to ensure we protect our precious nature water resources for future generations. It is important to act on the opportunities for economic development, but it must be sustainable economic development which does not risk our precious water resources. There has been much debate about decisions made by the CLP government.
It has become a huge issue, and when people look back on this CLP government one legacy will be its approach to water. The government will say it leaves a strong legacy because it has given out so much water. This side of the Chamber raises serious questions about that. We have some huge concerns around the processes and this debate highlights those concerns.
The minister effectively said he, and this government, consults on water. The only problem is we are two-and-a-half years down the track of this CLP government and have seen water extraction licences granted for big allocations across the Territory and over-allocation of water extraction licences. We are two-and-a-half years into government and they are now consulting, asking a few policy questions about water and putting a discussion paper to the community. Is that a sound, logical pathway to some of the decisions they have made about water extraction licences?
In this statement the minister mentions the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and water advisory committees. Water advisory committees existed previously but the CLP government has dropped the ball on them in the last few years. I have some questions for the minister if he wraps tonight with regard to the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and the water advisory committees. Where is the transparency? How can Territorians have faith in the decisions the government is making about water and water allocation?
It is important we see the advice the water experts and the community involved with these water allocation licences is providing to government. Where is the transparency around that? Will we see the minutes of those meetings? Will we see reports issued by those advisory committees? What will Territorians see from those processes? I am keen for the minister to update us on how the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and the water advisory committees will report back to Territorians on the advice they provide to government. We would like to hear more about those processes so people can have more faith in the government’s decisions about the significant allocation of water around the Territory.
Another thing the minister seemed to skip over – he made mention but did not go into any real detail – was the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing, when talking about the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee. We know fracking is a hot topic. After three long months of the government sitting on the Hawke report it was finally released. There is no doubt the number one worry people have about fracking is the impact on ground water and water quality. The minister mentioned that to date this committee has held four meetings and has received presentations on issues as diverse as the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. It would be nice to hear more from the minister on that because there is a lot of debate in the community and people would like to know more.
The minister mentioned that a discussion paper would be released in May titled ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’. However, we are two-and-a-half years into government and some very controversial decisions have been made about water allocations in the Northern Territory to people with strong connections to the Country Liberal Party. We are only now releasing a discussion paper on how water should be used.
Again it seems you have made the decisions about water allocation before having the important and informed conversation with Territorians. I look forward to seeing what is in the paper. Alas, nothing has changed. As the minister said in his statement, since coming to government in August 2012 they have issued 130 water extraction licences. This equates to around 178 000 ML of water a year across the Territory. The water has been given away before having the conversation and talking to experts and members of the community about what they want to happen with the water.
The minister raised strategic Indigenous reserves. This has seen another controversial approach by the CLP government. Prior to the CLP taking government a vast amount of work had been done on a strategic Indigenous reserves policy but that was thrown out by this government.
The minister mentioned success in some water licence allocations, but feedback is still loud and clear from the Northern Land Council, the Environment Centre and members of this parliament. Some government members have spoken about their concerns with strategic Indigenous reserves, but that was thrown out by the CLP government. It seems clear from this statement today that the government will not be exploring strategic Indigenous reserves again.
The last time I spoke about water I referred to a previous statement the minister delivered on water where he said he would report back on decisions around strategic Indigenous reserves. Clearly, they are well and truly gone.
It is concerning in an environment where we know water is a precious resource. It comes back to a point I raised before: under this government we have seen important funding to environmental advocacy groups such as the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre stripped away.
It is important we have these groups because they are an independent voice for the environment. There is no doubt they often tell governments things they do not want to hear. There will be times when they go head-to-head, but we know these severe funding cuts by the Northern Territory government have depleted their resources. They have lost staff, have had to severely cut hours of operation, it has been very hard for them to operate and things will only get tougher.
I thought a good government would be open to scrutiny and being held to account by independent environmental advocates and experts. I thought it would welcome scrutiny because it would want to make the right decisions. You have to question that given the funding cuts to those important organisations.
I thank the minister for his statement. I am pleased the government wants to take a more consultative approach around some of its decisions on water and talk to people who are concerned about water resources. However, it seems this consultation is happening long after the big decisions have been made.
I welcome the opportunity to give more thought and preparation to debate, and hope the government looks at its approach to ministerial statements because a topic such as water is so important. It is important to have robust debate in this Chamber because that is what Territorians expect. They expect us to take care of water and treat it as the precious resource it is.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and commend him on his work in protecting and managing our finite resources such as water. I do not mean to state the obvious, but water is a critical resource in the Northern Territory. Yes, there is plenty of water in the Top End with the big Wet Seasons, but south of Katherine it is more precious than rhino horn.
In my home community of Yuendumu water is under pressure through overuse and short supply. I have been encouraging people to be water wise to extend the local supply for a few more years. It is probably time to run a water wise audit and mini-campaign to explain to my people the real pressure placed on existing water resources and the difficulties we have in finding new bores that are not full of heavy minerals and contamination from metals such as uranium.
It is also crucial for the cattle and pastoral industries across my electorate of Stuart. These stations provide produce and cattle to Australian and overseas markets. Water is also critical to produce growers such as Red Centre Farm at Ti Tree in my electorate, which grows melons, grapes, mangos, strawberries and so on. It is a great Territory business employing locals. It supplies produce to towns like Alice Springs, and it is great to see local produce being sold in local supermarkets and local towns supporting these small businesses. These businesses need our support to make sure there is enough water. We look at where water tables can be accessed.
I can talk about the little community of Alyuen in my electorate which has been waiting for water since 2007. This year we were able to give them water. That was so precious because they have been patiently waiting for water to wash themselves, water their gardens and make sure their dogs and everybody else in the community has plenty of water.
This statement is timely because it provides an update to this House and Territorians on what this government is doing with water resources in the Northern Territory. One good thing we are doing is establishing water advisory committees. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring that development using our natural resources, especially water, is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy.
The Department of Land Resource Management is in the process of developing an overarching water policy for the Territory. The Northern Territory water policy will provide a framework for water management in the Territory and ensure the Northern Territory aligns with national best practice in this regard.
In May the Country Liberals government will release a discussion paper for developing the Northern Territory water policy called ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’. A key aspect of this policy is the establishment of water advisory committees. Water advisory committees play a crucial role in determining the safe, sound and sensible use of water in the Northern Territory. The water advisory committee is made up of members of the community who provide independent advice direct to the Minister for Land Resource Management on the responsible use of the Territory’s water assets.
Two distinct types of water advisory committees have been established. The first is the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee, which was formed last year to provide advice directly to the Minister for Land Resource Management on strategic water policy issues. Establishment of the NTCAC has enabled independent input into water policy development and has provided the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. The NTCAC will engage directly with stakeholder groups on water issues. It will also work on developing a plan to promote water stewardship. The NTCAC will empower stakeholders in catchment protection, water conservation, water efficiency strategies and solutions to water issues throughout the Northern Territory.
The second type of advisory committee the minister can appoint is a water advisory committee. This can be appointed for a particular water control district if a water allocation is in place, or to provide advice on development of a water allocation plan. To date, water advisory committees have been established to cover the following areas for water catchments: Katherine, Alice Springs, Mataranka, Oolloo, Berry Springs and Howard East. The establishment of these two distinct types of water advisory committees is another example of the Country Liberal government’s commitment to wide-ranging consultation with Territorians about water issues. These include sensible and contemporary water policies, long-term strategies and legislative reforms which are essential for the growth of the Territory economy, and the sustainable use of our most precious resource.
I thank the minister for his statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table three travel reports, two from the member for Wanguri and one from the member for Casuarina, pursuant to Clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
I also table a report to the Legislative Assembly regarding the annual schedule of member travel and an annual schedule of payments for each member for satellite and mobile phones.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, tonight I speak in support of the comments made by the Chief Minister in Question Time today relating to some observations he made on a matter still under investigation and before the courts. I am anxious not to dwell on any of the details of the matter now before the courts. Suffice to say, it is my understanding that there is a victim of a heinous crime in a town camp in Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister made comments about the media reporting of that incident, and I believe he called it right. The Chief Minister identified something which has been in the public domain on a number of occasions and he has every right to be concerned about the way we respond to these types of events.
The Chief Minister’s statement today was courageous because it challenges us all to think about how we approach these issues. From time to time we are confronted by these things, and as the minister for Child Protection I am often confronted by some dreadful stories about things that happen in town camps and remote communities. I am often concerned that these things are under-reported because they happen in remote areas or town camps.
I congratulate the Chief Minister on this call. The Chief Minister has shown some ticker because a politician holding the light up to the media and asking if the response is appropriate is risky. It has often been said that you are a brave politician if you criticise someone who orders their ink by the barrel. Nevertheless, the Chief Minister has every right to call all Territorians on this issue, including members of the Country Liberal Party, the Labor Party and Independents. The tough question is: do we respond well enough to these things in remote communities and town camps? We have to ask that question of ourselves from time to time.
I am glad the Chief Minister said what he did today and I support him in that. Of course, I am mindful that these matters are still afoot. I make no observation on the guilt or innocence of any party; that is for the courts to decide. However, I turn honourable members’ attention to what the Chief Minister raised and the reasons and motivations behind it. Reflecting on that, by all Territorians whether they are in the media or otherwise, is worthwhile.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish I engaged in reflection like that more regularly. Of course, being a busy minister in a busy government you do not always get the opportunity. What was said today was valid and a reasonable question to ask. I urge all members and the media to ask the question as well.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I adjourn on one of the biggest issues concerning my electorate at the moment, antisocial behaviour and crime.
We heard the CLP government promise to cut crime by 10% in the lead-up to the 2012 election. In this Chamber and in the media the Chief Minister has said repeatedly that he is cutting crime. However, his words do not match reality. I am worried about what I see in my electorate and what my constituents are telling me about crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also worried about what my colleagues tell me is happening in their electorates and across the Territory.
At present the crime statistics say it all. The latest crime statistics released for the Darwin region show assaults have gone up by 12.5%, domestic violence-related assaults by 4.9%, alcohol-related assaults by 6.9%, sexual assaults have gone down by 6.7%, but house break-ins have gone up by 65%. Commercial break-ins went down by 18%, but motor vehicle theft went up by 35% and property damage by 17%.
We have seen some staggering statistics in Palmerston as well. House break-ins are up 57%, commercial break-ins up 102%, motor vehicle theft up 52% and property damage up 19%. The figures tell a worrying story.
As a member of the Legislative Assembly my constituents come first, which is why I doorknock as often as possible. It is the ultimate way to stay in touch with the real issues impacting people in the electorate. While doorknocking over the last year I have been alarmed by what constituents have told me about their personal experiences in dealing with crime.
I have heard too many stories of people having car keys stolen from their home while they sleep and the car being taken for a joy ride. I doorknocked one of the biggest streets in my electorate last week and heard too many stories about property theft, from pot plants to clothes taken off the back line, to cars being rummaged through, grog stolen from back yards, kids bikes and family possessions being taken, through to cars being stolen. It was very concerning.
It was part of my discussion with local police to make them aware of my concerns. I also encourage my constituents to report any theft, no matter how minor it is, to police to ensure they have a clear view of crime patterns in the area.
I have heard stories similar to this in many other streets in my two years in this job. There is no doubt in my mind that property crime is on the increase. From what I have been told by my constituents and what we see from the crime statistics, it is through the roof.
Mr Deputy Speaker, antisocial behaviour in my electorate is alarming. This year it has been particularly bad in a very quiet part of Darwin which did not see the antisocial behaviour that has become obvious in other parts of the Territory. It seems to be moving into the electorate.
There have been numerous incidents of drunks around Hibiscus. That comes in waves. People have had to put up with drunks sleeping, fighting, humbugging and littering around the shops. Only last week on a morning run I counted 10 empty wine casks between Hibiscus shops and the Vanderlin Drive roundabout, which is a sight I am not used to seeing.
We had shop cleaners and their manager escort people to vehicles to help them avoid some mouthy drunks a few weeks ago. People should not have to put up with this behaviour when they are just doing some shopping.
It is concerning when staff have to cop it too, especially younger staff working in casual jobs; they are only teenagers. It is not good for children to have to see this type of behaviour when they go to the shops with their parents.
I have to thank our hard-working police, who have always done what they can to address concerns from our office or when shop owners or centre management raise them. Our police do the best they can but have limited resources.
It is clear there are numerous drinkers around Darwin and when they cause problems in one area they simply go to the next. This is why groups are coming to the electorate at the moment.
I have received reports of, and seen myself, people drinking and camping in parts of Wanguri as well. We have let police know, and my constituents have let me know loud and clear they are not happy having people camping in the parks and drinking. It is not something you want to see in your neighbourhood.
It is clear that alcohol is a key driving factor to this unacceptable antisocial behaviour. The Banned Drinker Register was a good tool to help tackle the issue of supply, and it was scrapped with too much haste and for political reasons by this CLP government. The CLP government then flooded the Territory with problem drinkers. Their answer has been temporary beat locations.
It is clear that in Darwin the temporary beat location model is very resource intense. There are a huge number of bottle shops and alcohol outlets and the model would be very difficult to deliver and sustain. We have seen problem drinkers move around Darwin when TBLs are established. Rather than tackling the problem of alcohol abuse with a more holistic approach the problem is pushed around the Territory.
We also see some strain on our vital police resources. Police are taken off normal duties to stand in front of a bottle shop. The police association, and any police officer you talk to, will tell you it is a major strain on their ability to do their job.
We are currently living under the most chaotic and dysfunctional government in the history of the Territory. Our police are doing the best job they can in a challenging environment and their efforts should be applauded, but there are only so many of them.
This government walked away from a commitment to deliver an extra 120 police and has scrapped the BDR. Police are under the further strain of trying to stay on top of antisocial behaviour, crime and problem drinking. The government needs to stop talking spin and start looking at the statistics to realise there are real problems in Darwin with crime and antisocial behaviour at the moment.
People want action, and I hope this government starts listening to what is happening and delivering actions which drive crime down. Our community deserves to feel safe.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the goings-on at the Bees Creek Primary School, which is located in Bees Creek of course. It has a student …
Mr Wood: No, it is in the Freds Pass District Centre.
Ms PURICK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson, it is in the Freds Pass District Centre. If they had their way at the start it would have been called Freds Pass Primary School, but it is called Bees Creek Primary School and is a good school.
They had their annual general meeting recently and I congratulate the new council chairman, Alison Hanna. Also elected to the council are Aleka Freijah, deputy chairman, Nicole Sawyer is the secretary, Sheryl Ainslie is the treasurer, and the general members are Marissa Vetter, Vanessa Cuttriss, Jodie Pavlou, Terri Barnes, Beverley Ratahi, Katrina Walker and Anne Groves. The staff representative is Margaret Syme, the preschool representative is Kate Kilgour, and they have a co-opted member, Mark Brustolin. Mark has been on that council for some time. He also served as the chairman, having had his boys go through that school. He has done an enormous amount of work for the school in a voluntary capacity, both with goods in-kind and also his labour.
I also want to acknowledge the good work, efficiency and effectiveness of the staff in the office at Bees Creek Primary School. I personally thank Lynda Stanwix, Alison Dixon, Lynne Logan and Sheryl Ainslie for all the work they do to help me do my job. It is always a pleasure to visit that school because they are such a happy lot, and that goes across the school generally.
The new principal is Ryan Martin from Batchelor Area School. Ryan is a role model for all teachers. Last year he picked up the Palmerston and Rural Regional Winner for Principal of the Year and then went on to take out the NT winner for 2014. Ryan has gone to Bees Creek Primary School and I know he will have a great time there and will be well supported by the teachers and staff. He is also a keen surfer, but there is not much surf in the rural area so he will struggle that way. I am sure he will find it in the Nightcliff beach area next time we have a big storm or, heaven forbid, a cyclone threatens.
I want to compliment some of the students who were recently appointed as house captains at Bees Creek. They play an important leadership role within the school and are eager to help out whenever they can, not only with the students but supporting the teachers, staff and visitors to the school. As we know, lots of visitors go to primary schools whether it is for sport, art, music or even science.
There are four houses at Bees Creek: Sattler, Livingstone, Pell and Strauss. For those not fully across what these houses are and the airstrips on the Stuart Highway, Sattler is named after Flight Lieutenant Geoffrey Sattler, who was with the 13th Hudson Squadron for the RAAF. Sadly he was killed in the Celebes in 1942 during World War II. The house captains for Sattler are Isabelle Hanna and Tom Demamiel, and the vice captains are Amelia Hore and Codie Norman. Well done to them.
Livingstone is at the 34 Mile and is named after Lieutenant Livingstone, who was with the 9th Fighter Squadron. The Livingstone house captains are Shonna Overend and Trent Marshall, and the vice captains are Joey Misener and Jeremy Lewis.
Pell house, which is green, is named after Major Floyd Pell, who was killed in Darwin in the first Japanese attack. Sadly, many people were. Pell house captains are Ruby Jensen and Jackson Reid, and vice captains are Will Rowlands and Elena Baxter.
The last house is red, which is Strauss. I know the member for Nelson knows the Strauss family very well. It is named after American Captain Allison Strauss, who piloted USAAF P-40 Kittyhawk. He was also killed in 1942, is that correct member for Nelson?
Mr Wood: P40s they called them.
Ms PURICK: All those Bees Creek sports houses have a strong link to the rural area and the history of the Northern Territory during World War II.
The Strauss captains are Tahlia Martin and Cameron Connor, vice captains are Jade Ehrlich and Lauchlan St Clair. Congratulations to all those students. I know they will step up to the mark and will be role models for the younger students and also for the pre-schoolers who interact with the big kids at assembly time. Well done to Bees Creek. I know they will have a successful year, as they always do. They work hard and fundraise hard.
Recently they had a sausage sizzle at Coolalinga shops to raise money, as they do all the time, for all types of activities and projects in the school. I popped down to say hello and provide them with some goodies. Congratulations to the fundraising team, and congratulations to Bees Creek School community generally.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, Coconut Grove, Nightcliff and Rapid Creek are located on the beautiful Darwin coast, and the popular foreshore area attracts large numbers of visitors and locals alike. Since 2012, a number of things have taken place which have left the community feeling unsupported. This, along with an increase in antisocial behaviour, has pushed our community. Our community, to put it quite simply, has had enough.
Since the CLP came to government the local police beat has been removed. The Nightcliff area is a crime and antisocial behaviour hot spot and the police beat was popular with traders and locals alike. Closing it was not only wrong, it is also another broken CLP promise. The police station has also been closed. The CLP promised to upgrade Nightcliff Police Station to a 24/7 station.
I questioned the elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, not long after the election on whether he would deliver on that commitment and he said he would honour his promise. The $2m commitment to upgrade Nightcliff Police Station was not just a promise according to the CLP, it was a special contract with the people of Nightcliff. The CLP, under Adam Giles, has turned its back on the Nightcliff community.
The police station was quietly closed last year; so quietly that some police are not aware it has been shut. I read from an e-mail from a local resident dated 30 July 2014:
The local community is concerned about the effect the closure will have on antisocial behaviour and crime in our community. The Nightcliff community wants an active police station. The CLP government has taken away the Nightcliff police beat and shut down Nightcliff Police Station. The CLP promised crime would go down, but it has gone up and recent crime statistics reflect this. In Darwin we saw assaults up 12.5%, domestic violence assaults up nearly 5% and alcohol-related assaults up nearly 7%.
The CLP government has clearly broken its promise to reduce crime by 10% per year. Across Darwin public drinking and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour is out of control in our parks and public spaces, especially in Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Coconut Grove. The CLP government is failing to address these issues. I held a meeting with local traders and police yesterday. At this meeting we discussed how often people were calling police in regard to antisocial behaviour.
Some traders were calling police twice a day, others daily and others weekly, with some stating they do not bother now as they feel they will not get a response and it makes no difference. Last Wednesday was a typical week day morning in Nightcliff. An incident occurred outside my office near the children’s playground. I went outside to meet a trader who had come to my office to talk to me. Police were called and the incident dealt with.
In the evening police reportedly pulled tasers on a person as traders were walking to their cars to go home. Later the same day there was a stabbing along our foreshore.
I could go on with stories or incidents I witness or are reported to me but the message is clear: something needs to be done, people do not feel safe. The local fish and chip shop has had people walk in and grab food from customers’ plates, and the local restaurant has had drunken people defecate in pot plants while staff are serving dinner. Our community has had enough and it is impacting on businesses and residents.
The CLP government is using police officers as bouncers at bottle shops in regional towns in an attempt to bring down the escalating crime statistics, and the Chief Minister is using them as bouncers at bottle shops to remedy his flawed alcohol policies. This is an expensive exercise using highly-trained police officers. There have also been reports that Tactical Response Group officers are being used in this capacity. This is the same CLP government that cut $12m from the community policing budget and broke a promise to add 120 officers to the force.
According to police, the Banned Drinker Register was the most effective tool to deal with alcohol-related crime. Simple and effective, it took 2500 people off the grog. Traders want the BDR back, and that was the overwhelming comment yesterday. They cannot understand why it cannot come back. It was simple and effective.
In regard to the 700 people on Alcohol Protection Orders, what does a shop person do? Do they have to confront someone and say, ‘Hold on, let me check through hundreds of photos’, or do they make a split-second decision? The BDR was simple and effective and the community does not understand why you will not bring it back.
Police believe it was one of the best tools they had to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. When commenting on the Banned Drinker Register, then Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne stated:
People do not feel safe in their community and have to deal with antisocial behaviour just to go to the supermarket. Traders are sick and tired of cleaning up or hosing down the mess. The owner of a corner shop told me he sees people park their car, walk around the corner and then get back in their car and drive off. The local hairdresser was spat on while walking outside her shop. This is appalling and something has to be done.
There has been a huge increase in house break-ins, which are up 64.8%. Motor vehicle theft is up 35.1%. Only last week there was a spree of break-ins in one suburb in our community. People told me the unit next door to theirs was broken into and a car was parked outside their unit so nobody could get past. There are also stories of people standing outside houses whistling, and if a dog comes out they just move to the next house. Break-ins occurred in many streets.
Something needs to be done. This antisocial behaviour and the crime statistics reflect what the community is feeling and the government needs to listen. The BDR was simple and effective and people cannot understand why the government will not bring it back. It is because it was a Labor initiative. Police have said the TBLs are resource intensive. Even AHA has been critical of the government not having a clear alcohol policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these issues are affecting our community, businesses and residents, and people have had enough.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, a comment today from the member for Arafura concerned me. He said he hoped there might be some changes to local government on the Tiwi Islands. He also mentioned regional councils.
That issue has been around for some time and I would be concerned if the government supported that concept. There is no doubt that TOs have a role to play in how the land is managed through the Tiwi Land Council. However, I would be concerned if they moved into an area a different group of people run, that being local government services.
You need to provide local government services equally to all people who live in communities. Whether you receive those services should not be affected by your position, culturally or otherwise. Obviously the Tiwi Land Council has a role to play in what areas local government should control. Generally speaking, that is a community. The council’s role is to provide rubbish collection, fix roads, collect rates if applicable, keep the place tidy and perhaps offer some sporting facilities and run sports programs. It is done by an elected body.
The important thing is the elected body is voted in by people who expect them to provide a service no matter who they are. The danger with having a council – if you can call it that – run by TOs is they are not elected so are not directly responsible to the people for provision of essential services. Essential services need to be provided by a group of people who are not there because of their status but because the people elected them to provide that service.
There is a real danger if the government thinks it is a good idea and that a few people have wanted it for years. There needs to be a clear distinction between the role of local government and TOs as it is not the same. They are integrated and that is the way it should be, but they are certainly not the same thing. I hope the government does not go down this path because it is the wrong way to manage local government.
The difference between the two is clear and if you start putting them together local government becomes blurry. Provision of services may not be provided to people on an equal basis, and people could possibly get favours based on their status rather than the concept of local government. That concept is to provide essential services to all people equally regardless of who they are or what their status is in the community.
Today the Chief Minister spoke passionately about an audit of town camps in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. I have trouble with the word ‘camps’. We need to move out of the 1950s and 1960s. I first heard that word when I went to Daly River and we have moved away from that. ‘Communities’ is a better word. We should not even give them a name. If it is a suburb, it is a suburb. We do not say east side camp, it is east side. We do not say Casuarina camp, it is Casuarina. It is easy to get into the habit as I have the 15 Mile and the Knuckey Lagoon community. I slip into it at times, but it is outdated and something we should move away from.
I understand what the Chief Minister said, but I have called for a task force to look at communities in the Darwin area. People have heard me talk about the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. They have issues just as bad as the Chief Minister mentioned today.
There are real issues around who owns the land, who manages the land, who owns the houses and who manages the houses. Can people buy their house? Who is in charge of the area? Is there a process for people living there to have a spokesperson? Could a small group of people represent the Knuckey Lagoon people or Bagot or One Mile people?
I mention the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon area because they are in my electorate, but we need to get people together from the bottom up, not the top down, and ask what they think. I have spoken to the government about this before, and I also spoke to the previous government. This government said, ‘We are doing something’, and split the task force between the department of Community Services and the department of Lands and Planning. That makes life complicated. Someone needs to put it together. Now we have a Minister for Indigenous Affairs perhaps the Chief Minister should take a lead role in this.
Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are not the only places with issues in relation to communities and how they are run. It is easy for me to drive past them and say, ‘Who cares?’, but I care. I do not have the power to make the changes. The government does, and I ask the government to expand the audit and talk to these people.
The government said it would bring these departments in. Make sure you start from the bottom up. There will be lots of departments, but I have seen things in communities where heaps of people turn up and residents are overwhelmed. We need to be talk quietly with people to find out what they think and what the issues are.
The member for Goyder presented an electronic petition with 400 signatures from people concerned about the number of break-ins in the rural area. I have been approached as well. Their concern is – whether it is accurate is not for me to say – they believe the judicial system is letting them down because people have broken into a car, stolen a car or have broken in somewhere and are released to do it again.
Much as I do not believe kids should be locked up, there are times when we need to. If people repeat crime then the only alternative is to take them off the street. Obviously we need programs to help those kids turn things around. I have mentioned diversion programs at Wongabilla, where kids learn to deal with horses and animals. That is important, but it does not mean kids have a right to steal cars or break into places again, and that is what these people are concerned about.
I hear what they say but do not necessarily have an answer. It would require more research to see if it is accurate, but I feel it is not an off-the-cuff point of view. They see this happening and their concerns are reflected through this petition. The government should take notice of what people are saying.
The members for Wanguri and Nightcliff say crime has increased. The government says it has gone down in some places, but I hear the Alice Springs gaol has more inmates than it has for a long time so there are mixed messages. From a rural perspective, the government should check these facts, discuss things with the DPP and find out what is really happening. People are frustrated if kids are being released then committing the same crime.
I hope the government can investigate that and come back to the members for Goyder, Nelson and perhaps the member for Daly. I do not know if he has heard the same reports, but could we find out if it is true and give us some indication of the government’s view on resolving the matter.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to long-time Territorian and Daly constituent Jackie Hargreaves. As honourable members would know, Jackie was a farmer, a barmaid, a passionate advocate for tourism in the Top End, a racehorse owner and trainer, renowned publican, an active member of the Country Liberal Party and a unique and much-loved character of the Territory.
Jackie moved to Darwin from Wollongong in 1959 with her then husband, Bill. After barmaid stints at the Vic Hotel and Hotel Darwin she opened Jackie’s Fruit Supply at Nightcliff. She and Bill decided to buy land in the Daly River area to grow fruit, vegetables and lucerne for stock feed. Being the go-getter she was, Jackie learnt to drive farm machinery including tractors, slashers, harvesters and bulldozers. She separated from Bill, sold the shop to work on the farm, and in 1973 met Laurie McIntosh, who serviced her bulldozer.
Jackie’s background is well-known, especially her work in the hospitality industry, and Jackie and Laurie’s building of the Rum Jungle Motor Inn which she labelled ‘the flashest pub in the scrub’.
She loved to tell a good yarn and loved being part of the tourism industry. Stories about Jackie abound. I remember being told about her traversing Litchfield Park in a four-wheel drive showing visitors around long before it was an official park.
She was also a well-regarded publican and the Rum Jungle Motor Inn was known as a great place to go. Jackie would go overboard with hospitality, especially with any groups holding workshops or forums at the inn. Down to earth she loved a chat, but only if she liked you.
In 2002 she was presented with the Tourism minister’s award for outstanding contribution by an individual at the Brolga Awards.
The word ‘legend’ is often used in this House and it is most applicable when it comes to Jackie Hargreaves. I heard about Jackie while I was at the Daly River where I was involved in tourism, as you know. I was chairman of the Katherine Tourist Association, and also had a lot to do with her while she was at Batchelor. I held a lot of respect for her. Rest in peace, Jackie. The Territory is poorer for your passing.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I want to talk about the ongoing rise in antisocial behaviour across my electorate of Johnston.
All of us in the Territory, whether we live in Millner, Moil, Jingili, Coconut Grove or Ramingining, deserve to live in a community where we and our kids can feel safe and enjoy everything the Territory lifestyle has to offer. Unfortunately, for many of us this is not the case. We all remember the CLP’s form before the 2012 election. Despite every attempt to wriggle out of it, we will hold them to account for their promise to cut crime by 10% each year. Like so many of their promises, this is one they have failed miserably to keep.
Territorians in my electorate are paying the price. The latest crime statistics show this government is failing the people of Millner, Moil, Jingili and Coconut Grove. Assaults are up 12.5% in Darwin. Domestic violence is, sadly, up 4.5% across Darwin and alcohol-related assaults are up 6.9%.
Rarely a day goes by without my office receiving complaints about antisocial behaviour. Whether it is abusive and disruptive Territory Housing tenants, itinerants in our parks or assaults in broad daylight, people in my electorate have had enough.
This behaviour can be witnessed any given day directly outside my electorate office. A few weeks ago we had a stabbing only 100 m from my office, with the front of my office taped off as a crime scene. The lady was stabbed by her husband and was in a serious condition as she walked to the shops for assistance. When the police were called the husband legged it, throwing the knife away close by. My electorate officer was in charge of minding the knife while police apprehended the man.
Drunks hurling abuse outside my office is a weekly occurrence. I have been abused by drunks for just walking past them, with threats of more violence when they come back tomorrow to sort me out. I have had punches thrown at me for asking them to move on and for trying to stop a group of drunken people fighting in front of my office where a man was punching a drunken woman. I am bloody sick of it and so are the residents and businesses of Johnston. Antisocial behaviour and violence at the bus stop opposite my office happens all too frequently. I intervened when a fight broke out at the bus stop and people were trying to get on the bus. I assisted the bus driver to get these people off the bus.
The common denominator in much of this is alcohol. There is no doubt many of those engaging in this behaviour and disrupting the quality of life in my electorate were on the Banned Drinker Register. These people, under the previous Labor government, were turned off tap and were unable to purchase takeaway alcohol. Remnants of takeaway alcohol are now strewn around my electorate and litter the gardens outside my office.
Unfortunately, once again Territorians are made to suffer the policy failings, arrogance and the refusal to listen which are hallmarks of this Giles government. There is no hope that this will change.
Territorians who want an effective stand against crime and antisocial behaviour should know that Labor shares their frustration and desire to see effective policies in place to combat alcohol abuse. Only a vote for Labor at the next election will see any chance of a government with the courage and good policies to tackle these problems once and for all. Territorians deserve it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, netball is the most popular sport in Alice Springs and has the highest participation rate of all Alice Springs sports.
Despite the fact that every other girl or woman in Alice Springs is involved, netball remains the poor cousin to just about every male-dominated sport in town. Our netball facilities are old and tired. Due to a serious lack of parking most netballers have to either park along the busy Undoolya Road, in the dust bowl across the road, or in the IGA supermarket car park around the corner. It is surprising no one has been hurt with such a level of pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic congestion.
A local Alice Springs businessman has been trying for several years to give the Northern Territory government a substantial amount of money towards new netball facilities. To date nothing has happened. It is all too hard because it requires a matched or greater financial commitment from a government which does not prioritise netball. A fraction of the money spent on automotive sports and football in recent times could have built a decent car park for the thousands of people who flock to netball each year and significantly upgraded existing netball facilities.
The amount the Northern Territory government has spent on Alice Springs netball over the past three years is less than $10 000. The amount spent on football equates to millions, which includes NRL and AFL. The amount spent on motor sports in Alice Springs also equates to millions of dollars.
With Cabinet currently presiding over the 2015-16 Northern Territory budget now is the time for all netball players and enthusiasts in Alice Springs to write to the Chief Minister and demand a fair go for netball in our town.
I also ask that ministers generally develop a fairer and more equitable approach to all sport funding in Alice Springs. Funding not based on the personal sporting interests of particular ministers would be a good starting point.
More specifically, I ask that significant sport funding be allocated to netball in Alice Springs to provide well overdue netball facilities, including a car park, new toilets and change facilities, new indoor and outdoor courts and modern administration facilities. By many people’s estimations, a Northern Territory government funding commitment of approximately $5m would be required, in addition to the $1m donated by local business operators, taking the total to $6m. This would bring the Alice Springs facilities in line with the modern netball facilities at Marrara.
I respond to the Chief Minister’s initiative announced today to undertake a review of every non-government organisation and third-party provider funded by the Northern Territory government to service town camps in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. This is in response to the horrific and vicious attack on a young girl in a town camp in Alice Springs recently.
The Chief Minister called it a personal tipping point when he realised the severity of what had happened to this poor young girl and the problem of child sexual abuse within our community. I find it a little hard to understand how a member of parliament for six years and now Chief Minister could have an epiphany at such a late point in time over the severity of child abuse in the Northern Territory.
We have had so many reports over the years highlighting this very serious problem including the Little Children are Sacred report, which led to the Northern Territory emergency response and the intervention. This was all about addressing the widespread and often unreported problem of child sexual abuse throughout the Northern Territory, but it is good that the Chief Minister has had this personal ‘tipping point’ and is now taking some action.
He has called a meeting on Friday which may be productive. However, I caution the Chief Minister that a lot of work has been done over many years in this very sensitive area of government to correct the situation where children in the Northern Territory continue to be sexually abused at a rate unprecedented anywhere else in Australia. I ask the Chief Minister to be kind and sensitive when he approaches the service providers who work very hard, generally speaking, to keep children safe, as do their parents.
It is important to be respectful of the expertise of these professional people who have given their life to creating a better life for Aboriginal people living in town camps, as well as trying to address the horrific problem of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse in their communities.
Child protection is not like other portfolios the Chief Minister has been involved in, Transport, Infrastructure or Police, Fire and Emergency Services. You cannot go in all guns firing. There is no quick fix and it takes a lot of talking and engagement with communities to address these deep-seated problems.
In 2007, prior to the Little Children are Sacred report, the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse produced 97 recommendations. Some included the fact that child sexual abuse is serious, widespread and often unreported. Important points made by the inquiry are that most Aboriginal people are willing and committed to solving problems and helping their children, they are also eager to better educate themselves, and Aboriginal people are not the only victims or perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Much of the violence and sexual abuse occurring in Territory communities is a reflection of past, current and continuing social problems which have developed over many decades. The combined effects of poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, gambling, pornography, poor education, poor housing and a general loss of identity and control have contributed to violence and sexual abuse in many forms.
At the meeting called by the Chief Minister to look at what services are provided in town camps, it will be important to remember these problems are deep-seated, have come about through many decades of disadvantage and there will be no easy fix. It is important not to disempower these people, criticise them or diminish the work that has already been done in this important area.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Araluen. When talking with organisations that are committed to the wellbeing of children we must make sure it is done in a partnership and in a respectful manner. I will be keeping my eye on what happens at those meetings as well.
Tonight I want to talk about my electorate of Casuarina, an area that I love. In my electorate we have the largest shopping centre in the Northern Territory and the beautiful Casuarina Coastal Reserve, one of the most visited parks in the Territory. Yesterday I was told we might be about to hit the one million visitors a year mark. That is exciting for us but it is unfortunate that constituents and I have rising concerns about the escalation in antisocial behaviour around our suburbs, recreation areas and retail precincts.
As I move around my electorate I hear more and more about property crime, as do other members on this side of the House. Some residents are worried about leaving their homes over holiday periods based on their experiences of repeated property crime and break-ins. People are extremely frustrated about what they can do to protect their homes and feel very little is being done.
In the last week some constituents have raised the issue of break-ins with me in surprise because it is occurring in areas they have lived in for a long time or I grew up in with few incidents. The crime statistics show it is supported because in Darwin there has been a 65% increase in break-ins from the previous year. That is huge and we all see it, feel it, and it indicates something needs to be looked at. Members on this side of the House from the northern suburbs have these issues raised on a daily basis. Constituents do not feel safe and are worried when they go away.
In Darwin there has been a 12.5% increase in assaults from the previous year. With crime against the person increasing it is no wonder people do not feel safe and are reporting an escalation in crime.
In Casuarina people see violence when they leave their workplace. They see violence and antisocial behaviour when they go shopping, and we see it at Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Of course, the Casuarina Interchange is never far from our minds, particularly after the disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and the brawl that occurred in October last year. The safety audit was released after significant pressure from the member for Fannie Bay and me during the Casuarina by-election last year. Despite efforts from the member for Johnston, the constituents of Casuarina and the broader community who use that public bus system continue to wait for the CLP government to confirm what recommendations have been implemented and which are outstanding. Those recommendations are on how we improve safety around the bus interchange. It is used by children going to school, people commuting to work in the morning, people who want to get to the hospital on a regular basis and for recreation activities. This is about safety. We would appreciate greater communication on which safety recommendations have been implemented so far, which are yet to be implemented and the time frame to completion.
However, it is not just the Casuarina Interchange. Antisocial behaviour where alcohol is a factor is still a regular occurrence. That has been reflected on tonight by the members for Johnston and Wanguri. Listening to other people in the House talk about this issue I was transported straight back to last time we were here. On the Thursday, the last day of sittings, I was driving home down the Stuart Highway. I wondered why I could see a whole heap of cars swerving in front of me in the dark. Of course, it was because there was a drunken domestic incident happening in the middle of the three-lane Stuart Highway near Parap. People were not moving and I had to call police. I imagine lots of other shaken people, including myself, wondered what would have happened had we not seen those people. The issue was reported to police. I am always thankful to the police, who have been wonderful every time I have raised a concern myself or on behalf of constituents, which is becoming increasingly regular.
It is not fair that people are increasingly exposed to the vitriol of problem drunks. This is happening outside my office. The bushes, I have discovered, are an excellent place for hiding casks of wine. This has also been reported. Our police work exceptionally hard trying to stem these issues, particularly around Casuarina Plaza and Casuarina shopping centre.
While the other side of the House spruiks temporary beat locations, we know they do not provide the consistent approach something like the Banned Drinker Register would. It is far more expensive and unsustainable to have police officers acting as bouncers outside bottle shops. The CLP promised to take drunks off the streets but has failed. Public drunkenness remains very much a factor in the issues raised about antisocial behaviour by constituents.
I understand that temporary beat locations will be rolled out around my area soon. The anecdotal evidence is clear: problem drinkers are following the grog. Public drunkenness in Darwin is at crisis levels and we see the result in the crime statistics. Alcohol-related crime is up 7% in Darwin, with 1125 offences in the past 12 months. This is huge and is what we see and feel. Residents in my electorate ask if the current inconsistent alcohol measures are displacing problem drinker issues. Given the huge investment of resources in this alcohol measure, and the recent recommendation from the Senate committee into domestic violence that we bring back the Banned Drinker Register, surely it is a fair request that the CLP government release this information as part of its analysis of temporary beat locations. Let us see what impact this is having on the Territory.
Madam Speaker, those of us in the northern suburbs want to be taken seriously when raising our concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour on behalf of our constituents. It would be fair, after two-and-a-half years, to tell Territorians what the government’s plan is for the ongoing sustainable management of issues relating to alcohol and violence because we deserve to feel safe and continue enjoying our beautiful electorates.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I too want to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents about a wave increase in juvenile antisocial behaviour and petty theft in and around our shopping centre. There is also an increase in property crime in Karama and Malak, and deep-seated concerns our community has expressed over an increase in public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour in both Karama and Malak. In the last few months it has escalated to a point many of us cannot remember it being at for years.
I know that the CLP likes to think this is a matter of politics, but it is definitely not. It is a matter of having a right to live, work and enjoy the community and be safe without intolerable levels of criminal and antisocial behaviour. It got so bad at the local shopping centre in Karama that we have worked closely with Casuarina police, who do a fantastic job in responding to what they would describe as hot spots, in a proactive policing resource response. Full congratulations to the police who do a great job, albeit with incredibly stretched resources.
The police have recently responded with deployment of a mobile police station in the shopping centre precinct that had a measurable, real and immediate impact in reducing antisocial behaviour. I hosted a meeting of Karama Shopping Plaza traders. The police very kindly attended that meeting, reported their efforts and engaged in some ideas and discussions around what we could collectively do to make the police more informed about what was occurring in the area and how we could work together as a community. Congratulations to police for their effort, but I did make the point their resources are stretched.
Karama and Malak are no different to other areas of the northern suburbs. This is also occurring across Darwin and Palmerston. This is not something we are making up; this is genuinely affecting people lives at an escalating rate to the point where the community is saying enough is enough.
The people of Palmerston have presented a petition and are calling for harsher penalties for criminal behaviour but, at the end of the day, that is chasing something after the event. Surely preventative measures need to be deployed. In looking at preventative measures, Labor had a supply tool in the Banned Drinker Register and so many people are asking me, ‘Whatever happens can we have the BDR back?’ It was a fair and equitable system which meant, based on behaviour, anyone could be turned off tap for takeaway supply, which is 70% of the alcohol consumed in the Territory.
Both liquor licences at Karama have responded. I congratulate Karama Tavern, which has instigated a reduction in wine cask supplies in recognition of the need to tackle the escalating behaviour in and around the shopping centre and our local parks. Congratulations to a liquor outlet for taking a proactive measure in alcohol supply reduction.
It takes more than that. We have a dire need for reinstatement of the youth services cut by the Northern Territory government when it came to power. We were once able to rely on Mission Australia being funded for Youth Beat, which was a mobile youth service designed to engage young children at risk in the after-hours time slots. It did a great job with our local kids but no longer exists. The need for a dedicated youth service does exist.
The debate about Alice Springs has been very vocal. Our experience in Darwin and across Palmerston is the same. We desperately need funding into the delivery of after-hours youth services to respond to a large number of young people who are basically – to use local parlance – running amok. The shopping centre traders report increasing rates of theft and have reported that to police. These juveniles have had issues regarding truancy. The police education officers had some good suggestions and ideas about how they could respond. There were also suggestions regarding truancy officers attached to the Education department.
As a local community we will continue engaging with local traders. We have a great relationship with the local schools and will continue to work in a holistic way to deal with young children running amok. At the end of the day, if there is no support service for children to be referred to the cycle does not break. That is what is sadly missing, given the CLP funding cuts in the area of youth services.
Regarding police resources being stretched, it beggars belief that the one-shot-in-the-locker response to supply is the temporary beat location. There is no issue with it being a tool in a swag of tools for supply of alcohol, but it has become the only tool. In smaller regional towns, albeit it stretches police resources, it is possible to have a beat located outside the liquor outlet. You can see the positive effect it is having on crime reduction in Katherine and Tennant Creek. However, Darwin and Palmerston have about 89 liquor outlets. How on earth can police resource beat locations outside 89 liquor outlets? It is unrealistic and unsustainable.
All the studies in the past have shown that people will follow the rivers of grog. We have people who have followed rivers of grog to Darwin and Palmerston where it is logistically beyond the resources of police to place someone outside liquor outlets in the vast numbers they would need to. It has become so ludicrous lately that the Police minister mentioned the potential of transit safety officers or housing safety officers being trained and deployed as the new wave of bouncers outside liquor outlets. Police minister, you missed the point. They are transit safety officers or housing safety officers because of the dire need to make transport safe and deal with safer housing complexes and homes around our communities. Do not rob Peter to pay Paul. Why not listen to the recommendations of a Senate inquiry that said if you want to reduce violence, particularly domestic violence, bring back the Banned Drinker Register.
We are here to represent our communities. My community is crying out for the appropriate resources to be deployed. One of the saddest things I have seen with the CLP coming to power is breaking a series of promises. It has broken the promises to recruit 120 additional police and provide a 24-hour police station at Nightcliff. One of the first things the CLP did was stop the establishment of a Police Beat at Karama Shopping Plaza which would have been opened otherwise. It is pretty sad to see resources stripped away from a community in the area that would deliver improved safety and an improved community for Territorians.
This a call to the CLP: stop the petty politics and stop being in a bubble of denial. Things have escalated and are out of hand. We do not have access to data to determine the split between alcohol and other drugs, such as the ice epidemic affecting our community. It is one of the difficult things in the culture of cover-up with the CLP.
However, we know about what we see, hear and experience every day in our communities. Get out of the bubble of denial, put the resources into the police budget, and stop relying on one temporary beat location policy for supply.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I support the people of Palmerston because the CLP members from Palmerston are silent and absent in their duty to their constituents.
Their silence relates to the CLP government’s failure to cut crime and antisocial behaviour in Palmerston. The latest crime statistics for Palmerston show house break-ins are up 57% and motor vehicle theft is up 53%. Media reports have highlighted the crisis in Palmerston, reporting that 159 Palmerston businesses were broken into last year, double the previous year.
Palmerston residents are fed up with the out-of-control crime wave. Residents are fearful their cars will be stolen and fearful of being broken into while asleep. The CLP says crime is down in the regions, but in Darwin and Palmerston the facts say otherwise.
The CLP, going into the election in 2012, promised to reduce crime by 10% per year. This is definitely not happening in Darwin and Palmerston as property crime is on the increase. In Palmerston offences involving property damage rose 19%, to 775 offences over the past 12 months.
Territorians are equally concerned about antisocial behaviour. Problem drinkers in the Northern Territory follow the grog. In Palmerston alcohol-fuelled assaults are up 6.2% over the past 12 months and public drunkenness is on the rise. It reflects a failure of the CLP alcohol policy holistically.
I advised the Territory opposition Caucus debate months ago that putting pressure on regional problem drinkers through the TBL policy would put them on the road. It will mobilise them and they will continue to look for grog. We have experienced it in the regions, especially in the Barkly with Prime Minister Howard’s intervention, where we saw problem drinkers relocate interstate to Mount Isa to avoid income quarantining and application of the BasicsCard.
We implemented the Enough is Enough policy. When the opposition talks about alcohol policy we talk about a suite of major reforms, not just the Banned Drinker Register the CLP wants to harp on about.
The Enough is Enough policy related to a supply mechanism with an electronic database to single out problem drinkers and turn them off the tap in relation to access to takeaway alcohol. This impacted on 2500 problem drinkers across the Territory in less than six months, until the CLP cut the legs from under the Enough is Enough policy.
The Banned Drinker Register was one element of a major reform. Once a person was identified as a problem drinker and registered they were mandated to appear before a tribunal – outside the legal system to avoid clogging up our courts – which reflected experts in the field. That tribunal had the power to mandate work, education or rehabilitation relating directly to the problem drinker’s offending behaviour. If the offender did not attend the tribunal or comply with the mandated requirements of the tribunal’s decision, up to 80% of their income could be quarantined.
This was part of the Enough is Enough policy, a holistic alcohol policy for the Northern Territory. The CLP cut the legs from under it on 26 August 2012 with nothing in its place. The Territory experienced one of the most devastating years of crime in 2013, where blood was running in the streets.
The CLP crisis management put in a temporary policy, but what gets me is in estimates early in the term of this CLP government it was advised $100m would be appropriated to CLP alcohol policy over four years. We are now in the third year of that policy delivery and are in chaos. We have results in the regions to be acknowledged, but we have what we predicted: a shift of problem drinkers from the regions to the urban areas.
Today’s modern transport and the improvement in road transport infrastructure gives problem drinkers the opportunity to relocate to urban centres like Palmerston or Darwin where they can access alcohol from corner shops. This is a dire circumstance. We are offering the Chief Minister an alternative realistic policy in a bipartisan sense. The Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim, his right-hand man, need to accept an alternative policy from the Territory opposition is premised on all Territorians being part of the solution. I am sure Palmerston people are sick to death of the increase in crime in their city. I know from members on this side of the House that the people of Darwin are completely fed up with crime and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in their city.
Let us all be part of the solution. Part of the solution we will challenge Territorians with is a seven-second delay in the purchase of takeaway alcohol. You have to produce recognised photo identification. It will take you seven seconds to be part of a Territory-wide solution that has been used and exploited by the member for Braitling, the Chief Minister, and by the member for Fong Lim in an election campaign pitching to a populist vote. The populist vote has now turned. People are sick of the increase in crime in Palmerston and Darwin but they can be part of the solution. We need to revisit the Enough is Enough alcohol policy and not just the Banned Drinker Register, but the other elements of the policy with appropriation of $100m over four years. We know the alcohol mandatory treatment centres are not delivering the results the CLP promised and are an expensive way to do business.
Let us look at expert research, let us take the knowledge we have learnt from the CLP’s alcohol mandatory treatment programs and turn it into recognised family crisis treatment. It is not about taking the addict out of the family unit or the community; it is about taking the family unit. I have spoken at length in the regions about doing this and starting a trial in the current term of this CLP government. We could duplicate $5.5m worth of infrastructure in the Barkly Work Camp in a regional area, and we could deliver in excess of 74 beds for a family drug and alcohol crisis centre. We could take the serious problem drinkers out of the community of Tennant Creek, giving respite to the families trying to battle through this particularly difficult era in alcohol abuse. We could then have the families involved in rehabilitation. We could be mandating education, mandating rehabilitation and mandating work under the guidelines of the Enough is Enough policy implementation. It is not rocket science and I do not want to use clichs. It is not too hard; it is there for the solution.
The people of Palmerston, Darwin and the greater region are sick to death of this issue. People in the regions acknowledge what the temporary measure has done, but they question the sustainability. Let us all be in this together and all be part of the solution. Let us accept the seven-second delay in the purchase of takeaway alcohol unless you are a problem drinker, where you will be turned off the tap. If you engage in secondary supply you will be off tap as well. It will not be long before the education process takes precedence, as I witnessed in the six months I was conducting my own workshops through the regional and remote areas.
Madam Speaker, I ask the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim to show leadership and take charge of this change.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this evening I talk about the wave of crime evident across the Top End and confirmed by the release of crime statistics last week. I also offer a few comments about crime and antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs.
We know while the CLP spruik statistics they are ignoring the reality of what is happening on the ground in Alice Springs. The crime statistics tell a different story to what is occurring on the streets of Alice. I heard many of those stories firsthand during a two-day visit to Alice Springs last week.
Despite what the Chief Minister says CLP policies are not protecting the community, young people in particular. Without a doubt, there is an element of the Alice Springs community calling for a youth curfew in response to antisocial behaviour following the CLP cuts to youth service funding. I acknowledge the good work Northern Territory police men and women are doing to keep the people of Alice Springs safe.
I was pleased to have a briefing with police while in Alice Springs. We talked about a number of broad-ranging issues, including temporary beat locations, the issue of alcohol and young people congregating in the CBD. I was advised one of the issues is that young people are going to the mall to access free WiFi. Whilst the free WiFi is no doubt in place for the convenience of people, including visitors, perhaps it needs to be looked at if it is bringing young people into Alice Springs at night.
During an interview with ABC radio in Alice Springs I was asked about a youth curfew and reiterated that a curfew was not what the majority of residents wanted. This was an issue the CLP was dealing with when in opposition. It discussed a curfew but later dropped the idea.
Police do not want to be chasing kids around the streets at night, which is what a curfew would do. We know if funding cuts and the axing of youth services were reversed we would see measures in place to assist kids get to a safe place. We would also have preventative measures or programs in place to keep kids out of trouble in the first place.
I am weary of the hands-off approach of the CLP government, which wants to blame all youth issues on bad parents and say it is not the government’s responsibility but the parents. Parents need to accept responsibility for their kids, but as we heard the member for Araluen say this evening, some of these kids are from families where problems are deep seated and embedded in disadvantage. Parents, and those kids, need assistance to turn their lives around. It is impossible to do that when all the funds have been cut from preventative programs.
The CLP should be following the advice of the member for Araluen, who also weighed into debate on ABC radio in Alice Springs last week over the curfew issue. She was also very vocal in calling for immediate reversal of the cuts implemented by her colleagues to after-hours youth services.
Alice Springs people also told me of the growing black market for alcohol which has emerged since temporary beat locations have popped up. I daresay that would also be prevalent in Tennant Creek and Katherine. As you know, when you have a measure in place to restrict and put a lid on an issue the problem of supply will simply pop up somewhere else.
I heard from Alice Springs residents about alcohol-fuelled and antisocial behaviour continuing on Friday nights and weekends. People thought it was rather humorous to hear these crime statistics and of the reduction in crime, while at the same time what people saw on the streets told a different story. I heard from a St John Ambulance employee about working a recent Friday night – this is not an uncommon story – for nine hours without a break because of the demand for the service. As he put it, he was ‘swimming in alcohol and blood for nine hours’. We know CAALAS, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, has also stated it has not seen a decline in caseloads or in the demand for services. The Alice Springs Correctional Centre is still full of people who have committed, and continue to commit, crimes.
Meanwhile, the CLP has police standing outside liquor outlets to plug the gap left behind after the Banned Drinker Register was removed including, around the Darwin area, our highly-trained Tactical Response Group members. There is no doubt that TBLs have made some difference, but the presence of a police member is quite intimidating to people who may be considering purchasing alcohol knowing they are not supposed to be drinking it. TBLs take police away from their job in other areas in communities, keeping people safe and protecting them from crime. It is not a sustainable resourcing measure to have temporary beat locations transfer to a permanent beat location. There is nothing wrong with them popping up from time to time during peak periods, but we know they are not sustainable. Police have been deployed from Darwin to conduct TBLs in Katherine and rotate through Alice Springs. It is not sustainable. Our police men and women have not signed up to be glorified bouncers at bottle shops, especially not in Alice Springs last week when temperatures of around 41 or 42 were recorded.
The CLP has also failed to deliver the 120 extra police it promised during the last election, one of many broken promises. If it is serious about tackling crime it must deliver on its commitment. Two-and-a-half years into this term the CLP has failed to deliver 120 extra police officers.
It has also failed to give town camps the tools they have been asking for to increase community safety, including the call for whole-of-community trespass orders and other visitor management controls that will give people in town camps the safety and assurance they have been looking for to implement community control measures. From an earlier visit to Bagot community I know the residents are quite adamant that most issues happen when visitors come to stay and do not manage to find their way home. This is not dissimilar to what is happening in Alice Springs.
We also know the CLP has stripped millions out of social services and infrastructure designated to help deliver those social services. We still have not received any reasonable answer to what conversation the CLP government is having with its federal counterpart on IAS funding, which is seeing further services stripped out across the Territory, including Alice Springs. I know programs for youth in Alice Springs are being defunded under IAS and no doubt across some of the remote communities. If you remove activities for kids that are keeping them occupied and out of trouble they will travel into Alice Springs looking for fun and excitement. These funding issues have not been answered by the CLP. It seems to be washing its hands of it. They say IAS funding is the federal government’s responsibility.
The sheer arrogance of the CLP to say they have solved crime and the Chief Minister in particular, is breathtaking. Yes, TBLs are making a dent on crime in Alice Springs. It is not sustainable and the crime statistics do not match with what people see on the ground.
I know the Chief Minister does not get to spend too much time in his home town of Alice Springs these days and that is definitely starting to show. He is quite clearly out of touch if he continues to think that crime is under control and everything in Alice Springs, or the rest of the Territory, is hunky dory.
The crime statistics across the Top End, in Darwin and Palmerston, as my colleagues have mentioned, are staggering. They are alarming and highlight the fact that the CLP has failed to implement any real sustainable and consistent policy for dealing with crime, youth and alcohol.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Years 4/5 and 5 from Karama Primary School accompanied by Ms Mere Barlow, Mr Brian Morgan, Ms Sarah Behan and Ms Barbara Grant. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL
Death of John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with great sadness that we learnt last week of the passing of Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister, John Malcolm Fraser AC CH GCL, at the age of 84. I ask all members to rise to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect for the passing of a former Prime Minister of Australia.
As a sign of respect members stood in silence for one minute.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Namatjira
Member for Namatjira
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker. I ask that leave of absence for today, tomorrow and Thursday be granted to the member for Namatjira on account of illness.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Precedence for Condolence Motion
Precedence for Condolence Motion
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 125, I move that intervening business be postponed until after the Chief Minister moves a condolence motion.
Motion agreed to.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL
John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its condolences at the passing of John Malcolm Fraser AC, CH, GCL, and extend deepest sympathy to his family and friends.
The Australian people have lost a giant in Australian politics with the death of Malcolm Fraser. He was a giant in stature and a giant in leadership. The former Liberal Prime Minister died early on Friday morning at the age of 84.
Mr Fraser first entered parliament in 1955 as its youngest MP, and spent nearly 20 years as a backbencher and in the ministry. He became Opposition Leader in 1975 and faced off against Gough Whitlam, becoming Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister after Whitlam’s dismissal by the Governor-General.
It is one of the best documented and most talked about moments in Australian political history. There is still persistent debate about the Fraser government’s legitimacy and Fraser’s role in the events of November 1975. However, in the following election he won 91 seats out of 127 in the House of Representatives and controlled the Senate with a six-seat majority. It was the largest majority in Australian political history and he continued to dominate the political landscape for three terms.
Malcolm Fraser was an extraordinary leader. He was a big strong-willed man who did not hesitate to insist on what he saw was the right outcome for this nation. He dominated federal parliament like few others, and the period 1975 to 1983 was known as the Fraser years; he owned them. He was the first federal politician, as far as we know, to use the word ‘multiculturalism’. The word was first used in a speech to the state Zionist Council of New South Wales in 1969, four years before Al Grassby, often labelled as the father of multiculturalism, became a minister.
Mr Fraser was an advocate of immigration being a means of boosting the population. This conviction took shape in a decision to bring refugees from mainland Southeast Asia to Australia after the Vietnam War. Thousands of families took advantage of that decision and have become an integral part of Australia’s and the Northern Territory’s society as our Vietnamese population.
He passionately opposed racism in any form, whether it was directed towards Indigenous Australians or in Africa. His vigorous attempts and efforts to stamp out racism in national and international affairs stand as his lasting legacy. He followed the proud tradition of former Liberal leaders such as Robert Menzies, who gave Aborigines the right to vote in the 1960s, and a Harold Holt government referendum in 1967 which removed clauses from the Australian Constitution which discriminated against Aboriginal people. Many do not know that it was Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Prime Minister, who enacted the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, giving land rights to Northern Territory Aborigines and implementing the recommendations of the Woodward Royal Commission into Aboriginal land rights. The act passed both houses of parliament with bipartisan support and created the first legal framework to allow claims for traditional ownership.
The elders of east and west Arnhem Land have asked for me to pass on their condolences today and broadcast that to the Fraser family. They know too well the significance of that legislation and the role Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser played in giving land rights to Aboriginal Territorians.
Mr Fraser awarded the Territory self-government in 1978. The then Prime Minister came to Darwin to mark the occasion and address the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 8 September 1978. He told the Assembly:
- You are embarking on one of the noblest adventures open to any people democratic self-government. It is one of the hardest systems in the world to run, but it is also certainly the best.
…
You are choosing the only form of government that truly represents the people and that is truly responsible to the people.
He conceded that for decades ultimate authority for administration of the laws governing the Territory’s day-to-day affairs was held by people thousands of miles away, people who did not always comprehend the Territory’s special needs.
He finished his speech by expressing his confidence in the people of the Northern Territory and saying he looked forward to the day when the Northern Territory finally becomes the seventh state of Australia, a dream we always seek to pursue.
Malcolm Fraser was also the man behind our most famous tourist icon in the Northern Territory, Kakadu. He declared the first stage of Kakadu National Park in 1979, and it has become one of Australia’s foremost outdoor experiences. Mr Fraser spent several weeks in the region looking closely at a number of aspects of Kakadu. He described Kakadu as an area of major consequence to Australia and one of the major national parks for the world. It still stands that way today. He had the foresight to understand that Kakadu needs preserving not only for present, but also future generations.
Every great parliamentary career must come to an end. In 1983 Fraser dissolved both houses of parliament and called a general election. He had planned to gain an advantage from the disunity in the federal Labor Party over Bob Hawke’s challenges to Bill Hayden’s leadership at the time. Twenty minutes after Fraser announced the election Hayden resigned as ALP leader and allowed Hawke to assume leadership. What followed was an election campaign largely focusing on Fraser’s and Hawke’s personalities. The ALP won a 25-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but the Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate. The morning following the election Malcolm Fraser announced his intention to resign from the Liberal leadership, and five days later he resigned from parliament as well. He had been Prime Minister for seven-and-a-half years, one of our nation’s longest-serving Prime Ministers.
His relationship with the Liberal Party since then has been the subject of great discussion. Politicians come and go, and many simply disappear into a comfortable retirement, but not Malcolm Fraser. He continued to fight for what he believed in for the rest of his life. He was critical of both Labor and Liberal parties and never took a backwards step when his critics tried to silence him.
He chaired a number of international panels and helped establish the foreign aid group, CARE, in Australia. His contribution to this country cannot be overstated, particularly his contribution to the Northern Territory. The right to vote and land rights for Aboriginal people and self-government for Territorians is the lasting legacy he leaves in the Northern Territory.
Someone whispered in my ear the other day, ‘Chief Minister, the Liberals delivered all the best outcomes for Aboriginal people when it comes to the right to vote, land rights, and the right to democracy, particularly in the Northern Territory with self-government for all Territorians’.
To Malcolm Fraser, his leadership, his colleagues at the time, I say thank you. He was a leader in every sense of the word.
To his wife Tammy, his four children, Mark, Phoebe, Angela and Hugh, our thoughts are with you. Long live the legacy of Malcolm Fraser.
Madam Speaker, thank you, this parliament and the children in the gallery for allowing this condolence motion today.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today on behalf of my Labor team I pay our respects to former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.
I acknowledge his many achievements as Prime Minister, including those that directly benefitted the Northern Territory. I honour his steadfast commitment to true liberalism and the effort and energy he put into those ideals in his leadership of our nation, and after he retired from the Australian parliament.
While the Whitlam government laid the groundwork for Aboriginal land rights, the Fraser government passed the legislation to deliver land rights to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. He appointed three Aboriginal Affairs ministers who shared his commitment to work to repair the damage that dispossession, racism and a total lack of empathy or respect had wrought on Indigenous Australians over centuries.
In 1978 Malcolm Fraser committed to self-government for our Northern Territory, claiming he wanted statehood for the Territory, though we are yet to see this come to pass. A fitting tribute for this great man would be a bipartisan push by this Assembly to realise his dream of statehood.
My first brush with Malcolm Fraser was in 1978 when he visited for self-government. As a child I had the job of serving hors d’oeuvres at the function in the parliamentary precinct afterwards. I sidled up next to the literally giant of a man who was in engaged in conversation and stood by his side quietly. He paused, noticed a child with a tray of food and stopped. He showed me kindness and the gentle nature he had. He was a very dignified man and I was very impressed.
Australians are indebted to Malcolm Fraser for protecting some of Australia’s iconic environment. He proclaimed Kakadu a national park, banned sand mining on Fraser Island, banned exploration and drilling for oil on the Great Barrier Reef and declared the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. During his tenure Australia banned whaling and lobbied for an international halt to this industry. Australia signed up to conventions to protect endangered species, the Antarctic and the world’s wetlands.
Malcolm Fraser was a strong opponent of apartheid and played a leading role in Commonwealth efforts to end it in South Africa, as well as efforts to end racial conflict in Rhodesia, which led to elections in the renamed Zimbabwe and an end to white rule.
He challenged Australians to open their minds and hearts to our Asian neighbours, welcoming 200 000 migrants from Asian countries and cementing multiculturalism and diversity as part of our Australian way of life. He granted asylum to more than 2000 Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the Northern Territory. He worked with other nations throughout Asia to organise safe haven and an orderly system for them to become refugees, both here and overseas. This truly marked the end of the White Australia Policy and the creation of a new nation for all regardless of colour, religion or political beliefs. A hallmark of our Northern Territory is our vibrant multicultural community, diversity and tolerance, and I thank Malcolm Fraser for his part in creating it.
Some of his greatest contributions to public life came after he retired from politics. While in office he established the Australian Human Rights Commission. Then, after retiring from parliament, he spent the rest of his life advocating the values it was established to nurture and protect. He remained committed to the human rights of asylum seekers and Indigenous people, challenging all governments, Liberal or Labor, when he perceived they were undermining those rights. He was passionate about individual liberties, and free and independent media to underpin them and hold governments and the powerful to account.
As the Territory Labor leader in this Assembly I recognise Malcolm Fraser was loathed by many Labor supporters for engineering the dismissal of the Whitlam government in controversial circumstances in 1975. I have spoken with many Labor supporters over the years who could never forgive him for that. However, they acknowledge that his commitment to his principles over the years softened their views and that the great majority of Australians will feel, as I do, that his passing leaves a big hole in our society.
I had the good fortune to play a small role in the reconciliation between Malcolm Fraser and his then implacable opponent, the great late Gough Whitlam. In 1991 I worked as an industrial officer for the Australian Journalists Association in Melbourne. Warwick Fairfax had decimated the family company that owned The Age and it was placed in receivership.
Various overseas media vultures were circling, none of them committed to the independent journalism practised by The Age. The staff of The Age and our union organised a rally to highlight the dangers to that fine newspaper titled cheekily, ‘Maintain your Age’ and invited both Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam to stand together to save this Australian institution. That was the first time since 1975 that the two great men had appeared on the same platform. I like to think our small union with a big cause helped establish their respect and friendship that grew in later years. That was my second brush with Malcolm Fraser, and again I found him to be kind, gentle and dignified.
Some great leaders rise above partisan politics. I believe Malcolm Fraser forged this path in becoming an outspoken advocate for human rights. Our condolences are extended to his family and many friends. May he rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I read with interest the article in today’s paper by Andrew Bolt which said he believed Malcolm Fraser had moved to the left. I think Malcolm Fraser stuck by true Liberal principles and stayed that way all his life. The Liberal Party has moved, not him. I believe the proof of that is shown by what he did when Prime Minister, which appeared to be no different than when he left the position.
The Chief Minister has already mentioned some of the things people like Andrew Bolt would regard as to the left, but I regard them as ideals a true Liberal Prime Minister would adhere to. For instance, there was establishment of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. He helped establish the position of the federal Ombudsman. He also established the FM radio service for the ABC, something people on that side of politics get a bit upset about. He helped established the national Aboriginal conference and SBS to provide multilingual radio and television services. He approved building of the new Parliament House. He established The Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, although I think that has now come to an end. He played a key role in ending racial war in the former UK colony of Rhodesia, enabling elections to be held and a new nation, Zimbabwe, to be established under black rule. He was part of a government that established the Australian Refugee Advisory Council to advise on the settlement of refugees, many of whom had been arriving as boat people from Vietnam since 1978. How different to today’s Liberal government.
He helped establish the Aboriginal Development Commission. In protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the government cut wheat sales to the Soviet Union and discouraged Australian participation in the Moscow Olympics. This was controversial at the time, but he showed leadership. He also declared 36 000 km of the Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef as a marine park. Someone could accuse him of being a greenie. He abolished appeals to the Privy Council. Although I would call him a monarchist, he broke some of the ties we had with the United Kingdom. He introduced a new migrant selection scheme based on criteria relating to family reunion and the need for skilled workers.
Malcolm Fraser came from a well-to-do background because he was born in Toorak. You might say he was born with silver spoon in his mouth, but he was raised on a sheep farm in New South Wales and eventually moved to Nareen in the western district of Victoria. He was educated at Geelong Grammar School and went to Oxford University, where he graduated with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
Late last night I was watching a documentary on Mr Fraser. He said he did not want to study agricultural science, but wanted to do something which gave him a much broader outlook on life, which is why he took up the degree in philosophy, politics and economics. When you see what he did through his life, along with the grassroots education of working on a sheep station, you can see how it gave him a good grounding to be our Prime Minister.
We have lost a great leader, regardless of the controversy around 1975, which I remember very well. Even though people might have loathed him, in the end, the people made a decision through a democratic election process which was a resounding signal that he was supported by the vast majority of people at the time. If we do not agree with that, it should not cloud our memory of him for all the great things he did for Australia.
He is a fine example of a Menzies-like leader who was willing to go against the grain when needed. He made decisions which would have been extremely unpopular today; one of those was allowing the tens of thousands of Vietnamese boat people to arrive on the shores of Darwin at Nightcliff Beach. Look at the contribution those people have made to Australia from a social and economic point of view. If it had not been for a Prime Minister with the strength to allow those people to come to Australia, we would not benefit from the great contribution those people have made to this country.
I support the Chief Minister’s condolence motion. We have lost a great person and a great leader. He contributed to the way many Australians believe we should be, even if we are drifting away from it somewhat. If anyone is looking for someone to admire and follow as an example of the way people should behave in the political sphere, you can go no further than Malcolm Fraser.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Chief Minister’s condolence motion on the passing of Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister, Right Hon John Malcolm Fraser.
Mr Fraser was an Oxford graduate and a grazier when he won the Victorian seat of Wannon for the Liberal Party in December 1955. Entering politics aged just 25 he was the youngest member of the 22nd Australian parliament. His first 10 years was spent as a backbencher in the Menzies’ government. When Harold Holt became Prime Minister in 1966, Mr Fraser was appointed as Minister for the Army. Mr Fraser also served as a minister in the governments of John Gorton and William McMahon.
After 20 years in parliament he became leader of the Liberal Party on 21 March 1975. Mr Fraser was appointed as caretaker Prime Minister on 11 November 1975 after Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government. The Fraser Coalition government won office a month later with the largest landslide of any federal election. That result has never been matched since. Sadly, almost 40 years to the day he became leader of the Liberals, he vacated his earthly seat after a short illness.
Most people associated with the world of politics know of Mr Fraser for his controversial role in the dismissal of the Whitman government, but it is Mr Fraser’s role in the protection of Aboriginal people he needs to be remembered for in my view. It is a well-known fact that the Labor Party thinks it is the only party for Aboriginal people. August 2012 changed that.
However, when we look at history one of the key moments for Indigenous equality was the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which happened under a federal Coalition government. We all know Labor is talk, talk, talk, but when it comes to real action it is always left to Coalition governments to make things happen. The act signed by the Governor-General on 16 December 1976 established the basis upon which Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory could, for the first time, claim rights to land based on traditional occupation. This was the first Australian law which allowed a claim of title if claimants could provide evidence of their traditional association with land. This act was a milestone for Aboriginal advancement in Australia. It allowed Indigenous Australians to acquire and manage Indigenous-held land sustainably and in a manner that provides cultural, social, economic and environmental benefits for themselves and future generations.
I remind all, including our land councils, that this is what the act is for. It was not to lock up land and keep Aboriginal people in poverty and Third World conditions, but to allow them to grow their communities, to participate in economic development, to build a future for their kids, to create real jobs in their communities, to own their own homes and businesses, to build infrastructure they need to support these opportunities, to better the health of their people to help them live longer, to give them hope instead of hopelessness, and to get kids to school to get an education that will change their and future generations and truly give Aboriginal people self-determination. This was the vision of Malcolm Fraser and of this side of the House. May his legacy continue.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I also support this motion and say on behalf of Indigenous people in Australia, the Northern Territory, especially my electorate and the electorate of Stuart where I live, that I had the opportunity once to meet Mr Fraser when I was pretty young. He was a good friend of my dad’s and many leaders in the Arnhem area, including Mr Yunupingu, and other great leaders who have now passed. One thing I remember about him is that he always said what was on his mind. Knowing Mr Fraser gave people like me the inspiration to reach out and go for what I really wanted in life and fight for what I believed in. It was not about the sides of politics – whether he was Liberal or Labor – it was liberty that he believed in, and that is what I stand for. Everybody deserves equality in this world.
It was not about party politics. He was not a man with that type of honour, and I really looked up to him. I am sure many Aboriginal people did. We admired his strength, vision and what he really stood for. Giving us land rights and giving us the right to vote was just a platform of his work which brought us a long way. The same party is trying to take that away from the first people. A minister in your government put it in place but you will blame Labor. That is a slap in the face. This is a condolence motion for one of the greatest men in history and we are playing party politics of black and white in this House, using Aboriginal people as a target. It is not good enough.
My grandfather was white. My grandmother was Indigenous. I stand in the middle of both of them. I never see it as two different sides of the story. I love them equally, but I will not use my background to attack another side. He was greater than that, and I am sure he is greater than the person on that side of the House who will speak about it, even greater than the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. You can never see it through his eyes or work to understand Aboriginal people through his eyes. No one can equal the great things he has done.
He knew what hard work was. He was raised in the country, the same as Aboriginal people. We were only paid rations back then – the stories my grandparents would tell us or my mother and father would tell me about. That is the great effort. We have never known money. We were paid in flour, milk and teabags back then. I am sure the two on the other side would understand that as they were born and raised in that era, I was not. I came after land rights and after the right to vote, but I heard the stories of what the great leaders before us did, and it was a privilege to meet him.
Let us embrace the good work this man did for everybody, Indigenous people especially. As well as being an Indigenous politician in the Northern Territory – the deep sadness we all have to face one day is that we lose great leaders like him, and it is pretty sad.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this motion to the House and I support it.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Hon Malcolm Fraser, AC CH, 22nd Prime Minister of Australia, who sadly passed away over the weekend.
Malcolm Fraser served as Prime Minister from November 1975 until March 1983, and was the fourth longest-serving Prime Minister in Australian history. His political career began in 1955 when, at the age of 25, he was elected to represent the rural Victorian seat of Wannon. He served as a minister in the government from 1966 until the defeat of the Liberal government on 2 December 1972, the first election I ever voted in.
Fraser was the last Prime Minister to come from a rural or regional seat so he understood the particular issues that faced regional Australians every day. While many people focus on the manner in which he became Prime Minister by the dismissal of the Labor government in November 1975, it is important that we focus on the positive aspects of his time in the top job.
Malcolm Fraser, as a junior minister, was part of the government that held the referendum in 1967 which acknowledged Indigenous people and counted them as part of the population of Australia. One of the most significant legacies of the Fraser government was the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This act was one of the most significant pieces of law in respect to the Northern Territory. It was the first of the Aboriginal land rights acts allowing for a claim of title if claimants can provide evidence of their traditional association with land.
About 50% of Northern Territory land and 85% of its coastline are currently owned communally by Aboriginal people. The Land Rights Act established the four land councils and the Aboriginal Land Trust, and set up the mechanisms for how Aboriginal people manage their land. This act preceded the Mabo and Wik decisions by decades and ensured Aboriginal people maintained their vital relationship with their country and culture.
Another way in which we in the Territory can see a tangible legacy of Malcolm Fraser is through our multicultural society. Fraser, as a shadow minister for Labor and also Immigration, became the first member of parliament to refer to us having a multicultural society.
In talking about multiculturalism, he also established the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. In his first address to the institute he stated:
- Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division – it is about interaction not isolation. It is about cultural and ethnic differences set within a framework of shared fundamental values which enables them to co-exist on a complementary rather than competitive basis. It involves respect for the law and for our democratic institutions and processes.
This statement could almost be written for Darwin. The significant population of Vietnamese in Darwin largely has its origin in the refugees who Australians accepted with open arms as they fled communist Vietnam. This is one of the most significant decisions the Fraser government took and it had a profound and positive effect on Darwin.
The extent of what was done with respect to people coming from Vietnam is made clear in this simple statistic: 300 000 people in refugee camps were from Indochina, 56 000 of whom came to Australia from Vietnam. This was an extraordinary change to our nation and an extraordinarily positive decision.
Malcolm Fraser’s tenure as Prime Minister covers the passing of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the legal birth certificate of the Northern Territory.
The Fraser government finally acceded to the long-pursued goal of Territorians and conferred self-government in 1978. This set the Northern Territory on the course we are sailing right now: Territorians having control over their own affairs and not being run by faceless public servants in Canberra.
The jewel in the crown of Territory tourism, Kakadu National Park, was declared a national park by the Fraser government. While the legislation was passed by the Whitlam government, it was Fraser as Prime Minister who grasped the buffalo by the horns and set about declaring the park. It is hard to imagine the Northern Territory without Kakadu, and this legacy will continue to all people for generations to come.
Australians continue to reap other benefits of the Fraser government’s reforms from the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service to the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Malcolm Fraser was a great man who cast a huge shadow over Australian politics and leaves a significant legacy for all Australians. He also leaves a specific legacy to all Territorians, and for that we should thank him and show our deepest respect. My condolences to Mrs Fraser and his wider family.
__________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Stephen Hatton
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Stephen Hatton
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Steve Hatton. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on the motion of condolence for former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
Malcolm Fraser was a man of very strong convictions, particularly when it came to racism. As the Chief Minister mentioned, he strongly campaigned and championed equality for all individuals. He really was a true Liberal.
While many people remember Fraser for his part in the dismissal, his biggest legacy for my people is the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Though it was Gough Whitlam who poured the sand into Vincent Lingiari’s hands, it was the giant of a man, Malcolm Fraser, who pushed the legislation through parliament in 1976 giving Territorians rights to traditional land.
He also gave us Kakadu National Park, a special place in the Northern Territory, Australia and the world. It is because of him that future generations will see this natural beauty and culture that has been connected to us for thousands of years. These are just two of the many things Territorians can thank Mr Fraser for.
On behalf of my electorate I express condolences to Mr Fraser’s wife and children, and thank them for sharing him with us. Without him we would be far worse off.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also speak to this condolence motion. It is important to put somebody like Malcolm Fraser into the context of the time in which he was educated, held the office of Prime Minister and was in the Australian parliament.
Mr Fraser was in many respects a product of the times he lived in. In post-World War II Europe, the election of Clement Attlee’s left-leaning government immediately after the war then a shift to the left throughout the world was reflective of a desire to shed the world of the legacy of Nazism in particular, but also imperialism, which was generally seen as a right-wing philosophical construct.
During that time the economists of the world, particularly John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economics, had traction. That economic structure found its way into the economic thinking of the 1950s and 1960s, a period during which Mr Fraser was educated. That economic thinking was regulatorily structured and believed you could simply turn regulations on and off and money would flow through the economy in different ways. It was highly structured in the way you would put an economy together. That would have been the economics preferred and taught at Oxford when Fraser was there. Clearly, it had a profound effect on him because in the years that he was a member of the Australian parliament and Prime Minister he embraced and encouraged that system.
During the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam that step to the left lurched sharply. After two bitterly-contested elections, in 1972 and again in 1974, Whitlam was returned but with an ever-decreasing majority in the subsequent election. Whitlam introduced a number of things that Fraser continued to keep in place after he ascended to Prime Ministership in the 1970s. In fact, it is not until you look at the Prime Ministership and Treasurership of the Hawke/Keating era that you see the abandonment of Keynesian economics in Australia and a shift to the right, to the Friedman types of economics and monetary policies, a vehicle by which the economy was managed. It is a policy that the Western world and the OECD continue to use to this day.
I have heard several members refer to Fraser as a true liberal. However, liberals come in different flavours depending on how and through which lens you look at them. Liberalism exercised by some in the Liberal Party, even to this day, would be described as damper than other people’s forms of liberalism. You can see these ideas flow into legislation such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in the Northern Territory.
I consider myself a liberal before I ever consider myself a conservative. My opinion on gay marriage would stand me in strong contrast to conservatives in our community. I believe in freedom, I believe in liberty, but I also believe in personal responsibility. This is the difference between me and people like Malcolm Fraser regarding how legislation should affect people. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a good example.
I preface my comments by saying the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was an instrumental piece of legislation and long overdue. There was no doubt, particularly arising out of the judgment in the Nabalco case, that something had to be done to address the dispossession which had occurred, not only in this country but in this jurisdiction, to the title Aboriginal people may have had over their land. Whilst the title was never written down, it was ultimately recognised in cases such as Mabo and the idea that native title could have predated the settlement of Australia.
This is where Mr Fraser’s form of liberalism and mine take divergent paths. The structure of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act shows it is very much reflective of that Keynesian economic structure of control. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is structured to create a system of control which is collective in nature, and the existence of land trusts demonstrates this. Some land trusts do not reflect the traditional systems on the ground.
As member for Macdonnell for a number of years it became apparent that many of the land trusts not only go across different family groups, but extend to take in different language groups. By way of example, the Haasts Bluff land trust area, which has Warlpiri spoken on it, Luritja Pintabi and even some Arrernte, is about 30 000 km and is only mentioned as an example of what I am alluding to.
Because I am a true liberal of the more arid kind I believe in ownership of property, and property rights are at the heart of what it is to be human and exert your rights as a human. Clearly the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act delivers property rights to a series of trusts rather than individuals. My preference would be a land rights act which enabled anthropological study to be undertaken and the title of the land passed to individuals who had the songs and traditional authority over that land.
I remember Gus Williams from Ntaria railing and raging against a land rights decision because his surname started with W and, as a consequence, was way down the list of traditional owners. His authority was no greater under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act than any other individual named as a beneficiary of that trust.
The consequence is, whilst good in intent the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act does not reflect traditional systems of land ownership and the people who held songs for country were, in essence, the same people who had title rights over the land.
This, of course, cannot be undone in the modern world. If we were to undo it, it would invoke constitutional provisions which would say it was an acquisition of property. Even to change the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to accommodate this idea would not be feasible because it would mean an acquisition of property rights of other people.
Whilst liberal in the intent of creating a system by which Aboriginal people got their land back, Aboriginal people were seen as a nebulous blob and not a group of individuals who may want to exert land title rights in a fashion other people in the community may.
Aboriginal people, like anybody else, see people coming through their families who have capacity over and above other people, and they have always traditionally passed on land by identifying those best suited to protect that land.
I have always believed that Aboriginal people have a strong and spiritual connection to the land and I accept that on face value. However, nowadays those people who carry songs for country are somewhat diminished by the operations of the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Perhaps one day, through a system of leasing, it can be addressed going forward.
Nevertheless, Malcolm Fraser introduced the act. Whilst I do not agree with the structure of it, clearly it intended to change the world for the better for Aboriginal people. For that I applaud Mr Fraser’s legacy.
I wish to touch on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam and the role Fraser played in it. I heard several times today that Mr Fraser manipulated the dismissal, but history will not bear that out, depending on who you read. I am still unsure how much influence Fraser had over Joh Bjelke-Petersen regarding the change in the structure of the Senate, which enabled the Senate to fall into the Coalition’s hands.
The Senate has never worked in the way the founding fathers of this country determined it should. It was always intended to be a states’ house and the method of appointing people to it was that when a vacancy occurred a state would nominate a replacement.
The convention formed over time was that a replacement would be found from within that person’s party. That did not occur in the early 1970s, when Joh Bjelke-Petersen offered an individual contrary to the political leanings of the person who had vacated the seat. There was also another incident where a similar thing occurred. I am not sure if it was in Queensland, but two senators were changed.
The effect of that was to take control of the Senate away from the crossbenches and land it firmly in the hands of Fraser. Fraser’s role at that point was to use the Senate position he had to block the money bills which had been passed by the lower house. Fraser made it clear that was his intent and his role in forcing the circumstances of the dismissal.
However, blocking supply was something Fraser considered a high political risk. He revealed that he was prepared to relent on blocking supply as a political tactic 24 hours after the dismissal had occurred. He did not have to make that decision because it was taken from him and made by the then Governor-General, exercising the reserve powers he held under the Australian constitutional system.
This is interesting because Garfield Barwick was the source of the advice, although some still allege that Justice Mason was also a strong influence. To give advice for the exercise of the reserve powers by the Governor-General, Sir Garfield Barwick had to distinguish the Westminster system as it was exercised in Great Britain and find a different way of interpreting the system in Australia. To do so, he distinguished the Westminster system by saying the House of Lords was not a representative or elected body and, as a consequence, was incapable of resisting any legislation that would come up from the House of Commons. That is true; the House of Lords at best can delay legislation but cannot stop legislation passing the House. That is proper when you consider it is not an elected body.
Sir Garfield Barwick distinguished the two systems as being different by saying that because the Senate is an elected body, a loss of confidence in or inability of the government to get its bills through the Senate was a loss of confidence in the government itself. That was the advice to Sir John Kerr.
Everybody knows what happened next. That advice was given on 10 November 1975 and by 11 November 1975 Sir John Kerr had summoned Gough Whitlam and dismissed him. This meant that Fraser was appointed as Prime Minister. He, of course, did not control the House of Representatives. As a consequence, a number of bills were not able to be passed and very quickly a vote of no confidence was taken in the government. This caused Fraser to go to Kerr and call for a double dissolution based on the bills that were not passed in the House.
Fraser would have done his polling and known the subsequent election would be a landslide to the Liberal Party. Indeed, it was. Fraser was elected with absolute control of both houses of parliament and governed the people of Australia for seven-and-a-half years.
No matter what you think of Fraser’s ascendancy, the choice he took and the way he stepped forward exonerated him of any residual historical guilt because every time politicians are re-elected they are essentially washed clean by public opinion. Malcolm Fraser had precisely that. He was given a mandate by the people of Australia to govern and did so for seven-and-a-half years. He became Australia’s second longest-serving Prime Minister. That has been bettered by John Howard, who also served this country particularly well.
From a historical point of view Aboriginal people, particularly those in the Northern Territory, were well served by Fraser’s government. It is disappointing that the wellspring of economic advancement identified by Viner in 1979 has not come to pass, but the critical matters are in the structure of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
I place on the record my thanks to Malcolm Fraser for his work in governing and keeping this country safe. I realise there has been a diversion with his brand of liberalism and liberalism practised in this nation today. However, circumstances are somewhat different today than they were when Vietnamese boat people were fleeing communism.
Malcolm Fraser was a giant. Clearly he occupied his position with presence for a number of years, and Australia did not suffer under his management and tutelage as Prime Minister. As economics changed, the world changed. Under the subsequent Labor government a freer economy was adopted which Malcolm could have engaged in, but it was not to be. As I said, he was a product of his time.
I am grateful we have a freer economy, and property rights in this country continue to be protected. I still hold dear to the principles of liberalism that Malcolm Fraser would: a person is judged by who they are not what religion they are, colour they are or background they come from. The consequence of that judgment is something Fraser and I would have differed on. Nevertheless, he well served the people of Australia and what he believed in and I thank him for his service.
Motion agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 116)
(Serial 116)
Continued from 25 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this legislation before the Assembly and the opportunity to talk about that important third tier of government in the Northern Territory, local government.
The Territory opposition is behind the response, as always, representing the voice of the people. We are a small group that consults widely with limited resources, and engages stakeholders and constituents to put together not only constructive criticism, but also good advice for the House. That represents an effective opposition. I will not digress too far, but in the bush, minister, we are regarded as an effective opposition. We have certainly raised the bar in the bush on political assessment, analysis and commentary. I am here every chance I get to support the voice of the bush.
The Territory opposition notes that many of the proposed amendments arise from an independent review by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission of the 2012 local government elections, following the first full term of the new local government in the Northern Territory. That review was the work of our former Electoral Commissioner, Mr Bill Shepheard, a man well-known for his attention to detail and balancing the administrative burden and cost of elections with the important principle of maximising voter participation in the electoral process, the very foundation of our system of government. The Territory opposition acknowledges the great work ably continued by Iain Loganathan, appointed to head the commission in April 2014.
The Territory opposition does not oppose the bill as a whole, but has concerns about some elements of the bill as discussed in debate on the GBD motion brought forward by the member for Nelson in the last sittings. In our discussions with people in the local government sector we have heard concerns about a lack of consultation with elected members of councils, in particular the larger and more developed municipal councils. That concept of consultation cannot be stressed enough.
We raised this matter during the last local government amendments brought before the Assembly in August 2014. We said while the bill continued the work of improvement of our local government legislation, it was not clear how much consultation there had been with elected members of our councils. This is resonating right throughout the Northern Territory.
This still appears to be the case, with elected members of councils wanting more time and opportunity to consult with their own constituents on any changes to the Local Government Act. This is simple but important advice, minister, remembering the common goal of a strong and robust system built on a solid foundation of fair and democratic local government elections across the Territory. That is worth stressing, minister. With respect, in building the third tier of government in the Northern Territory it is important to hear the views of constituents and elected members, not just the administrators of local government legislation.
We do not oppose this bill, but I will flag the Territory opposition’s intention to go to the committee stage for further consideration of some elements of the bill. The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act and Local Government (Electoral) Regulations to improve administration and reduce the cost of local government elections. This bill provides for an extension of local government terms to avoid three elections in the Northern Territory in 2016, and for Dry Season August elections every four years after the next election in August 2017.
The extension is opposed by some, including the member for Nelson, and is not supported by the City of Darwin, our largest municipal council. Those opposed are concerned that it extends current councils by 18 months to a five-and-a-half year term and denies constituents their expected elections in 2016. We debated, in a motion from the member for Nelson in the last sittings of the Assembly, that we should continue with scheduled elections in 2016 but for a reduced term to meet the objective of future August Dry Season local government elections.
On the second point of Dry Season local government elections, this change provides for future elections in the Top End Dry Season, and the cooler months in Central Australia, every four years. It is a pragmatic change. This is supported on the basis it would assist in reducing the cost of conducting elections. More importantly, it would enhance the standard of these important elections as access and support would be easier for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, voters and candidates.
It has been argued strongly by some that the need for constituents to vote as scheduled in 2016 outweighs other considerations, such as the potential administrative burden of up to three elections in 2016. The Territory opposition knows this because we have consulted with elected members as well as constituents. We do not always agree with those opinions, but consultation is fundamental to successful legislation.
In debate the minister mentioned the opportunity to reduce voter fatigue. A response to that is to have more faith in the electorate, and properly acknowledge the desire of constituents to exercise their vote at an election. That response comes from consultation with Territorians. Many Territorians would love the opportunity of an early Legislative Assembly election to give voice to their concerns about the broken promises and direction of this government. That message is alive and well throughout the regions and, dare I say, in the meetings I have been privileged to be part of in the urban centres. It links to the debate the Territory opposition brings to the House today.
There was also considerable discussion about the government’s proposal to defer the next scheduled local government elections from 2016 to 2017. We are not sure what level of consultation was conducted. I remember attending the LGANT conference in Darwin in November last year, where the discussion took place and government was surely listening to that.
On balance, the majority of local government council representatives at that conference supported the one-off amendment to the fixed election term. A motion not to support the changes was debated but not supported at that conference. A key influence in supporting deferral of elections and extension of current council terms was that additional time would assist elected councillors, as well as local authority members in our bush councils, to get on with the job of bedding down the new arrangements involving local authorities. Our plan for the future development of local government in the bush is now being implemented by the Country Liberal Party, so I give credit where credit is due.
The bill also proposes extending the period in which casual vacancies can be filled by appointment, rather than by-elections, to 18 months before a general election. It is clear this amendment supports council-elected members choosing to retire after the current four-year term, not wanting to continue in the extended term to 2017. This has some merit, but we have heard concerns about the current open-ended nature of the process that can be employed to fill such a casual vacancy. I am sure the minister will comment on that in her response.
Some suggest that voters would have an expectation that a vacancy was filled from a previous candidate known to electors, usually the one with the next-highest vote. However, current arrangements allow for other mechanisms to fill vacancies. For example, an expression of interest process or a name pulled out of a hat. The Territory opposition suggests this area requires further consultation and review.
The bill gives councils the flexibility to conduct by-elections themselves, engage an external electoral service provider or use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for by-elections. We understand the desire of council to choose their own service provider or conduct their own election, especially in the case of relatively simple by-elections.
The proposed amendments also aim to improve capacity of councils to conduct by-elections at a lower cost. Cost is not the only consideration and, over time, changes should also be judged on how they impact on voter engagement and turn-out with the mechanism of consultation and review. I am sure the minister will comment on that.
The bill also allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. I noted in the briefing – and I thank the minister for that …
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Karama Primary School accompanied by Mr Peter Slidders. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Mr McCarthy: And the principal, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Welcome, principal of Karama.
Mr McCarthy: It is always good to see the principal here.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mr McCARTHY: The bill also allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. I note the NT Electoral Commission does not fully support this amendment due to existing issues with maintaining accurate mailing databases, evidenced by the recent NTEC enrolment campaign with significant return-to-sender letters received. I would like the minister to consider that advice.
Being a bush member, no doubt the minister has had examples of mail-outs in regional and remote areas where there can be considerable return-to-sender. Australia Post has difficulty dealing with areas that do not have mainstream postal services like the urban areas with letterbox deliveries. Tennant Creek is a good example of the local post office not being able to deliver to street addresses only to post boxes. Borroloola also comes to mind, where I lived for six years. There is no street postal delivery; it is only available for post boxes. It is a rather inefficient system where mail is collected in the post office. We see the uncertain outcome where post is left at the post office then registered as a return-to-sender. In the case of electing community members, there would be a serious challenge. Noting the NT Electoral Commission’s concerns is another good process in consultation and review.
I have also heard concerns from some elected councillors that this may reduce informed voter participation in council elections and the opportunity for discussion with voters on local government issues. That important point from the constituency relates directly to good consultation. These councillors see direct contact with electors at a polling booth as an important part of the election process. That is a good, valid comment.
The bill proposes allowing future municipal councils to choose whether to fill the office of the principal member – the mayor or president – by appointment or election, while making a change that aligns municipal councils with regional councils. This seems a key example of where constituents of municipal councils – the voters – may have wanted more opportunity to express a view on that matter.
Expanded postal voting and early voting services to all voters is supported, but noting that in the bush success relies on a reliable postal service. Once again voter participation, not just potential cost saving, needs to be a key performance indicator. The Territory opposition looks forward to further review and analysis of the impact of this change in future reports from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
The bill contains another measure relating to absent voting services on polling day, allowing new capacity to limit this to designated polling places in regional centres. I was assured at the briefing that an elector in a regional council area, let us say the Barkly, will be able to vote at all polling booths in that council area. That was a concern I had, and I thank the public servants who attended the briefing and confirmed my concerns were not validated and that a voter can vote at all polling booths in that council area. We support this new provision on that basis, and would be very concerned about any negative impact to mobile bush voters who are unable to exercise a convenient absentee vote within their council area.
The bill proposes changing the time by which postal votes must be received from 6 pm to 12 noon on the sixth day after polling day. We agree with this administrative change given the changes to postal delivery time and the opportunity for quicker vote counting.
The bill provides the Electoral Commissioner with the power to set polling hours on polling day for by-elections, a minor administrative change we are sure the Northern Territory Electoral Commission will exercise ensuring appropriate opportunity for voting.
The bill provides for the transfer of jurisdiction of local government matters from the current local government tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Territory opposition supports this change, in line with development of the new NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal that now provides for review of a wide range of public administration matters.
The opposition is interested to see what further initiatives this government brings forward to continue development of a strong, mature system of local government across the Northern Territory. This includes the professional development of our elected councillors and a homegrown local government workforce in the Northern Territory, well-attuned to our circumstances, the local history, culture and needs of our communities, and the importance of good, reliable government services no matter where you live.
While we support work to improve the legislative framework for local government in the Northern Territory, it is regrettable that we are yet to see real progress in the work we started on the long-term financial sustainability of regional councils. That is an important point and, once again, one that has been generated through active engagement and consultation in the regions.
Whilst canvassing the government’s bill and consulting with constituents, stakeholders and elected members – an important point in this contribution to debate – the conversation moves very quickly to the grassroots of reform. That is enhanced to some degree by the promises made by the CLP. People in the bush have long memories which do not always support the member of Stuart’s version of history. The member for Stuart should revise those scripts before putting them on the public record because the constituents are challenging those statements and the member for Stuart is becoming quite famous for her contributions to the House. People on the ground in regional and remote areas know the full story. They live that story and will continue to do so.
It is good to debate legislation and contribute to the development of local government in the Northern Territory. The last point, in addition to the questions the Territory opposition has in the committee stages of the bill – the crux of the matter now relates to delivery of major reform. The member for Stuart alluded to the situation in a condolence motion, of all motions. In the lead-up to the 2012 Northern Territory general election big promises were made. There were extremely demanding and challenging promises relating to all of the Northern Territory, but specifically into regional and remote areas. I do not have the contract for Borroloola with me and I do not have the answers given by the government, but the semantics in those responses were enjoyable for a political laugh. The people on the ground in Borroloola are not happy with those responses or the twists, turns and complete denial of any fair and honest contractual obligation presented to people to gain their trust, which has now been discarded.
We always enjoy the opportunity to debate. Clear policy alternatives are acknowledged in the speech. I pay credit where credit is due, especially where the opposition mentioned the development of local authorities. This is an example of a good initiative which was continued under the CLP.
We now want to get some meat on the bone. We want to hear from the minister about the real reforms and outcomes, not in legislative management framework, but those promises. No doubt you are seriously engaged in the Cabinet budget process. The Territory opposition looks forward to the CLP’s 2015 budget. We expect to see a rush on delivering those promises because we have heard two-and-a-half years of rhetoric. There has been a widely talked about distraction in the agenda of the government with some serious internal divisions, but we look forward to those massive promises being delivered through a budget appropriation process, as well as the minister bringing more legislative reform to this House for the growth and development of our local government sector.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. I have some questions for a later stage in this process.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill today. It has been a pleasure to listen to the member for Barkly, the shadow spokesman for Local Government, speak on this issue.
It is a well-known fact that the member for Barkly was a rodeo clown. I do not say that in any negative way as I have immense admiration for rodeo clowns. From what I can gather, the member for Barkly made a very good rodeo clown. The attributes of a rodeo clown are – to coin a phrase from the Chief Minister – you need enormous testicular fortitude, a thick hide and quick feet to do a job like that. The member for Barkly has demonstrated all those traits aptly today. He has a thick hide, plenty of testicular fortitude and is quick on his feet. For him to say local authorities were an invention of the former Labor government shows an enormous disregard for history and a quick reinvention of what they stand for.
I know we are pretty thick on this side at times, but we can remember the former government and the toxic shires it put in place. We remember the last election campaign, where Labor paid a very heavy price for its disregard of councils in the bush and lost a number of seats. I remember talking to Labor luminaries who were joking and carrying on. At the time it become public that I was heading up the bush campaign, and people were laughing at me and asking what hope we had. Barbara McCarthy, Karl Hampton, the Labor candidate for Arafura and a range of others were unbeatable. These people had a right to the seats. They did not really care, and put in place a system of local government that took away people’s voices and their feeling of representation. Ultimately, they paid the price for that.
The member for Barkly was quick on his feet during the last election campaign. With a couple of weeks to go, he discovered he was in a bit of trouble and took some quick remedial measures to ensure he got over the line. I pay tribute to the member for Barkly for that. If others in his team were as connected with their electorate as the member for Barkly is, perhaps they would still be in government. Sadly, that was not the case for the Labor Party. It disregarded the bush, turned its back on Indigenous Territorians, paid the price and lost government.
The bush campaign was largely run around Labor’s former local government reforms, with super shires that Indigenous Territorians and people in the bush felt had taken away their voice. Since coming to government we have been keen to restore the voice of Indigenous Territorians. We have worked hard to make sure the local government sector has been heard. We looked at de-amalgamating councils. The only de-amalgamation was the council in the member for Daly’s electorate, but we listened.
Across the Territory we had a deep and long consultation period and got to the heart of what people in the bush were looking for. Fundamentally, they wanted their voices restored. This is where our Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, did such a wonderful job in opposition as the shadow Local Government spokesperson. He put together quite detailed policies and plans, and as Chief Minister has driven them through the Cabinet system. He worked particularly hard on me when I was Local Government minister, and I am assured that the member for Stuart is also constantly urged by the Chief Minister to drive these reforms, because ultimately we are in government because of the work we are doing with local government and the promises we made.
The local authorities are about restoring the voice of people in the bush. Most townships of any size now have a local authority operating, and the government has not only put these things in place but has backed them up with funding. The fact is local authorities are funded and people are meeting in their communities. It is not a lot of money, but it is something and a reason for local authorities, and the people who sit on the authorities, to get together and look at what their township and community requires and make some decisions in relation to that. Each local authority receives a small amount of money.
We are keen to continue that funding and, clearly, other aspects of getting local government financially sustainable is something government continues to work on. There is no quick fix for that. Not many people in the community are putting their hands up to pay more rates or would like to start paying rates. It is a difficult call, but government is moving in that direction.
This bill is about enabling regional councils to determine their affairs better. Part of the bill is about the timing of the next election, and I know the member for Nelson and others are somewhat opposed to extending the term. The member for Nelson probably has a good idea of how people in local government might react. It was my view, when I was minister for Local Government, that we would have a revolt from local government if we tried to bring the election date forward. If we tried to reduce the term of the current crop we would almost certainly have outrage and disquiet across the Northern Territory.
Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at things. Perhaps the member for Nelson is right and we should cut short the term rather than extend it, but I think most people agree for the top half of the Territory running elections in March is problematic given the Wet Season and the difficulties in rounding people up at that time of year. Even the member for Nelson would agree that March is not an appropriate time to be conducting elections across the Top End.
However, something had to give. The Local Government minister has made the correct decision to extend the term of the current crop, bearing in mind this will be a one-off extension. Somewhere along the line the term had to be increased or reduced. It is far simpler and far easier for people to accept if the term is extended.
It is interesting that the member for Barkly suddenly takes an interest in municipals saying they were not consulted about this. I believe municipals were consulted, and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory has been very involved in these discussions right from the get-go. The department, even when I was Local Government minister, had a very close working relationship with LGANT. We have transferred some NT government services to LGANT, which demonstrates that close working relationship with the local government sector. It also demonstrates we are consulting, so I disagree with the member for Barkly that municipals were not consulted.
Most of these reforms are about what happens in the bush and in regional councils where, for whatever reason, people up stumps and walk away. They turn their back on their job as a councillor and do not turn up. How does a local government organisation deal with those circumstances? They are not rare; they are quite common. One of the biggest complaints we heard from LGANT was the cost of elections through the Electoral Commission was starting to bite. The Electoral Commission is an expensive way of replacing councillors and they have asked that these reforms be put in place.
It is worthwhile supporting this legislation, and I appeal to the member for Barkly to look further than the tip of his nose and notice the work done by government with people from local authorities, regional councils and municipals as well as the local government sector.
I am thrilled to support this legislation. The member for Stuart is doing a fantastic job as the Local Government minister and has my 100% unwavering support. The reforms she is proposing are sensible. I am glad to hear the Labor Party is prepared to look at these reforms on their merit. It is interesting that they try to take credit for some of them, having dropped the ball on local government and lost an election on local government in the bush. They are now trying to take credit for the Giles government’s direction in local government.
Interestingly enough, a year or so ago we heard nothing but derision from the other side about our local government reforms. The member for Barkly is right when he says he listens to the grassroots. The penny has dropped, with the member for Barkly at least, that the government is having an effect in the local government area and people in the bush like it. That is a compliment to this government and the Local Government minister.
The member for Barkly has my complete admiration. He was a rodeo clown; he has a thick hide and is quick on his feet. Good luck to him if he can convince everybody that these reforms are Labor’s idea. I think most people will see through it and get on board and support the government.
In relation to municipals, extension of the term allows Darwin and Palmerston people to consider the future of these two councils along with the councils dotted around our harbour. It provides an opportunity for Territorians to seriously look at amalgamating our big municipal councils, especially Darwin and Palmerston. It is a question worth asking. In my mind we have a choice, and now is the time to start thinking about that. Do we want a local government system in Darwin similar to that in Sydney, where various suburbs have their own municipal council, or do we want to be more like Brisbane, with one council for the entire city?
I want to see one large local government with the economies of scale that brings. I understand a number of aldermen and councillors in Darwin and Palmerston will be offended by that idea, but it is time the people were consulted.
Possibly the next election is a good time for a plebiscite in the Top End to ask Territorians whether they think we should amalgamate Darwin and Palmerston or have a series of smaller local government authorities based on suburbs or townships within the greater Darwin region. Ultimately, it will be a question the minister for Local Government will have to decide on. I imagine if we have a plebiscite it would be a matter for discussion both within Cabinet and this Chamber. I am not holding my breath for that discussion; the government has a big legislative agenda. However, I would like to see it on the table and discussed.
I am sure the member for Nelson, with his long and distinguished career in local government, might have something to say on that. Looking at council boundaries around Darwin, greater Darwin and rural regions of Darwin, any talk about amalgamating Darwin and Palmerston councils would obviously impact on councils in the rural area as well. It would be interesting to hear the member for Nelson’s opinion on how to deal with Litchfield, Coomalie, Belyuen and some of the other councils and the impact of that type of merger.
It is a worthwhile discussion for Territorians to have. Local government is an extraordinarily important level of government. I was proud to be the Local Government minister. At the time I had a range of portfolios, and in my view none was as important as Local Government because you are dealing with how people are represented and how the democratic system in this great nation and Territory works. It is a very important portfolio.
Labor probably learnt that lesson too late. Had they heeded that message earlier they may still have Barb McCarthy and Karl Hampton within their ranks. We have Kenny now, which is great as well. The fewer of them the better – love them all but good things come in small doses. The fewer Labor members we have the better for all. My goal is to see the back of socialism and any shrinking in the size of Labor numbers can only benefit Territorians in the long run.
I support this bill. The Local Government minister is doing an excellent job. She is well supported by the bureaucracies around her. The public servants who work in the local government sector are particularly switched on. Over the last few months the Local Government minister has shown some real metal and strength of character in putting a number of councils under administration. It is not an easy decision to make, but when things break down to the level they had the minister, quite rightly and fittingly, put those councils under administration. To do otherwise would allow chaos to occur and undermine the confidence people have in the local government sector.
These amendments are completely sensible, warranted and will be welcomed by the local government sector at large.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the so-called joke the member for Fong Lim is peddling about the member for Barkly being a rodeo clown. That must be a joke I do not know. I was comparing the member for Fong Lim’s contribution on the Pete Davies show. We always get a great laugh out of that so I thought you were jealous.
The member for Fong Lim raised many issues, most of which do not deal with the amendments to the bill.
I feel sad about the state of affairs of local government at the moment because we have three local governments under administration. One is Belyuen, which is certainly well overdue for an elected council. I understand it has been kept together by using changes to the law made when the member for Fong Lim was the minister regarding restructuring of councils. They were able to continue with an administrator running Belyuen. That is going too far with the legislation, and I would like to know the state of affairs at Belyuen council. Regardless of whether there were good reasons for an administrator or a manager for some councils, the prime object of the government should be to bring them back to a fully representative council as soon as possible.
I will raise an issue in relation to that. Because the government is looking at extending this term of government for another year-and-a-half, how will that work if councils are sacked? For instance, if the Tiwi Islands Regional Council is dissolved and a new council is required, will that be for a four-year term or an 18-month term. It is the same with Litchfield. If the minister decides to scrap that council and start again, what are the mechanics for that to happen?
I support most of what is in this bill, but I have a fundamental problem with extending the life of the council for a year-and-a-half. I understand the reasoning but do not always agree with it. In all this a group is making a decision – the Electoral Commissioner, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory and politicians – which does not include the people. The people have elected a council for four years and it is a contract between the people and the council. I do not believe the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Electoral Commissioner or the government have the right to break that contract. There are circumstances where it can be moved slightly because of a cyclone, some other natural disaster or the clashing of a federal government election. This is not slightly; this is adding 35% to the term of a council. There is an important fundamental principle that the government should not break the contract between the people and the elected council.
There has been some confusion, and the minister highlighted that in our previous debate, as did the member for Fong Lim. I am not asking for this term to be shortened; I am asking for this term to remain the same and to shorten the next term. By keeping this term the same you tell the people that you support that contract of four years. If you decide the next term will be three-and-a-half years, people will make a contract to vote for that council for three-and-a-half years. That will be the contract and then you can get back to the four-year cycle. That is the problem with this. I do not disagree with many of the issues or amendments put forward, but if I support this bill I support something I feel is wrong. It is not democratic and that is the reason I cannot support this bill.
I support other sections of this bill and think they are good. I have concerns about the amendment extending the term to four years. Having a by-election every 18 months – that is one-third of a term. The original reason for having it at 12 months was to save local government having a by-election; you could appoint someone for that period. Now we are extending it. I am not sure if that is related to the new clause extending a council’s life for five-and-a-half-years, but I am reluctant to support that because you start to erode the democratic process by making appointments.
I know councils can decide to have a by-election and are not forced to make an appointment, but I am concerned because people see an easy way out of a difficult problem. The difficult problem is they cannot get people to stay on a council for four years. Is that a reason to change legislation, or should we educate people more about what a local government is about? If you put your hand up to be a member of local government you must make a serious decision and commitment to be a member of that local government. If they can get out so easily people will not take the commitment seriously.
By making the rules easier are we making local government weaker and destroying the ideals behind local government that many of us support? That is, grassroots democracy where people work for their community. You would hope people do it because they are committed and willing to work the full term. I am concerned about that.
I support councils running by-elections. I moved a motion in parliament last year and got support from the then minister for Local Government. The funny thing is, I do not think I have the support of the Electoral Commissioner. He is not overly happy with this, but councils should be able to run by-elections as they did before. If it is overseen by the Electoral Commissioner when he reviews all the elections occurring and saves councils money it is a good thing.
When this was debated I was advised of the costs of by-elections by some councils, and they were quite high. For a small council a considerable amount of money is needed to run a by-election, in some cases for a couple of hundred people. It seemed to be an extraordinary amount of money, so those changes are good. As with any changes, we will see as time goes on.
An interesting change allows municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only. Some years ago I was looking at Tasmanian local government, especially in relation to proportional voting, and we now have proportional voting in the Northern Territory for local government. At that time Tasmania was considering postal voting and now has it.
Postal voting is interesting. The minister’s speech mentions an increase in the number of people using postal voting. The second reading speech says:
- The amendments will make efficiencies, improve the administration of elections, increase voter participation ...
I have some figures from Tasmania on Australia-wide voting percentages. Interestingly, Tasmania does not have compulsory voting for local government elections, neither does Western Australia or South Australia. The House of Assembly Standing Committee on Community Development Inquiry into Local Government Elections shows in Tasmania, with postal voting only, the average state-wide participation rate is 54.31%.
In the Northern Territory, which has compulsory voting and attendance voting – we do not have postal voting – it is 49.8%.
There is not a lot of difference between those two. New South Wales has compulsory voting. Litchfield once had – perhaps it has gone – optional voting for non-residential ratepayers, which is important. People who pay rates but do not live in the electorate should have some say in their council. I am sure Litchfield Council, when I first started, had an option where people could write to the council and ask to vote. It was not automatic; you had to apply for it:
In New South Wales the average overall participation rate for attendance voting is 83.4%. That is very high for local government.
In Queensland, where they have compulsory postal voting and compulsory attendance voting, 79.6% was postal voting and 85% was attendance voting.
In Western Australia it is not compulsory. They only have postal voting, with a 33.4% participation rate. That is quite low.
South Australia, where it is not compulsory, has a participation rate of 32.9%.
In Western Australia it is not compulsory to vote. It is done by postal vote and there is a 33.4% participation rate, and in South Australia it is not compulsory to vote but you have to attend and the participation rate is 32.9%.
I would be wary about this increasing the number of people voting. I have other concerns about postal voting. I am not against the principle because in Tasmania it is a reasonably high percentage – a bit higher than the Northern Territory. Although it applies to municipalities, I am worried it will disenfranchise a group of people.
In my electorate I have two Aboriginal communities, three if you count Tree Point. One is at Knuckey Lagoon and the other at 15 Mile. The 15 Mile community is in the Palmerston area and Knuckey Lagoon is in Litchfield. How can those people cast a postal vote? At the moment they cannot unless they have a post office box. I am not sure how they get mail.
Before we go down this path we need to ensure that what might look like a good idea for the majority of people may disenfranchise a minority. Many people also move in and out. The Army is in my electorate and posting things to the Defence forces is extremely difficult, not that they take much notice of local government. If you want to get something to people in the Army and check the rolls you will see Sergeant John Smith, Robertson Barracks. It will not be delivered because it does not work that way.
The section on postal votes needs more work to make sure Aboriginal people in my area are not disenfranchised. At the moment they only have to walk up to the polling booth and put their card in. Filling in a postal vote might be more difficult …
Mrs Price: Get a bus and pick them up. Labor does that for town camp voters.
Mr WOOD: I am not going over history; I am raising constructive criticism. I am not against the principle of postal voting, but some issues need to be looked at.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
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
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present an electronic petition not conforming with standing orders from 423 petitioners relating to the laws to protect innocent people and their properties. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly Northern Territory, we, the people, are sick to death of the complete lack of accountability and lack of discipline shown to repeat offenders.
The residents of the Northern Territory have the right to feel safe within their homes and in the general community. Unfortunately, our current catch and release process isn’t working and we, the community, are calling on our elected members to take charge and create change. We want to see harsher penalties enforced on criminals who are involved in the theft of property/vehicles, especially repeat offenders!
We should not have to lock our keys in a safe to ensure our car is still in the carport the next day! It’s time for change!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Sanderson
Member for Sanderson
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Business, as he is unwell. Any questions for the minister are to be directed to the Treasurer.
Leave granted.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Circulation of Sessional Orders
Circulation of Sessional Orders
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that during the luncheon suspension the Speaker had placed on each member’s desk a copy of the latest sessional orders. These orders include changes to the Routine of Business as agreed to on 18 February 2015. The Speaker has also taken the opportunity to include the Speaker’s Determination DLA 05 of 2015 regarding media coverage of parliamentary proceedings.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly censures the Chief Minister for:
leading the most dysfunctional government in the Northern Territory’s history with fourteen reshuffles in two-and-a-half years
increasing the cost of living for Territory families and lying about the Power and Water tariff hikes
failing on land release for housing and ignoring consultation with affected residents
ignoring the crime wave across the Territory and failing to deliver the 120 extra police officers promised
presiding over horrendous job and program cuts across frontline services across our regions and remote communities
arrogantly refusing to seek a mandate from Territorians on public asset sales.
The Chief Minister has made the Northern Territory a laughing stock, leading the most dysfunctional, incompetent and arrogant government ever ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion should be circulated by now.
Madam SPEAKER: Can the motion be circulated ASAP, please?
Ms FYLES: In two-and-a-half years Territorians have been subjected to a circus. The CLP has demonstrated a chronic incapacity to govern the Territory to meet the standards Territorians expect. The current Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Katherine, in leading a coup against the Chief Minister, claimed he had the majority support and would lead a far more consultative government, and that discontent with the current government led to the challenge. He said he had been forced to seize the leadership because the party had lost confidence in Mr Giles and feared it was heading for a massive electoral defeat. On ABC radio, the member for Katherine said:
- I didn’t want, and they didn’t want to be put in the same position that Campbell Newman was put in ...
…
There are a lot of reasons why this has occurred. At the end of the day a vast number of my parliamentary colleagues simply lost confidence in the former chief minister ...
As time goes by we all get messages sent to us from our community members … and I think that’s resonated with our colleagues strongly enough to suggest that they thought it was time for a change in our leader.
…
The feedback that we’ve been getting for quite some time is … people of the Northern Territory aren’t happy with the direction of this government …
The member for Katherine also made specific reference to Chief Minister Adam Giles’ handling of the investigation into the former Police Commissioner as a reason for the leadership change. The member for Katherine said:
- I’ll be examining the inquiries that are being conducted at the moment and whether I believe there is sufficient breadth and depth in those inquiries ….
- I don’t believe that Willem Westra van Holthe has the capacity, capability, tenacity or the professionalism to be chief minister ...
Yet he appointed him his deputy in a crude deal to keep his job. How can Territorians have confidence that the two people holding the highest office in government, who have publicly stated their disdain for each other’s capacity, can now be working together effectively? It is simply not believable. Despite the member for Braitling being put on notice by his colleagues regarding their concern over his mismanagement of the investigation into the former Police Commissioner, the Chief Minister launched a blistering attack against senior police and management when speaking against the coup. He said:
- This is at a time when there are rumours being spread about myself to destabilise me, spreading them through the political circles, the chattering class, through upper echelons of police force, making allegations about me in relation to the police investigation ...
…
The judicial inquiry will get to the bottom of that ...
We have since seen the Chief Minister flip flop on these comments and whether he will provide the evidence he claimed to have to the inquiry.
Territorians no longer have confidence in anything the Chief Minister says. Perhaps the member for Araluen summed it up best when she said:
- There are a number of values I hold very dearly: honesty, integrity and respect, and those three things I don’t see in the chief minister of the NT ...
He lacks honesty, he lacks respect, and he lack integrity, and for those reasons I feel quite relieved to be stood down from cabinet today.
This is a parliamentary colleague speaking about you, Chief Minister. There is no confidence that this Chief Minister, arrogant Adam Giles, can create stability when he is at the heart of the dysfunction. Territorians see this clearly and have had enough of this circus of government members focused on themselves not the needs of Territorians.
The NT News ReachTEL poll conducted earlier this month across 18 seats indicated that almost half the Territorians polled wanted an early election. On the front page of our local paper was ‘Vote 1 Election Now’. Territorians are sick and tired of this circus. On the question of whether they would like to see an election held immediately, 48.5% said yes. The polling indicated that the CLP would face electoral wipeout in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. The NT News article of 4 March 2015 said:
- The numbers show a complete CLP wipe-out north of the Berrimah Line for the party. That would leave five current cabinet ministers without jobs …
In Alice Springs polling found support for the CLP had crashed, with just 42% two-party-preferred.
With just 32.7% of voters supporting the leadership of Adam Giles, he is polling below the Opposition Leader despite the millions in taxpayer dollars he spends on self-promotion. That is unprecedented so far out from an election. An additional $33m has gone to his department to spend on self-promotion and he still gets these polling figures.
Responding to the polling, the Chief Minister sought to shift the blame saying:
- It’s not just about me and changing my approach but working together as a team on a more consultative basis ...
However, since the coup the CLP member for Greatorex announced he would not contest the next election following rumours he would not gain CLP preselection. Other rumours that senior Tiwi Island residents have been approached to stand for the CLP in the seat of Arafura were confirmed in an ABC report where the chairman of the Tiwi Land Council, Gibson Farmer, said he was asked but was too busy.
The CLP member for Araluen stated on ABC radio yesterday that she would consider her options including running as an Independent should she not gain CLP preselection. About the leadership of the member for Braitling she said:
- I don’t know if Adam will remain the leader into the next term of government or opposition. My hunch is he will find himself doing something else before the next election … I am not confident he will take us to the next election.
That was the CLP member for Araluen yesterday afternoon on ABC radio. Extraordinary! A member of the CLP parliamentary wing has confirmed what Territorians are predicting: the Chief Minister is toxic and his days are truly numbered. How can Territorians have any confidence in the new consultative approach of this government when they cannot even consult with themselves?
The member for Goyder publically attacked the member for Port Darwin over land use. I quote from last Saturday’s NT News, ‘MP feels ‘jail’ is a done deal’:
- The CLP member for Goyder accused her colleague, Correctional Services Minister John Elferink, of deliberately misleading people over a proposed transitional facility for low security prisoners in Bees Creek.
In the report the member for Goyder said she yelled at Mr Elferink during a phone conversation about the proposed facility, and that there had been a total lack of community consultation about the proposed facility.
Even a member of the CLP parliamentary wing, a wider supporter of the Chief Minister, has no faith in the CLP’s capacity to consult with Territorians.
We know nine from the CLP parliamentary wing voted against the Chief Minister’s leadership. That was confirmed by the member for Araluen. Nine members continue to have concerns about the leadership of Adam Giles. Everyone is still trying to work out how nine beats five.
The ongoing infighting continues to distract the CLP from running government, and it is impacting on Territorians and the business community. We have seen 14 reshuffles since the CLP came to government. This is a musical chairs attitude to governance of the Territory and it is appalling.
Since 26 August 2012 the CLP has had two Chief Ministers plus one self-claimed Chief Minister, three Police ministers, five Deputy Chief Ministers, five Health ministers, six Treasurers, six Education ministers, six Housing ministers, six Business ministers and six Sport ministers. That is incredible. It is unprecedented in two-and-a-half years; no other government has come close to this.
The business community, the social sector, and the public service are all frustrated with the lack of continuity of ministers. That is a change every 60 days. If your child’s school teacher changed every 60 days you would be appalled, but Territorians, the business community and the public service face a new minister every 60 days.
Businesses wants to engage with government but have no confidence the minister they are speaking with today will be in the job tomorrow. This is unsettling for business confidence and not good for the Territory.
The Chamber of Commerce Executive Officer, representing the views of the business community, said about the CLP turmoil quote:
- It could be said that there’s a fair degree of scepticism around as to how this will play out in the long term.
This is a fair comment.
The public service is waiting for the next reshuffle. You have now created widespread disappointment in the public service by appointing Ron Kelly as Chief Executive of the mining department. Chief Minister, what message does this appointment and these reshuffles send to potential investors in the Territory? We have had 14 reshuffles in two-and-a-half years, dysfunction, infighting and turmoil which continued as late as yesterday afternoon. We have a leader more interested in himself than Territorians. Even the Chief Minister said there is no doubt the Country Liberals have been divided for many years on a range of areas, policy and personalities.
The Chief Minister sacked the elected Chief Minister twice, once in a coup for the top job and once from a position he created for the former member for Blain.
The Chief Minister stated incredulously he only heard about Mr Mills being fired through the media. Mr Mills publically stated he found it unbelievable the current Chief Minister did not know about or approve the termination. I quote Mr Mills from the NT News:
- Of course he knew (about it). It beggars belief that he would not know.
Under the CLP government we have seen record power price increases which hurt Territory families. The increased power tariffs of 30% for water and 40% for sewerage are appalling. People cannot afford to live here.
The current Chief Minister did not reduce the increases as he tried to publically claim, he simply delayed the timing. On 1 July this year the full effects of the price increases will have hit family budgets. Families around the Territory are struggling under the burden of the increases. The CLP claimed the rises would add about $2000 to the average family bill, yet for many Territory families it is unaffordable.
People have to cut back on other spending and are doing it tough just to have the most basic essential service. You only had to look at social media and talk to friends who received their post-Christmas power and water bills. People thought their meters were wrong, that is how much bills had increased, but it was the CLP government pushing power bills up. People are struggling to have the basics; it is appalling. Arrogant Adam Giles continues to tell us Darwin has the cheapest cost of living of all capital cities. He is so out of touch. Has he spoken to the community? It is appalling when you drop your children at childcare and the workers are crying because they cannot afford to pay the increased bills and are living from week to week.
Businesses say people are not spending like they used to. They still want to spend and might have to lay-by because they cannot afford things. These are people who can normally afford to buy something.
Territorians are concerned about the CLP’s plans for privatisation and the impact on future price increases. It is appalling and you are so arrogant you will not acknowledge it.
This government has been the worst ever for Territory frontline services, and it continues. You have presided over successive budget cuts resulting in real job losses. A total of 125 teachers and 60 support staff have gone from our schools since the CLP came to government. That is 185 fewer teachers and support staff in our schools helping our students. That means less individual attention for Territory children.
Education has been cut to the bone yet the government continues with global budgets. School councils have been forced to make decisions about the next cuts under global budgets. They have been forced to cut more teaching positions and there are fewer subject choices for students. Less individual attention is putting more pressure on teachers.
We saw the government backflip under community pressure, but this new funding announced to smooth over the global budget mess has not gone far enough and is falling far short of reversing the cuts. This is despite the promise from the CLP that no school would be worse off – such hollow words. Numerous schools are far worse off under this government’s Education budget and it is appalling. Schools in my community have lost teachers and support staff. The global budgets process has proven to be what our teachers predicted: funding cuts by stealth. It has been a fiasco.
The government rushed it and expected hard-working parents on school councils, as well as principals and teachers, to deal with the mess. The full impacts of global budgets are still being bedded down and we are almost at the end of Term 1, forcing the schools to start the year in chaos. How is this improving educational outcomes for Territory kids? We know of schools that need more teachers but cannot afford them.
Our health system is in crisis under this CLP government led by Adam Giles. It has cut $11m from the Health budget. For two years the CLP government shut down the 100 new beds at Royal Darwin Hospital’s medi-hotel, which was designed to free up hospital beds and provide a place for those needing care but not a hospital bed. It was a basic concept where people could be moved from acute beds but would still be close to the hospital and be cared for. This government arrogantly used it for the wrong purpose and claimed that had no impact on Royal Darwin Hospital. That is rubbish. Royal Darwin Hospital is in crisis and has bed block and triple bunking.
The emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital is one of the busiest in the country, yet our arrogant Chief Minister laughed at our ED nurses when they had the confidence to speak up about their working situation. The hard-working staff at Royal Darwin Hospital are under enormous pressure, day-in, day-out. This government has not supported them and has cut the Health budget. There has been no action on Palmerston hospital; the government has dropped the ball completely. The arrogant Chief Minister simply laughs at emergency department nurses. It is appalling. I hope you never have to go to ED.
The move to use the medi-hotel was short-sighted and risked the improvements we had seen in emergency department wait times following Labor investment.
Despite this you have not learnt the lessons from the medi-hotel debacle, closing Stuart Lodge in Alice Springs which provided accommodation and support for remote health patients. The government has delayed construction of Palmerston hospital. It has moved it to an un-serviced site and poured some bitumen. How many media stunts have you done with diggers? Territorians are wondering if that will be another broken promise.
This CLP government is led by a Chief Minister who laughed at nurses petitioning this House for more resources to do their job. Territorians have a fundamental right to healthcare but the Chief Minister laughed at the nurses. The Chief Minister has failed to stand up for Territorians against federal primary health program cuts that have seen job losses.
The CLP has distorted priorities. It shamelessly appoints CLP mates to plum positions and boosts the Chief Minister’s own media and marketing budget by $33m on self-promotion while cutting health and education funding. It is appalling!
Small businesses across the Territory are doing it tough. Successive funding cuts by the government to infrastructure spending are hurting small businesses. The government hides behind economic data riding high on the INPEX project, but fails to understand there are many segments of the business community doing it really tough. I know of small businesses that have closed as they cannot afford to continue – businesses that should be thriving in this climate. The CLP’s cuts to repairs and maintenance, and infrastructure have cost jobs. You are not listening to small businesses.
You failed to release land or consult on land release. The CLP government has failed to deliver any new greenfield land release that was not on Labor’s funded land release program. You have arrogantly failed to consult with Territorians about land use. Even your own member for Goyder has called the Darwin land use plan released by the CLP – I quote from her Facebook page – as ‘crappy’. She also raised concerns about the CLP’s plans for Holtze. The consultation process has been dismal.
You are not listening to Territorians. You have shown it time and time again with the sale of TIO, hospital funding, education cuts and land use.
The CLP issued a notice of intent which said:
- The establishment of urban areas to the north of the Stuart Highway will represent a significant alteration of land-use away from predominantly rural lifestyle community living. Existing residents may voluntarily move away from area.
Is that not the most appalling thing you have heard? It shows arrogance towards people who want to live on a small acreage and raise their families. They want space to tinker with toys. They want a rural lifestyle. It is appalling. So much for the new consultative approach from our Chief Minister! You are not listening to the community and members of your own government.
You are changing our city and the Top End forever. Once you open up land release and have suburban blocks there it is gone. Darwin was a planned city. We are lucky, we are like Canberra. It is a beautiful planned tropical city and we should have had tropical cities – Darwin, Palmerston, Weddell – around the harbour making it one of the most appealing places to live. Under your government, with no greenfield land release, we have an ad hoc approach. Your planning is failing Territorians now, threatening their lifestyle, and will fail Territorians in the future.
You failed to deliver the 120 extra police officers you promised and I know, firsthand, this is affecting our police. The Territory is in the grip of a crime wave, with motor vehicle theft and house break-ins up significantly. House break-ins are up 65% in Darwin and 57% in Palmerston. Motor vehicle theft is up 35% in Darwin and 53% in Palmerston. Also, 159 Palmerston businesses were broken into last year, which is double that of the previous year. In Alice Springs it is up 17%.
In Alice Springs there are again calls for curfews in response to social issues following the CLP government’s cuts to youth service funding. Meanwhile, the CLP government has placed highly-trained police, including TRG officers, outside liquor outlets to plug the gap left after removing the Banned Drinker Register.
The arrogance of the CLP and the Chief Minister is breathtaking. You ignore the concerns of frontline police which were raised by the Police Association about sustainability of the temporary beat location expansion. Instead, the Chief Minister arrogantly dismissed the association’s longstanding leader and president, Vince Kelly, who represents 1400 police officers. Even the Australian Hotels Association has questioned the effect of TBLs on police morale and sustainability of the policy.
In line with the usual accountability, or lack of we have seen under this CLP, we no longer have reporting on the number of police utilised for TBLs and the cost. Early assessments indicate the TBLs are costing far more than the BDR. This is despite TBLs not providing the same Territory-wide coverage we saw with the BDR. The BDR was a simple, effective tool. People had to show their licence to purchase alcohol. It was not insulting, as the Treasurer would have you believe. We now have 700 people on Alcohol Protection Orders but no one knows who they are, so bottle shop employees have to make a split-second decision. Do they upset the person by looking through photos or do they sell the alcohol? On top of that, we have highly-trained police officers who want to do policing not be security guards at bottle shops.
Your government has ignored the recommendation of the Senate inquiry into domestic violence to reinstate the BDR as a matter of urgency. I know you do not want to hear it from us and you are not listening to Territorians because you are so arrogant, but why not listen to the Senate inquiry that said the BDR should be reinstated as a matter of urgency to help deal with the domestic violence epidemic we have. No, you are so arrogant. You failed to deliver 120 extra police and failed to listen to the community.
Police officers are not fooled by the CLP’s claim that the federally-funded positions will meet that commitment. Those federally-funded positions were delivered by the Labor government, and there was an expectation that the funding agreement would continue for some time. The 120 were extra officers. Police members will wait to see if the CLP comes good in the budget.
You failed to seek a mandate from Territorians before selling TIO. You failed Territorians. The sneaky sale deal exposed the true arrogance and contempt of Adam Giles and his government. To introduce and pass the bill on urgency – Territorians were appalled. The Chief Minister sold a public asset without a mandate, against the wishes of Territorians and despite the overwhelming opposition from Territorians to the sale.
In a short period of time thousands of Territorians rallied outside parliament and signed petitions. They could not believe how arrogant it was to use urgency to sell TIO. The NT News poll reported that 90% of Territorians were opposed to the sale of TIO. Mix 104.9 recorded over 80% opposition. In two weeks 4300 signatures were collected. A snap telephone poll undertaken across the CLP seats of Katherine, Port Darwin, Fong Lim, Sanderson, Goyder, Daly and Greatorex recorded that 80% of people opposed the sale of TIO. Who is so arrogant? Four-thousand-five-hundred signatures were collected in two weeks and a telephone poll showed overwhelming opposition to the sale. You are so arrogant, Chief Minister, you rammed the sale through, ignored everyone, pressured your colleagues into a rushed sale trying to pork barrel your way, and you hope to pork barrel your way to the next election. Territorians have had enough. They are sick of your government and its arrogance.
Member for Katherine, what did he promise you to support that sale? CLP members opposite have collectively failed to stand up for Territorians on the sale of TIO. You allowed the Chief Minister to bully you. He is hell-bent on creating his own election strategy and you are going along with it. You need to stand up. Did you not see this polling? Are you not listening to people in your community? Territorians will pay the price of TIO being sold with higher insurance premiums and the risk they may not be able to get coverage, while former TIO workers worry about their jobs.
The sad reality is the Giles CLP government lacks the leadership, unity and competence to deliver the decent government Territorians expect, end of story. Territorians expected more from you. They gave you an opportunity only two-and-a-half years ago by saying you could lead this beautiful place, the Northern Territory. They voted you in and, since then, you have repaid them with arrogance and have not consulted or listened. You are muddling along under the leadership of Adam Giles and Territorians have had enough. Recent polling shows that, and as soon as you step out in the community they let you know. We have become the laughing stock of the nation. Last night on Q&A something came up about the Northern Territory and everyone on the panel broke into laughter asking, ‘Have they worked out who is leading them?’
Statehood was mentioned in the condolence motion for our former Prime Minister. Are you serious? You have no plans for statehood. Do you believe this laughing stock of a government could achieve statehood? That is one issue we should be discussing. You need to speak up, members opposite, as Territorians expect more of you. I would love the opportunity to be a minister and help Territorians, but you are more worried about yourselves.
Significant funding cuts from the federal government will affect our communities and frontline services across the Territory, and there is silence from that side of the House. Amity provides alcohol and substance abuse programs in Darwin, Palmerston and the Top End; it goes into town camps and works with retailers. There was a $480 000 funding cut, 23% of their funding, and there is silence from the government. You have not stood up for Territory organisations. The list goes on across Katherine, and our rural and remote areas will feel the full impact. These are vital frontline services that help young people and those who are disadvantaged.
The Territory has some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians, yet you sit idle while the federal government cuts $0.5bn from those services across Australia. Senator Nigel Scullion said no frontline services will be affected, but no one believes that. His language has changed from, ‘Absolutely no frontline services will be affected’ to ‘Hoping frontline services will not be affected’. Next we will hear, ‘Frontline services will be affected’.
This chaotic and dysfunctional government is so focused on itself and Adam Giles keeping his position that it allows nine members to vote against him but he still has the top job. Meanwhile, Territorians are suffering with Health and Education cuts, with the cost of living going through the roof. People have had enough and are packing up, saying they had a great time and it was a great place, and are leaving.
The Chief Minister’s extraordinary comments, leaked from the Alice Springs branch meeting, shed some light on his government being able to focus on delivering for Territorians. He referred to his colleagues as a bunch of idiots. This is the Chief Minister speaking about his colleagues and it is appalling. I do not care if it was in a private or public meeting, you do not say that unless you have the dysfunction visible in this government. Territorians have had enough. It is clear from talking to the community, reading social media and looking at the newspaper that people are sick of this government and want an early election. They gave you a chance but they have had enough.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the member’s speech demonstrates the lack of research that has gone into her debate. There have been no cuts to Health.
Ms Fyles: Eleven million dollars is gone.
Mr ELFERINK: There have been no cuts to Health. That is dishonest and a complete …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I listened in silence to the member’s rant for 20 minutes. I wonder if she could extend the same courtesy to me while I deal with her conduct in a rational and sober fashion.
She was fundamentally dishonest in a number of things she brought to this House. Her fixation with the Country Liberals does not pursue matters which are good for the people of the Northern Territory. For those listening, watching or sitting in the public gallery, you have just heard exactly the same speech, almost word for word, delivered one month ago by a member opposite; I think it was the same member. Clearly, in the last month she has done almost nothing to advance her cause.
The philosophy of what she is doing can be discovered in the repeated use of the word ‘arrogant’. She does that because if you use the word often enough, hopefully you can make it stick. This government has made tough decisions, but there was not a single utterance, word or syllable as to what Labor would do in government.
Let us take the Territory Insurance Office, which she referred to on a number of occasions. I wonder what a Labor government would have done if presented with the fact that the exposure of the Northern Territory as its own reinsurer could have obliterated it financially.
The former Labor government decided to take a risk with the Territory Insurance Office because it chose not to go down this path, despite having received exactly the same advice. It feared the electoral backlash that would come. Perhaps it will come, but electoral backlash is a risk you have to take. If the financial reality was that we as taxpayers had to underwrite an insurance company for destruction on the scale of Cyclone Tracy, we would cease to exist. Jurisdiction would have been taken from us.
Because I care enough about the people of the Northern Territory I am prepared to make that decision. That is not because I am afraid of an electoral backlash, but I am afraid of the Territory being exposed to a circumstance where the foundations of self-government would be threatened if we did not take tough decisions. That is a difficult thing to argue and not easy to explain when you juxtapose it with the screeching from the member opposite, spraying around the room all the things wrong in the world according to that member.
It is worth noting some facts in relation to the condition and position of the Northern Territory sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I will share some with the House. The Territory’s economy grew by 6.5% to $21.2bn in 2013-14. It was the highest growth rate of all jurisdictions and well above the national growth rate of 2.5%. Growth in the Territory’s gross state product was driven by increases in private investment, household consumption and net exports. Household consumption was a growth area, but the member opposite told this House that people had no money to spend. She is not telling the truth.
Private investment in the Northern Territory is currently at a record level of $11.8bn, nearly three times the level recorded in 2010-11. Compared to the previous quarter, the 2014 Sensis Business Index recorded that confidence levels of Territory small to medium enterprises in their business prospects for the next 12 months decreased to +46%. The statement from the member opposite that she has heard of businesses struggling may well be true, but they are the exception not the rule in a +46% jurisdiction. This was the highest net balance confidence level of all jurisdictions. Once again, it is easy for the member to have her spray around the room, but a quick look at the Sensis Business Index reveals it is not true.
The Territory’s SMEs recorded a net even balance regarding their attitude towards Territory government policies. In other jurisdictions the net balance ranged between -31% in South Australia to +6% in Queensland. We are just behind Queensland with a net even balance.
In 2014 the Territory retail trade turnover increased by 4.2% to $3.1bn. Retail trade increased to 5.3% nationally over the same period. Nationally, and in the Territory, people are spending more in retail. This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The trick of the Australian Labor Party is to hell with the facts, they will say anything they like, lie to Territorians and try to tell people this place is a basket case and tumbleweed is rolling down Mitchell Street. That is not right. It is a lie and it is fundamentality dishonest to do so to Territorians.
I imagine people listening to this broadcast, or people sitting in the bleachers, would have been impressed with the passionate tirade from the member opposite, but she must tell the truth and …
A member: She is.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. I am not making this up. This is from the Sensis Business Index, and this stuff is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. What we find …
Mr McCarthy: That is right. Thank heavens for Ichthys. Come to the regions, John.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection, ‘Thank heavens for Ichthys’. The shadow Treasurer is saying times are good. Why then is he allowing his shadow minister to lie to Territorians when times are good?
Mr McCarthy: Come to the regions. You get real.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the dishonesty …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCarthy: Come to the regions.
Mr ELFERINK: … that even in his own stupid, foolish, ill-considered interjection …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: … demonstrates that she is not telling the truth …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: … and that is what we have come to expect from this Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. Withdraw those comments. It might be a censure motion, but parliamentary behaviour must still be maintained.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw ...
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … but it goes to show the shadow Treasurer acknowledges, even if he is trying to claim credit for it, that times are a lot better than the shadow minister would …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49: addressing the Speaker. Instead of trying to intimidate the member for Barkly, could he do it properly.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. Direct your comments through the Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the shadow Treasurer has just demonstrated, by his own ill-considered interjection, that this member is misleading Territorians and trying, through her …
Mr McCarthy: All you have is words, John. I am talking about businesses.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, please cease interjecting across the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: … trying desperately …
Mr McCarthy: Ask Alice Springs.
__________________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Barkly
Suspension of Member
Member for Barkly
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, pursuant to Standing Order 240A I ask you to leave the Chamber for one hour.
__________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in 2014 the value of engineering work done in the Territory increased 106.2% to $5.8bn, the highest level on record. It is Australian Bureau of Statistics catalogue number 8755. Look it up.
Labour force figures: in the year January 2015 the Territory had the highest employment growth of all jurisdictions at 3.2%. Nationally employment grew by 1.1%. The year-on-year increase was driven by full-time employment up 5% to 109 478 persons. This was partly offset by a minor decline in part-time employment, which was down 4.2%. These are the people who, according to the member opposite, do not have any wealth. It would make sense that with more people in jobs the retail trade figures would make sense, and they do. More people are employed and more people are spending money.
I understand, and do not wish to diminish, that certain parts of the economy struggle and there are a number of reasons for that. One is because government may need to do more work in those areas, and another is because trends are changing. The number of people who buy books at bookstores is going down because the number of people buying online is increasing. It is the same with clothing, household products and appliances, and other things. There is a change in retail not only in the Northern Territory, but everywhere. The internet is, in many respects for many people, the new store.
Compared to January 2014 the Territory’s trend unemployment rate decreased 0.3 percentage points compared to January this year. Private sector residential construction work increased 19.9% to $724m in the year to September 2014. In trend terms, the number of residential building improvements in the Territory decreased 1.9% to 156% in December 2014. This was the second-largest decrease of all jurisdictions.
We understand there are ups and downs, and I am happy to talk about them. Let us do it with a sober tongue in our head and some temperance in our language. The member who delivered this to the House was intemperate and lacked sobriety in her language.
This government is extraordinarily proud of a number of achievements that fall outside the economic domain. These are our social policies, which make a difference to the people of the Northern Territory on a daily basis.
Indefinite detention of sex offenders who pose a high risk to the community is legislation we passed and these people were critical of. They wanted to make sure the rights of the sex offender somehow had supremacy over the rights of the community, and we heard them talking behind the scenes. However, when it came to saying that in parliament they were ambivalent and allowed the legislation to pass.
The people opposite were, once again, running the whispering campaign behind the scenes on mandatory sentencing for assaults on workers. That is the sacred place of employment, the place where people make the money to provide food and shelter for themselves as well as their dependents. They were concerned about the introduction of mandatory sentencing regimes. We were not because we introduced them to make sure workers who were assaulted in the workplace were protected and people who punched and assaulted workers in the workplace – the person behind the McDonald’s counter – would see those offenders sent to gaol for a minimum of three months. A number of people have now gone to gaol for doing exactly that, and will continue to go to gaol because we believe people should be allowed to go about their business.
I do not claim for one second that the Territory is crime free, but we have made substantial inroads in relation to property crime and crime against the person over the last few years.
Whilst other jurisdictions continue to struggle with one-punch legislation, we introduced it two years ago. Our property forfeiture legislation was protected by this government in the High Court of Australia. Members opposite joked that we would go to the High Court of Australia after declared drug traffickers. We made sure we went to the High Court and protected legislation which took the house of a drug trafficker away, and the members opposite laughed at the idea.
The Civil and Administrative Tribunal continues to work on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. The domestic violence reduction strategy is well ahead of its time. I note the federal government and COAG is finally elevating domestic violence to a COAG agenda item, and I expect big things. We are already there, and the Territory is proud to be working with Tasmania on, hopefully, introducing a system of recognition of interstate domestic violence orders across state boundaries.
We will introduce Daniel’s Law to enable Territorians to visit a public sex offender website so we, and parents, can find out who the child sex offenders are in our communities.
We are building new courthouse infrastructure. The courthouse in Alice Springs is long overdue for updating and construction has already started on the new Supreme Court in Alice Springs.
Methamphetamines: the government will set up a parliamentary committee to inform us on the presence of ice and how badly it affects the community. We release crime statistics monthly. The members opposite promised to do it quarterly, did for a short while, then did it annually ...
Mr Chandler: Do not mention the war.
Mr ELFERINK: Do not mention the war – precisely. We release them monthly because we are open and honest with Territorians.
Advance personal planning is another thing, along with hit and run legislation, bail legislation for domestic violence situations and unit title amendments. Youth boot camps continue to operate and be rolled out across the Northern Territory, and I will make some new announcements regarding that in the not-so-distant future. Sentenced to a Job continues to go from strength to strength. People in the Bees Creek area were concerned recently, but even then they said they believed what the Northern Territory government was doing in the Corrections environment was generally sound and sober policy. We are proud of that.
I will pause here to ask members on the back of that shortlist if this is a dysfunctional government. This government continues to produce results. Whilst the members opposite predictably say, ‘Yes, you are dysfunctional’, all they have to offer the people of the Northern Territory is a negative focus on the CLP. They have not learnt their lesson.
What the newspapers were saying, particularly in Darwin but also the Territory and other places, was they were sick of politicians fighting amongst themselves. What did we hear today? Did we hear a constructive way forward? Did we hear statements from the members opposite saying how we should make the Territory a better place? No. We heard dishonesty, misrepresentation of the facts and a focus on ‘us’. They are still talking about ‘us’. It costs about $7000 an hour to keep this building running when we sit as a parliament and these guys are still talking about ‘us’.
Beyond the front door of this House is the rest of the Northern Territory. That is where the people affected by the policies of government and our legislation live. However, most of that speech was targeted at this Chief Minister as a personality attack. That is the vision for the Northern Territory from the members opposite. It is nothing more than the politics of personality. They have nothing to offer the people of the Northern Territory other than snide contempt and the inability to climb out of the hole of self-interest to ask what we can do to make the Territory a better place for all Territorians.
The members opposite also play an interesting game. I alluded to how they go about their business earlier. So often they do not support legislation but do not really oppose it either. We commonly hear, ‘We will not oppose this legislation’. They do that because they want an each-way bet on the issues we raise.
When we have a legislative instrument – an example is Permanent Care Orders – we hear, ‘We won’t oppose this legislation but will ask some critical questions. We will then give a ringing endorsement to organisations like NAAJA and AMSANT, which have raised critical issues about this.’ They do not say no or back themselves. They do not back the belief in NAAJA’s or AMSANT’s correctness. They say, ‘AMSANT said this and we agree with them. AMSANT says Permanent Care Orders are bad legislation, as does NAAJA. They say this is rushed. You have to speak to people.’ This is despite the fact the idea was first mooted in 2011. Because they know it is good law they say they will not oppose it. Behind the scenes – I am getting this information now – they are whispering that this is another stolen generation. They will do the stirring behind the scenes, but do not have the courage, temerity or testicular fortitude to run their argument in this House.
This is the alternative government of the Northern Territory. These people say they know how to govern for the people of the Northern Territory but do not articulate anything. They misrepresent what people on this side of the House are doing and it is becoming frustrating.
I am proud to be a member of the Country Liberals government, proud to be a member of the Giles government, and I am damned proud of producing results in my various portfolio areas.
The former government – the member mentioned Palmerston hospital – paid to have a bunch of vehicles sitting idle on the block with a fence around them for a few months with a ‘Future Palmerston Hospital’ sign. It was to convince people there was equipment on that site, despite the fact that equipment barely turned a sod in the whole time it was parked there. They now claim a moral high ground on Palmerston hospital. Palmerston hospital will be built, and in the second quarter of next year people will see work commence on the site. That is something we, as a government, will deliver.
We are also seeing a pincer movement. I draw honourable members’ attention to the comments made by Senator Nova Peris. In her attack and attempt to diminish the Northern Territory government, but more to the point the member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, who has been in my ear about the future of Palmerston hospital, which will service both Palmerston and regional areas – in her attack to use the Senate to promote Luke Gosling, the Labor taxpayer-funded candidate for Solomon, Nova Peris said the Northern Territory had the worst hospital system in the country.
In Labor’s enthusiasm to play political games they insulted thousands of nurses, doctors and other allied health workers delivering services in our hospital systems across the Northern Territory. This was so much so that I had to write to the head of the Health department asking him to reassure all health workers that I continued to have full and utter confidence in their capacity to be part of one of the finest hospital systems in the Northern Territory.
Members opposite, in their enthusiasm to play politics, will create victims. That is what happens when they do foolhardy and reckless things. We saw it played out in the Senate with Senator Nova Peris, and we see it played out today with attacks on public servants and departments which deliver good services to the people of the Northern Territory. I find it frustrating beyond all words that in one month the member opposite has not updated her speech to give it greater currency.
The evidence of that is she is still calling for dissolution of this House, despite the fact the House dealt with the issue a month ago. She has not even whited out that section of her speech.
This government will not be supporting this ill-considered, dishonest, emotive, reckless, stupid and demeaning censure motion. We will not waste another $7000 of taxpayers’ money. As a consequence I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the Assembly censure the Chief Minister.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 12
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 116)
(Serial 116)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I continue my comments on the changes the government is proposing under the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill.
When we broke for lunch I was talking about postal voting. I asked whether people could be disenfranchised and if it would make more people vote. I raised that as constructive criticism or comment because they are areas the government needs to take into consideration.
The other issue is the amendment that allows municipal councils to choose whether to fill the office of the principal member by appointment or election. My understanding is there will have to be some changes. For instance, in the case of Litchfield with four wards, the mayor is elected by the people. If they decided to elect their mayor from within you need to have another ward or, theoretically, drop a ward, which would not be good in a council which only has five members. Obviously other changes will need to occur if councils with wards decide to elect their mayor or president. There are arguments for and against electing or appointing the mayor or president.
I do not know if people remember the documentary titled Rats in the Rank. It followed the lives of councillors in Leichhardt Council, Sydney. It dealt with the processes for a mayor to be appointed within the council. What muddied the waters is there are political parties in councils in New South Wales. In this council the mayor was a member of the Labor Party but had an agreement where, when he finished his one-year term, he would give it to another member of the party. They would work it so he would step down and someone else would be voted in. Of course, they had a majority on the council so the next person would have a one-year term as mayor. In other words, everyone wanted a term as mayor of that council. He decided he did not like that and did some manoeuvring, back-yard manipulating and eventually was re-elected.
What worries me is you could open up the position to not necessarily the best person, and when there are political affiliations there are ways to ensure a person from a particular party is the only one elected. Of course, sometimes you get factions within the party. Whilst it may not occur in the Northern Territory thankfully – we have few formal party affiliations in our councils except, unfortunately, the Greens have changed that to some extent …
Mr Giles: And Labor.
Mr WOOD: The only official party in local government is the Greens. I am disappointed about that and would prefer no party affiliations in local government. There should not be a party political policy to fix potholes because there is no need for that. Issues in local government should be dealt with on their merit not whether a political party has a policy in that direction.
Be that as it may, the issue of whether a mayor or president should be elected will be up to a particular council. If a council was deciding to change it may be worth a plebiscite amongst the community to find out what people think. If a council like Litchfield changes, even Palmerston – I am not sure if it would work in Darwin because there are three members per ward, but in Litchfield, where you have wards, if you decide to appoint the president from within you would probably need another ward and that would require redistribution in Litchfield. I am not against that, but I raise those as things that should be taken into consideration.
There is an expansion of postal voting and an early voting service to all voters. I gather from the briefing I had – I thank the minister – there will be less constraint on why people use the early voting service. Whilst I do not mind that, you start to wonder if there should be more restrictions on – I gave notice of this for General Business Day – electoral advertising and that type of thing when you allow a longer term of polling as a normal part of the voting service.
There is also a retargeting of absent voting services, and the member for Barkly mentioned that. I understand the Electoral Commissioner mentioned the number of ballot papers that have to be printed. At the briefing I raised the possibility of electronic voting. Obviously there are some issues in relation to that, but is it feasible for each polling booth to have a connection which allows people voting outside their electorate to vote through the Electoral Commission mobile site or whatever site they have – able to produce those ballot papers electronically? I understand that is not practical at the moment and there are other reasons why that cannot happen, but I raised that during the briefing.
There is also the change of time, which makes sense. Closing time for postal votes will be at 12 noon on the sixth day after polling day. It was explained no mail comes in after that normally so it makes sense and also saves people working late hours. The Electoral Commissioner will have the power to set polling hours on polling day for by-elections, a good idea. The Electoral Commissioner will talk to people within communities to assess the best hours for a by-election.
There is transfer of the Local Government Tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I note in Darwin City Council’s submission they did not agree with that although I am not sure why. Perhaps they felt the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal did not have the expertise the Local Government Tribunal had.
That will depend on whether the government, as I understand it, will pick particular people to be on the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal according to the matter it has to deal with. I imagine the government will put local government experts on the tribunal to deal with local government issues, and it would be interesting to see if that is what the minister thinks too.
It is also to streamline and align the rules for publishing election material to reduce costs and frequency of publication in newspapers and on council websites. I have no problem with that as long as people are still able to see what they need to. At times there is a lot of emphasis on electronic media, but it is amazing how the good old-fashioned newspaper still has an influence, even just a headline.
People still use newspapers. Not everyone uses social media; I am one who does not. It is not everybody’s cup of tea. I was at a meeting recently and the member for Goyder asked how many people were on Facebook. These people were my age, maybe a bit older, and 35% to 40% said they were.
Sometimes we must take into consideration that not everybody uses social media or is interested in social media. We have to account for all tastes, all ages and everyone’s ability to use social media.
In general the changes are reasonable. I have issues with extending the existing term for councillors by a year-and-a-half. I might have been satisfied if the government said councils conduct a plebiscite to see what voters think.
If a plebiscite was conducted and voters said, ‘We understand the reasons and believe they make sense’ – I understand where they are coming from so I am not knocking the reasons – I might have said that was fair enough. I feel people would accept that but it has not happened.
It is as if the voters have been ignored. I hear our bush councils feel they need more time. That is not in itself a reason to extend the period of a council. That is life. The council is elected for four years. If you are not up-to-date with what happened in the four years put your hand up for the next four. That is not a good reason at all.
Extending it because of the Wet Season is reasonable, but we could have persevered with that for one more term then bring it into line with a more sensible date. That is the way I feel it should go.
The member for Fong Lim raised amalgamation and spoke about Palmerston and Darwin. That issue has been up and down for many years. He sometimes throws the issue of Litchfield in. Regardless of whether I think amalgamating Palmerston and Darwin is a good thing, Litchfield is still a rural electorate. It is growing as a rural shire, but it is not the same as Darwin and Palmerston. Many people will not have a bar of being urban, which is why they are fighting the greater Darwin plan. They do not believe Litchfield should be turned into a suburb of Palmerston.
Amalgamation is an important issue and needs debating. How long has it been since this discussion has occurred? I was on Litchfield Council when it discussed amalgamation of Coomalie – adding Dundee, Cox Peninsula, Marrakai and Douglas Daly. This has gone on for a long time. I attended meetings at the Marrakai pub, went to Dundee at one stage and out to the Douglas Daly. I have heard all this before. No one has been brave enough to make a decision on it.
I believe you have two councils, one being Coomalie and expanding down to the Douglas Daly, and Litchfield expanding out to Dundee and …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Geography has to be taken into account when dealing with amalgamations. At some time the government will have to look at areas that do not have local government. The government has already presented the Darwin Rates Amendment Bill, which is designed to rate areas without any representation. If the government decides to go ahead there will be a big hue and cry because people will then be taxed without representation. The government needs to tread very carefully there as it is a controversial area.
A community member could say, ‘I don’t think it’s fair that people not far away from me do not pay rates yet they get the same services even though they might be minimal’. We should all be on a level playing field. The government needs to let us know if it plans to amalgamate councils or not because this has been going on for a long time.
Should Palmerston and Darwin be one council, or Coomalie, Litchfield and the unincorporated area be one, two or none is a discussion for another day.
I thank the minister for moving these local government amendments. I hope you appreciate where I am coming from. I cannot accept the length of the extension. I understand there are times when ours could clash with a federal government election, and most states allow some movement around it so local government elections do not clash. However, not one council has the power to extend a council for a year-and-a-half, which is far too much. I will leave it at that.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill and thank the minister for providing me with a briefing. I strongly support the changes it will make to the legislation surrounding local government elections.
I will talk about local government on the Tiwi Islands in my electorate. As a former councillor on the Tiwi Islands Regional Council I strongly support the role of local government. I was sad to see the council go into administration earlier this year. Some people have asked why a former councillor like me would support the minister’s decision to remove the council from its position. I supported it because the council was broken, and its relationship with the traditional owners through the Tiwi Land Council was broken. Over the last few years the relationship has reached the point where people are no longer talking to each other. Decisions in the best interests of the community are not being made because of this broken relationship between the land council and the regional council.
Decisions on roads upgrading, land tenure and community facilities were not being made. The residents and landowners were affected by this. One of the major points of concern is separation of responsibilities, and often if one organisation requires approval from the other I understand that our government has a policy of local authority.
This policy is to allow for greater representation of people across larger regional council areas. For example, in west Arnhem the needs of people in Maningrida are significantly different to those in Gunbalanya or Jabiru. Local government authorities in these areas are needed to help get ideas and concerns to regional councils.
On the Tiwi Islands, while needs vary from island to island and community to community, the issues are largely the same. Because of this I believe a regional authority should be set up on the Tiwi Islands.
This regional authority should be a combined authority that includes the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Islands Regional Council. This authority would be responsible for everything, ruling out the clashes between the regional council and the land council.
I believe the creation of this authority is a merger of function and resources, and simplifying the process would greatly benefit the Tiwi Islands and the people. I understand the former minister and the Chief Minister had discussions with local people around this idea of a regional authority. Creation of a regional authority on the Tiwi Islands would be the first in the country, and it would put traditional owners and community members on the same page. It would mean local government in their community.
I strongly support the amendments this bill will make to the legislation surrounding local government elections and commend it to the Chamber.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened to this debate with great interest. I thank the member for Barkly for his contribution as our spokesperson for local government. I listened with interest to the contribution from the member for Fong Lim, who has held the local government portfolio, and my interest is twofold as a bush member in ensuring the voices of people in the bush are heard. I also held this portfolio in our shadow Cabinet for a couple of years so I have an interest in it.
I am always interested to hear what the member for Nelson has to say in his contributions to local government. He is very passionate about local government issues, and a good deal of what he says is well-considered and well-consulted; he is often on the money. He often takes the opportunity during GBD days to raise local government issues.
I was interested in the contribution from the member for Arafura, who no doubt has had his speech prepared for him by the inner sanctions of the CLP. There is clearly an agenda there, flagging movement to a regional advisory authority. Knowing the Tiwi Islands Regional Council is under administration – I do not want to be too cynical or suspicious – I wonder if there is a bigger agenda afoot.
That model of local government was talked about when the CLP came into government; it was one of the first things they did. The member for Braitling was the Local Government minister then, after becoming Chief Minister after knifing the member for Blain in the back, then the member for Namatjira stepped into the role of Local Government minister. We must be up to Local Government minister number four or five. We lose count in this House.
The contribution from the member for Arafura was interesting. I wonder if he discussed it with the elected councillors who have stepped aside from their roles, including Mayor Lynette De Santis.
I believe we will hear a lot more about this issue. We will not roll out that model of local government. It was one option in the options paper the member for Braitling put out during community consultations around the Territory on what model of local government people wanted. They decided it was not the right time to go to a regional authority level so they implemented local authorities, which was the direction the former Labor government was going in the lead-up to the election.
We were reviewing local government in the reforms we brought in in 2008. Under consideration was formation of local authorities, perhaps under a different name, but recognising the contribution those people make by having a one-stop shop. Stakeholders, or anybody who wants to consult with the community, have a go-to group in the local authority. This recognises meeting fatigue in our communities and councils, and recognises the contribution people make by allowing them to be paid a sitting fee when they are meeting.
The Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill is all about balancing the administrative burden and the cost of elections with the important principle of maximising voter participation in the electoral process. This, as we all know, is a foundation of our system of government. Obviously the main purpose of this bill is to amend the Local Government Act, particularly with regard to local government electoral regulations, to improve the administration and reduce the costs of local government elections.
The bill will provide for the extension of local government terms to avoid three elections in the Northern Territory in 2016 across the three tiers of government, and will push local government elections out to August 2017, from which point forward they will be every four years. It is problematic for some stakeholders. The member for Nelson has made his position very clear. People have raised some concerns with me but I guess the government, in trying to relieve the pressure on voters and the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission, took this position. Mark my words, it was out of the question that the Legislative Assembly election would be pushed out by 18 months.
The prospect of five-and-a-half years under the CLP would have seen civil disobedience in the streets of the Territory. We would have seen rioting in the streets at the prospect of handing the CLP government an 18-month extension. The third tier of local government across our regional and municipal councils will have the longer terms.
It is a dilemma. It is not democratic and is problematic, but I appreciate the government is required to find a solution. I guess this is the most convenient one given, for reasons I have already stated, they cannot do it for the Legislative Assembly, and obviously the federal government election scheduled for late 2016 is well outside the government’s control.
The member for Barkly has a number of questions and will be taking them to committee stage. I believe this is the first bill the member for Stuart has dealt with as the Local Government minister. Local government is an important portfolio for government service delivery. We saw significant changes under the Labor government and the CLP has made further changes. These were not the sweeping changes they said they would make, and they have not been as successful as they said they would. The member for Barkly asked them where they were with the important work commenced under Labor regarding examining the financial sustainability of regional councils, or shires as they were at that time.
It is not clear where the government is at and when the next report will be available. However, the indicators are that the very politically-driven decision to establish West Daly Shire, and split the Victoria Daly Shire into two halves to satisfy the political electoral needs of the member for Daly, has proceeded. From everything we hear on this side of the House that split was financially difficult. I am sure the minister is aware of that, given that many of her constituents sit across the old Victoria Daly Shire, as well as their struggles since the new breakaway regional council has been legislated. No doubt estimates in June will provide a perfect opportunity to ask the minister all manner of questions on how that split is progressing.
The opposition is not opposing these amendments. We have issues with some, and the member for Barkly will take the minister into committee stage to further scrutinise the bill. I suspect the member for Nelson will have some questions as we go to that stage as he cannot quite help himself.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I get to the main part of my speech I wish to specifically address a couple of issues. The opposition member representing Local Government suggested there has been little consultation on this bill. The truth is quite the opposite. There has been over 12 months of continuous consultation. The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2012 elections was released at the end of December 2013.
In January 2014 there was a general call for submissions from the public or anyone else interested in issues raised in the report’s recommendations. Advertisements were placed in newspapers across the Territory. The matter was publicised and there was information on the department’s website. Electoral reform and ideas for change were discussed by councils and at stakeholder meetings such as the Local Government Administration and Legislation Advisory Committee.
A committee consisting of the Electoral Commissioner, the CEO of LGANT and the CEO of the department of Local Government was formed to assess submissions and agree on a recommended way forward. I am very grateful to that committee for its expertise and the way in which it approached the task. As far as legislative changes go, the bill today is the result of that committee’s work.
After that, departmental officers attended a meeting of each council across the Territory to explain the proposed changes and to receive council feedback. Councils were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Alice Springs and Darwin councils had something to say about extending the period during which an appointment may be made to fill a vacancy. What exactly did the councils say? Only Alice Springs and Darwin councils voiced issues on this matter. Alice Springs opposed the extension but Darwin did not, wanting it extended further. The City of Darwin submitted that the period during which a vacancy can be filled by appointment should run from March 2015. That is a lot more than 18 months; that is two years and five months.
Most councils want the six-month extension, one is against it, and one wants the extension to be nearly two years more. It is not difficult to see we have made the correct decision to go with the suggestions of the NTEC and the support of most councils.
I want to talk about Belyuen, and I thank the member for Nelson for raising the matter. I have become aware of the complexity of this matter since becoming minister for Local Government. I assure this House that I also have concerns about what the previous government allowed to happen. Belyuen was put under administration in 2007 and the previous government did nothing to extradite it from its predicament.
This government has not used any legislation to affect Belyuen. I have asked my department to provide me with an options paper in relation to the future of Belyuen. I have already ensured a committee is established consisting of representatives from Belyuen, Coomalie and Wagait to discuss common issues relating to these councils. When I receive the options paper from the department I will consider the best way forward. There will be consultation regarding options for the future and we will go from there.
I thank members who have contributed to this debate. I understand some of the progressive things being introduced are brand new for the Territory, but this bill shows we are moving with the times. Every change this bill makes is either at the request of the Electoral Commissioner or the councils.
I will run through some of the comments raised about the bill. First there is a change to the date of the next periodic general elections to 26 August 2017. I am aware of the member for Nelson’s argument that the election should be held in 2016, but that is not practical. The Electoral Commissioner, who is an expert in this field, has advised it is simply too much for the public and the administration to have too many elections in one year. To have elections for local government, the Legislative Assembly, the Commonwealth, as well as the national Census all in one year would cause electorate fatigue.
Some people do not appreciate the enormous amount of work and resources that go into the preparation and running of general elections. I am convinced this change of date is good for Territorians and for local government.
If current members do not wish to continue after their term, which will end in March 2016, they do not have to; they can resign. They can do so knowing the council does not have to go through the expense of a by-election to replace them.
The date from which a council can appoint to a vacancy rather than hold a by-election is 27 February 2016. It has been questioned whether extending the time during which a council may appoint someone to fill a vacancy to 18 months prior to the next general election as opposed to 12 months is stretching the balance between democracy and efficiency. This measure is in response to councils raising the issue that the frequency of casual vacancies resulting in by-elections has placed significant strain on the council’s resources.
Yes, I heard the suggestion that there could be a count back system so the person who came second in the ballot can replace the existing member. There are pros and cons to the various suggestions put forward. The person who came second may no longer be interested and may only have received a tiny number of votes.
At the end of the day, the expert committee which looked at the options came to the conclusion that a council should make the decision on how the vacancy is to be filled in the 18-month period before the next general election. It will depend on the circumstances. There is nothing preventing a council from using the count back method to fill a vacancy in the 18-month period.
There are also other ways, such as calling for expressions of interest. It would be an opportune time for the councils to encourage people who may not usually think of running for council to have a taste of it. For example, young people, Indigenous people or people with particular skills and knowledge which may benefit the council could be considered. The decision will be made by the democratically elected members in accordance with their policy.
The decision to allow councils to have the flexibility to conduct by-elections by themselves, engage an external electoral service provider, or use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has been a popular one debated and supported previously in this Assembly.
I thank people who have supported giving councils the opportunity. I know LGANT and the Electoral Commission will endeavour to ensure that councils have sound advice in relation to the running of by-elections. I am pleased that LGANT will organise manuals and guides for the councils.
The next change we have been debating is that municipal councils will now have the option of conducting by-elections by postal voting only. There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Councils believe this may increase voter participation. I know the member for Nelson is not sure. At the end of the day, municipal councils have been calling for this measure. It is already mandatory in Tasmania and South Australia, and optional in Victoria.
If other Australian councils are allowed mandatory postal voting and do it successfully, why should Territory councils be denied the opportunity to give it a go? Yes, it will be a new thing. I promise members that after the first mandatory postal by-election there will be a rigorous assessment of the system.
In drafting the legislation we have broadly followed the Victorian system, which is optional for council, as ours will be. We are not blind to the possible complications that may arise. Some have argued that mandatory postal voting may disenfranchise certain groups. On the other hand, it can be argued that it will make participation easier and more convenient.
The Electoral Commissioner has raised concerns about the accuracy of the roll for postal addresses. The option of mandatory postal voting will only be open to municipal councils. We will wait to see if they take up the option. I know the Electoral Commissioner intends to give councils sage advice about the risks they must carefully consider in deciding whether to have a postal only election.
The other matter raised concerning mandatory postal elections is if the candidate’s statement is allowed, at the discretion of the returning officer, to be mailed to voters. I say at the discretion of the returning officer because the final decision on whether a candidate’s statement will be allowed will rest with the returning officer.
A candidate’s statement must only include a statement of 150 words or less and a photograph of the candidate. There are strict time frames about the lodgement of candidate statements. The regulations require the candidate to declare the statement is true and correct, is not defamatory, does not contain misleading or deceptive material and that the candidate understands he or she is liable to prosecution if the statement contains a defamatory statement or misleading or deceptive material.
The regulations also require the returning officer to reject a candidate’s statement which contains offensive or obscene material. The returning officer is further permitted to reject a candidate’s statement if the returning officer is of the opinion that the statement may not meet the requirements of the regulations. These safeguards have been adopted from the Victorian model.
As I mentioned before, once the first mandatory postal vote by-election has been held we can properly assess the success or otherwise of the process.
I turn to the option that has opened up for municipal councils: to choose whether to fill the office of a principal member by appointment or election. This is not a new concept and is already available to the regional councils. Where municipal councils decide to take this step I have asked my department to ensure the resulting council has an appropriate number of members to facilitate good decision-making.
One municipal council I can think of is used to having four members and an elected mayor. If such a council decided not to have a properly elected mayor its numbers would decrease to four. In my opinion that is too small a number of council members to effectively govern a municipal council. The department would ask such a council to review its representation with a view to increasing the number of council members.
I turn to the expansion of postal voting and early voting services to all voters. This is known in electoral circles as ‘convenience voting’. It is something voters now expect, given this approach is already taken in Commonwealth elections. Convenience is definitely an encouragement for electoral participation. Being able to vote on days other than a specified polling day is necessary for shift workers, sportspeople, people with children and those who want to go fishing on the weekend, just to name a few.
The member for Nelson raised the question of advertising leading up to an election now that voting day might almost be considered voting fortnight. I understand the concerns and comments raised. It is not an argument about convenience voting, it is an argument about when advertising should cease for an election.
Electoral advertising is not covered by the legislation before the House today; it is covered by Commonwealth broadcasting legislation. I am advised that the federal Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will soon be releasing its report. I expect the report will make a recommendation in relation to the Commonwealth broadcasting legislation addressing new early voting practices.
I turn to the retargeting of absent voting services on polling day to designated polling places in regional centres. The member for Nelson has suggested it should not be difficult to provide full services at all polling stations, but he may be forgetting the difficulties that can be experienced in regional and remote areas.
The cost of printing and transporting 350 000 extra ballot papers in case of unexpected votes proved to be an unnecessary drain on resources during the last local government general election. The Electoral Commissioner has made it clear that the intention is people can still vote at any polling booth in their council area. The public will be advised of places in all areas where absent vote services will be offered. It might affect people from Darwin who find themselves in Alice Springs on polling day. Rather than being able to vote at any booth, advertisements will advise voters of which polling booths in Alice Springs have absentee voting available on polling day. It will still be convenient, but will also be a significant saving on costs and transport of ballot papers.
Again, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I thank the members of the opposition, and particularly the member for Nelson, who has obviously given considerable thought to the matters at hand. Let me assure you, I am keen to do the very best for local government in the Northern Territory.
The content of this bill has been put together after careful consideration by Territory experts. I give warm thanks to Mr Iain Loganathan, the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tony Tapsell, CEO of LGANT, and both Mr Allan McGill and Mr Mike Chiodo, who have presided over the department during the development of this legislation.
Implementation of the legislation will be monitored and assessed. We will continue to refine the local government electoral system in the Territory so we have the very best fit for our people.
I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, Part 1, clause 2 relating to the commencement – this bill allows for a staggered commencement of the amendments. Can you outline the reasons for a staggered commencement and what advice you have given LGANT regarding that staggering?
Mrs PRICE: Which amendment?
Mr McCARTHY: Part 1, clause 2 of the bill refers to commencement.
Mrs PRICE: Part 1, clause 2 says:
(1) Part 4, Division 3 commences on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to what you just provided to the House, can you outline your thoughts on staggering the commencement of the amendments and any negotiations with LGANT?
Mrs PRICE: The matter is before the tribunal. We cannot elaborate on that.
Mr McCARTHY: The amplification is not working well. I did not hear you.
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, there is a matter before the tribunal which will require a delay in the commencement. That is why there is a change of date in the commencement, but amendment of the bill will commence on a date fixed by the Administrator. There is a delay because there is something currently before the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Can the minister elaborate on what that matter is?
Mrs PRICE: It is confidential.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to Part 2, clause 4, provisions relating to the transfer of Local Government Tribunal matters to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, are there any matters of a technical nature where there may be a lack of expertise in the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal?
Mrs PRICE: Not that I am aware of.
Mr McCARTHY: Would you take advice on that and perhaps outline an answer to that question?
Mrs PRICE: There is nothing.
Mr McCARTHY: I will take the answer there is nothing back to the constituents. Are there any matters of a technical nature where there may be a lack of expertise in the new tribunal?
Mrs PRICE: That is the same question you asked previously. I have confidence in the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Let me put it this way, minister, did you receive any comments or concerns from the local government sector about a loss of expertise?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! It is quite clear the member is being belligerent in his questioning. Labor has been obstructionist in relation to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, a policy we put in place to remove red tape, cut regulation and make appeals easier in the Northern Territory. There have been hundreds of appellant tribunals in the Northern Territory. NTCAT is one body that seeks to provide a seamless process.
In regard to removing the tribunal to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal – NTCAT as we call it – this is just another process to remove red tape and make things easier. The member for Barkly does not like it, neither does Labor. Quite clearly, they want to attack members of the tribunal, which is what they are doing today. A question has been asked three times in a row. I ask that the minister be given the opportunity to get through the bill rather than have these personal attacks.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I ask that you keep the questions relevant to the committee stage of the bill and not be too repetitive.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to the Chief Minister leading the committee stage amendments, we are not into cheap shots; we are into investigating the nature and complexity of the bill. A major change from a local government sector to the Administrative and Civil Tribunal is worth questioning and worth answers. Your reference to ‘belligerent’ after a couple of questions in committee stage – I can remember being a minister in government and having four hours of prosecution by CLP members ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! Is this a statement or Question Time?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, please get to the question.
Mr McCARTHY: What is the process for confidentiality in relation to the tribunal? Is it commercial-in-confidence?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is just a change from the Local Government Tribunal to the new tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: I will move to the next section of the bill, minister, if you have completed your answers.
Clause 8 – it was interesting to hear the member for Fong Lim’s contribution where he reinforced the extensive consultation which took place with the municipal councils. What consultation took place with municipal councils regarding the potential change from a popularly-elected presiding officer, mayor or president, to self-selection by the council?
Mrs PRICE: Consultation took place over 12 months. I made it clear in my speech there had been numerous consultations with councillors and councils during that 12 months.
Mr McCARTHY: That gives us a time frame to work from. Can you be more specific about municipal councils and perhaps provide some evidence about the views of each of the municipals throughout the Northern Territory?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, if you want to know that I suggest you ask the councillors because we are here to talk about the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I was hoping you would be able to provide some information about the consultation process. You have provided a time frame; the government consulted for 12 months. Could you provide any further information about each of those municipals?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, as there are no amendments before the committee the policy parameters of this bill were set in the second reading speech. You are limited to asking questions on each clause of the bill and what it might mean.
If you want an explanation regarding each clause you can ask questions, but you cannot ask questions relating to the policy parameters of the bill. Please keep to the parameters and the structure of this committee stage.
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly, Mr Chair. Minister, clause 10 allows for decisions of a council or local authority ...
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned in your summing up a member being appointed or elected to the office. You said if a council does not have enough councillors, like Litchfield – I think that is the one you are referring to – you would need more councillors.
In the case of Litchfield you would need more wards. Is that not what we are talking about? If you have a new ward you still have five councillors. I hope that makes sense ...
Mr Giles: Not to me.
Mr WOOD: Litchfield has four wards but five people are elected. If the council decides to appoint a mayor it does not need more councillors, it needs an extra ward.
Mrs PRICE: Member for Nelson, we would have to consult with the council in regard to that.
Mr WOOD: I was trying to clarify what you said before.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, clause 10 allows for decisions of a council or local authority to be made void consequent to review by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Are there any council decisions or classes of decisions not subject to review and potentially being made void by a tribunal decision?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is just a change of the tribunal.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, you may not have heard that question correctly. Are there any council decisions or classes of decisions not subject to review?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Chair! These are the questions you ask in a briefing. If you want clarity around a component of a clause seeking amendment fair enough, but just asking questions you did not ask at a briefing shows the depth of the briefing you took. These things could have been asked at the briefing and you could have greater clarity. Technical experts would have been on hand to assist you with answers as well.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, speaking to the point of order, this is exactly what the committee stage is about. Yes, members have the opportunity during briefings, but often you may have had further briefings with other stakeholders. This is what the committee stage is for and it is quite within order. Clearly the Chief Minister is trying to protect his minister.
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair. I have been in this parliament for a long time and I remember this argument. Briefings are fine, but you do not have to attend a briefing. You can ask the same questions at this important stage. Briefings are good, but we should not find excuses to truncate the committee stage because someone did not attend a briefing.
Mr CHAIR: Okay.
Mr GILES: Member for Nelson, at briefings you often ask for a lot of information and do a lot of research. That is appreciated and respected. The member for Barkly asked a few questions and now comes in here blind and asks for this detail. For the smooth running of parliament and to get good debate on issues rather than trying to create a show – this is not the right way to go. I take your point this is what it is about, but there is a preparation process you generally follow, and have done on this bill, and I encourage the opposition to do the same.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Chair!
Mr CHAIR: Let us not discuss the virtues of the committee stage and what it does and does not mean. While members should make themselves available for briefings as much as they possibly can, it is not incumbent on them to do so. The committee stage is so members can scrutinise government legislation, and that is precisely what we are doing.
I ask you, member for Barkly, to keep it to the context of the bill. As I said, the function of this committee is to consider the bill as the policy parameters have been set already. If you can please keep it within that context and that structure, by all means continue.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I have thanked the members of the public service for their briefing. I attended an extensive briefing and take offence to the Chief Minister, once again, being consistently careless with the truth and trying to fast-track legislation through this House in complete denial of democracy and normal parliamentary protocols and conventions.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, again, can we please keep this to scrutiny of the legislation, clause by clause if you like. It is not an opportunity to debate the policy parameters or the intention of the government with the bill. Can you please keep it, clause by clause if you like, but as I say …
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I have a question on clause 10 and you have technical experts sitting in the box to your left. You might want to ignore the Chief Minister to your right, who is certainly not doing anything for parliamentary processes and convention.
What obligation is the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal under to advise and explain to council a tribunal action that may lead to a council decision becoming void?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, I know you have been in the game longer than me and have had the opportunity to get your head around local government, housing and all the other portfolios. Both you and the member for Nelson had briefings as well. If you give me some slack I will answer your questions.
Ms Fyles: You are a minister of the Crown.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Mrs PRICE: I know I am a minister, but I have been in the job for just three weeks.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, from the briefing and subsequent consultation with stakeholders and constituents, what obligation is the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal under to advise and explain to council a tribunal action that may lead to the council decision becoming void? It is a very important question in the process of the amendments.
Mr CHAIR: The member for Port Darwin on a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not on a point of order, but I can assist the House. The question the shadow minister is asking relates to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which has its own discretionary powers and functions. If the shadow minister was interested in this subject he should have raised questions about how things were done when we passed the NTCAT legislation.
The discretionary powers to which you are referring have nothing to do with the legislative instrument before the House. The fact the shadow minister is unaware of this demonstrates how thunderously blind and inept he is in his role.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, what clause are you speaking to?
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 10.
Mr CHAIR: Can you keep your questions contained to clause 10 and we will continue. Do you have any more questions?
Mr McCARTHY: I believe I have still not received an answer. The committee stage is the perfect opportunity for a discussion. Do not worry about how long you have been in the job; we should have the conversation. The two distracting you need to step out of this so we can have the conversation.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, what is the question?
Mr McCARTHY: The next question is about clause 13. New section 85(2) allows for the Electoral Commissioner to change the date of a periodic general election for local government if it clashes with Legislative Assembly or Commonwealth elections. The new section allows for the date to change by two months to create a situation where local government elections could be conducted in the same year as other elections, is that correct?
Mrs PRICE: That is highly unlikely because there are provisions to avoid the clash.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it possible that could happen in the same year?
Mrs PRICE: Not with the Territory election. The federal election is where we thought it would clash.
Mr McCARTHY: I am not sure of that answer; the question was around the capacity of this amendment. Could it happen in the same year?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, the minister has answered the question and I am satisfied with the answer.
Mr McCARTHY: What was the answer?
Mr CHAIR: If you are not satisfied that is a matter for you.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I was asking politely. I did not hear the answer. If you did, can you …
Mr CHAIR: No, I will not repeat the answer. Minister, will you please repeat the answer one final time for the member for Barkly before I consider this to be petulance. We will then move on.
Mrs PRICE: It had to be provisioned. It is highly unlikely.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 14 allows for a council to appoint a returning officer for by-elections rather than the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner. What are the minimum qualifications for a council-appointed returning officer?
Mrs PRICE: It is up to the council.
Mr McCARTHY: I am sorry, if you could lean into the microphone that might help me
Mr CHAIR: Are you seriously having trouble hearing? Minister, would you please speak up for the member for Barkly?
Mrs PRICE: It is up to the council.
Mr McCARTHY: What qualifications would be necessary to become a returning officer?
Mrs PRICE: It is basically up to the council.
Mr WOOD: Mandatory postal vote elections are only for by-elections, is that correct? Why are they not allowed for a full municipal election? If you have that for a municipal by-election, why is it not allowed for a full election?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Nelson, it has not been tested before so this is all new.
Mr WOOD: Okay, that is fine.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 18 relates to regulatory requirements for a returning officer relating to elections. What are the key elements of those regulatory requirements and what training will be available to council-appointed returning officers?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, LGANT and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission are producing manuals. Does that answer your question?
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, that answers my question. Regarding clauses 20 and 21, what process will have to be followed by council-appointed returning officers in relation to disputed returns?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is exactly the same process councils go through.
Mr McCARTHY: Am I correct in assuming that LGANT is writing the manuals that will decide the process?
Mrs PRICE: Yes, at the moment.
Mr McCARTHY: This legislation is passing through the House without those protocols in place?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it has not been assented to yet.
Mr McCARTHY: Have you a time frame for when they will be produced, minister?
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I seek clarification. My understanding is a Court of Disputed Returns operates under the Electoral Act and will continue to operate in exactly the same way. If the member for Barkly would like to know more about how the Court of Disputed Returns works I am happy to provide him with a briefing as it falls under a different purview.
Mr McCARTHY: I thank the Chief Minister for his offer. I understand the current protocols are in draft form and are to be written and completed at some stage. Is that correct, minister?
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, there is no change; they are already in place.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, the minister has sufficiently answered your questions. Please move on.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 45 …
Mr WOOD: Hang on. Clause 41 – I want to make sure we are in the right area of clause 41 which is about Regulations 10A and 10B inserted. Is that correct?
Mr CHAIR: Yes, we are.
Mr WOOD: Regulation 10A is Lodgement of candidate statement. I refer to Regulation 10A(5)(b). This covers someone including a statement of 150 words or less, plus a photograph, with the mandatory postal vote. Regulation 10A(5)(b) states that the candidate statement should not contain a defamatory statement. What is regarded as defamatory? Are there any guidelines to what a person cannot put in their statement of 150 words?
Mr GILES: What was it?
Mr WOOD: It is clause 41 and refers to Regulation 10A and 10B to be inserted after Regulation 10.
Mr GILES: I cannot answer this definitively for you member for Nelson, but my understanding is it is a matter of law what is defamatory and what is not. As to any parameters around that, I would not mind some advice as well.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I was in the lobby listening to this statement. I presume this is in reference to ‘defamatory’?
It captures the principles that have long been held in Australia about politicians. The seminal case on this matter, if memory serves me, is Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an Australian court case arising out of a Four Corners program on former New Zealand Prime Minister Lange.
Basically it establishes that the threshold for politicians being able to defame a politician has to, by necessity of our democratic system, be a much higher threshold. That is, it is much more difficult to defame a politician than it is a citizen. The reason we create these instruments and have this common law on the books is to reach that threshold not only do you have to be wrong, but you have to knowingly be wrong before you can defame a politician.
The essence of that means people are freer to say what they like about politicians in the interests of public information and public scrutiny. Therefore it does not end up in a situation similar to that in Malaysia a few years ago, where if somebody said something critical about a politician all of a sudden they were in the courtroom having to answer a defamatory comment.
If somebody calls the member for Port Darwin a liar on a particular issue, it may be defamatory in citizen street but not in the political domain. That is the way we protect the broad scope of freedom of speech for people seeking elected office. I hope that assists with the overall approach taken.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General. Any further questions, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: I understand if is defamatory you can still be prosecuted. I move to Regulation 10A(7) which says:
- The returning officer must reject a candidate statement if the returning officer is of the opinion that one or more of the following applies:
I go to (b):
- the candidate statement contains offensive or obscene material.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I can answer that.
Mr CHAIR: Minister, defer to the Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: You will find that language – section 47 of the Summary Offences Act deals with things like offensive and objectionable words. Offensive or objectionable is not defined in the Summary Offences Act, but there is a body of case law which will determine what is offensive and objectionable. Even that can change over time. The ‘n’ word, which was used in common parlance 30 or 40 years ago in relation to Aboriginal people, was considered somewhat offensive. Nowadays it is considered extremely offensive.
Generally speaking you will find it refers to things you would reasonably expect to be offensive. The test applied, if you are using the test the courts do, is of the reasonable or ordinary person similarly circumstanced. The ‘f’ word, the ‘c’ word and those things are automatically offensive material. Using the recent Toyota ad, ‘bugger’ was measured by advertising standards as to whether it was too offensive in an ad or not.
Authorities looking at these things in advertising will be guided by the same things the courts are. You run into this subjective area of the common man test or the reasonable person similarly circumstanced. If you tried to define what offensive was in a bill like this you would end up with a piece of paper so thick dealing with the definition of what is offensive or objectionable. Of course, it is appellable to NTCAT, a court-like body anyhow.
Mr WOOD: What concerns me is the returning officer will make a ruling not NTCAT. In fact, you can appeal and he can make another ruling and after that it is too bad. I am not necessarily talking about bad language but someone saying, ‘Vote for me because I don’t like left-handers. Left-handers are stupid and there is no way you should vote for left-handers. They could be Independents if you are not careful.’ Although I am making fun of that, what would be regarded as offensive in someone standing for election and saying, ‘Vote for me not that person’.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us use that example. Some left-handers would be offended by that. Would the ordinary person, similarly circumstanced, be offended by it? That is the test the courts are asked to apply every day. Somebody has to ultimately make a ruling. That ruling can be made by the returning officer, or alternatively, it is appellable to the NTCAT. There is an appellant body and that is where it stops. That is how a court system works as well. In truth, you will find that a person asked to read offensive material will have to look at obscene language and those types of things. Mere criticism, or even the statement of a policy position which may be considered offensive – ‘I am a Nazi, I don’t like Jewish people’ – without going into vilification legislation – is part of your core policy of ‘I don’t like left-handers’, you have to express that. It is unlikely that would be found offensive.
What you would find offensive is the use of expletives and the use of very suggestive phraseology which brings offence to an ordinary person similarly circumstanced. The case law on that is volumes thick.
Mr CHAIR: Thank you, Attorney-General.
Mr WOOD: We have this debate in the federal parliament but the issue is more than offensive words. It could be racist, sexist or religious; it could be a range of things. Is there guidance for the returning officer who has to make a ruling on whether something is offensive? This could get into a tricky area if there is no guidance. Someone could say, ‘That’s a load of rubbish, that’s not offensive at all’. The returning officer has to make a ruling and I wonder if there should be some guidelines for the returning officer.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I will allow one further question.
Mr ELFERINK: I suggest the guidelines exist in the case law and are voluminous on these issues. The rulings and guidelines are there in the common law and are rich sources to be tapped into and mined for information as to what may be considered offensive or otherwise.
Mr CHAIR: That has satisfactorily answered the question.
Are there any further questions?
Mr McCARTHY: A lead off that question while we have the CLP legal counsel here, will that voluminous litigation be written into the LGANT handbook around protocols for returning officers?
Mr ELFERINK: That is what I would expect the Labor Party to do because they are control freaks. If you open the case law you are guided by it. You are trying to describe a word and say it is not defined. So many words are not defined in the statute book, partly because if you go beyond the statute book to what the courts have to do to interpret what a particular word means – if it is not defined in the definition section of the statute itself they go for the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word. You will find there are many cases which touch on the offensive nature of particular words.
You do not have to write them into the LGANT rules. All you have to do is, as a matter of interpretation, turn your mind to these cases and they will guide you as to whether something is offensive or not. That is not rocket science, and anybody who interprets legislation for a living would come to that conclusion very quickly.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 45 relates to designation of polling places where an absentee vote can be taken. What are the minimum requirements in relation to absentee voting in council polling booths, and what legislative or regulative guarantees exist in relation to access for absentee voting within a local government area? In my contribution to debate, I use the example of the Barkly Regional Council.
Mrs PRICE: Member for Barkly, it is a matter for the council and the returning officer.
Mr McCARTHY: Clause 78 relates to the amendment to Schedule 1. This question relates to the amalgamation of ballot papers with the same value during the exclusion of a candidate in a single member vacancy count. The Electoral Commissioner recommended in his 2012 election report that the government provides the Electoral Commissioner with a discretion in regard to any decision to amalgamate votes in single member vacancy count. The amendment before us infers that this change is mandatory and not at the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner. I quote from page 28 of the explanatory statement:
- … candidate’s votes and ballot papers must be transferred ...
Is that the case? If so, why did you decide not to follow the Electoral Commissioner’s advice to make that a discretionary power?
Mrs PRICE: It makes no difference to the counting of votes.
Mr McCARTHY: Is it semantically wrong in the explanatory statement?
Mrs PRICE: No, it is not wrong.
Mr McCARTHY: We read that as meaning the ballot papers must be transferred. Why did you decide not to follow the Electoral Commissioner’s advice?
Mrs PRICE: The Electoral Commissioner supports it and has approved it.
Mr McCARTHY: It is an interesting response, minister. What are the benefits for voters of that change?
Mrs PRICE: It is more efficient, I have been told, for counting.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister, and also to your advisers. Welcome to the job as a minister of the Crown. This is on the public record, and I can take the information you have supplied to the constituency. Thank you for the process. I look forward to the passage of this legislation through the House. As I said, the opposition does not oppose this legislation but had some important questions in relation to it.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Water Advisory Committees
Water Advisory Committees
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, today I update the House on a number of things, including the establishment of the Northern Territory’s water advisory committees.
The Territory’s future relies on the wise use of our land and water resources to ensure sound economic development and general wellbeing for all Territorians. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring that development using our natural resources is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy. The most critical natural resource for our economy is water.
This government’s approach to the management of our water resources is based on four central components:
(1) a sound legislative base
(2) an overarching water policy for the Territory
(3) an appropriate water allocation and water licensing framework
(4) scientific monitoring and research to provide the evidence base for adaptive water management.
This approach embraces the government’s Framing the Future vision of establishing a prosperous economy and achieving a balanced environment.
Today I refer to the development of an overarching water policy for the Territory, specifically the crucial role water advisory committees play in determining the safe, sound and sensible use of water. My Department of Land Resource Management is drafting the Northern Territory water policy which will provide a framework for water management in the Territory and ensure we are aligned with national best practice in this regard.
As I have informed this House previously, supporting development of the NT water policy is the operation of community advisory bodies that provide independent advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets. This government values and recognises the importance of community involvement in decision-making regarding use of our water.
To this end I have established two distinct types of advisory committees. The first is the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee, or NTCAC, which was formed last year to provide advice directly to me on strategic water policy issues. The NT Catchments Advisory Committee is a strategic water policy advisory committee whose members have extensive experience in environmental science, water resource management and community engagement. The NTCAC members have knowledge on a diverse range of water resource issues which is essential for strategic water policy development.
The establishment of NTCAC has enabled independent input into water policy development as well as providing the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. To date, this committee has held four meetings and has heard presentations on issues as diverse as Darwin’s future water supply options, northern development and the Commonwealth white paper, water quality in Darwin Harbour, water allocation planning and the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. I have attended several of the Northern Territory CAC meetings, and the discussion and outcomes from these meetings are important in providing a broad prospective of water issues directly to my office.
The Northern Territory CAC will now be taking an active role in supporting our water policy development by engaging directly with stakeholder groups on water issues Territory wide. Northern Territory CAC will be responsible for developing a plan to promote water stewardship and empower stakeholders in catchment protection, water conservation, water efficiency strategies and solutions to water issues.
The other type of advisory committee I have established are community-based water advisory committees which focus on issues within a single water control district or catchment. 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 committees are established by me 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. These committees ensure plans and policies are drafted clearly, and that regulatory arrangements are easy to understand and implement by licence holders.
The Katherine Water Advisory Committee has already held three meetings this year, and is well under way with work on the five-year review of the Katherine Tindall Limestone Aquifer Water Allocation Plan. The perspective of licence holders and the community on the operation of the plan will help identify any changes needed to improve its operation over the next five years. This review is expected to be completed in time for reporting to participants at the water forum in Katherine on 15 May this year.
Revision of the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan by my Department of Land Resource Management has been completed. This plan addresses how the public water supply for Alice Springs can be managed into the future, and includes provision of sensible allocations for future industry and agricultural needs. It also includes a detailed analysis of the future water supply scenarios for water management in Alice Springs.
A meeting of the Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee has been convened for 26 March 2015 to enable my department to fully brief members on these revisions. A second meeting is scheduled for 16 April 2015 to enable their feedback to be included in the final report that will be prepared for my consideration.
Development of the scientific modelling that forms the foundation of new water allocations plans is time consuming. In order to ensure committee members can be properly briefed, meetings are progressively convened as this work is completed.
Work on redrafting the Mataranka and Oolloo Water Allocation Plans has also commenced, and the revised plans will be presented later this year to the respective committees for community feedback. Progression of the draft Berry Springs Water Allocation Plan was postponed to allow additional information on spring flows to be gathered during 2014. This ensured the underpinning modelling was based on the very best information available. 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 process 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 longstanding interest in the Howard East Aquifer and welcome his commitment to participate in the planning process.
This government is committed to ongoing community input into water resource management, and the annual water forum in Katherine is a practical demonstration of this commitment. The water forum allows the community, and in particular licence holders, to be briefed on water resource management and provides a mechanism for stakeholder feedback directly to my Department of Land Resource Management.
While water advisory committees have a role to play in water resource planning they should not be the only vehicle for community participation. In May we will release our discussion paper called ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’.
The Country Liberals government is committed to wide-ranging consultation with Territorians about sensible and contemporary water policies, long-term strategies and legislative reform, which are essential for the growth of the Territory economy and the sustainable use of our most precious resource.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in September 2012 there have been 130 water extraction licences for 178 003 ML per year processed across the Territory. This includes a mix of surface water licences and ground water licences. The purpose of these water extraction licences include horticulture, agriculture, industry, tourism, forestry, aquaculture and public water supply.
I have good news which seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the Territory and certainly in the media. I am not surprised by this, but will come back to that in a moment. Pleasingly, I can report that a number of water extraction licences have now been issued to Indigenous landholders during the last few months, mostly in the Mataranka and Katherine regions ...
Mr Elferink: Is that a 100% preservation policy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is reserved for them under their licence.
These four extraction licences were issued on 14 January 2015 and granted to TopEndfarm acting for the Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust, the Mangarrayi Aboriginal Land Trust and the Wubalawun Aboriginal Land Trust. Each licence was for 1650 ML, a total of some 6600 ML. That is a fantastic outcome for Indigenous people in that region. This is a watershed moment, especially after the controversy around some water allocations in recent years and the debate about the strategic Indigenous reserve.
Firstly, let us put these water licences into context. They jointly represent about 6600 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. It will allow for the development of four separate areas on Indigenous lands for four separate enterprises. Guess what, it was all done without the need for a strategic Indigenous reserve.
Some might remember comments I made over the past few years about this topic which have rung true. Having a strategic Indigenous reserve was detrimental to the timely development of economic opportunities for Aboriginal people. Moreover, the stated position of this government of not having a strategic Indigenous reserve has done exactly what I wanted and foreshadowed would happen: the application for and subsequent granting of water licences to Aboriginal people from the consumptive pool available to all Territorians. I said this would happen and it did, and I am delighted that these licences have been issued to Indigenous Territorians for horticulture and tourism projects.
Why does no one know about these licences in the same way they knew about some other controversial water licences issued since the Country Liberals came to government?
Mr Barrett: Because they do not like good news.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You are right, member for Blain. The other side of the House does not like good news.
They went through the same process as every other applicant for a licence. It was advertised on application, considered by the Water Resources Division in the Department of Land Resource Management, and the intention to make a decision by the Water Controller was advertised. They went through the whole gambit.
Was a single objection raised to taking a further 6600 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer? According to my advice, no.
All of the water critics and protagonists who screamed blue murder about other water licences issued under this government were silent, not a word.
There was nothing from the Labor Party or the Environment Centre, not a squeak. There was nothing from those who, a few short months ago, were becrying the fate of the Roper River and the systems downstream. That tells me the feigned indignation of both the Labor Party and the Environment Centre, their so-called care for the environment, is a thin veneer behind which sits nothing more than cheap political rhetoric full of lies.
The water story in the NT is a good one to tell. I am proud to be a part of a government that will make the story even better for Indigenous people, non-Indigenous people and all Territorians.
I move that the Assembly takes note of the statement on the progress of the work of our water advisory committees.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important statement. I realise you get a short period to investigate the matter. It has been controversial; there is no doubt about it. It is great that some Aboriginal people are using water licences. This water policy comes two-and-a-half years into the government’s term of office, yet many big decisions were made. You could say governments have to do things, but many big decisions were made without a water policy. Whilst the government said, ‘We are moving forward because the previous government didn’t issue enough water licences’, there is nothing wrong with a little caution.
Water is a valuable and variable asset, and my understanding is unless the cyclone brings rain to the Roper it will not reach its usual level. If that happens some of the licences might not be used to the extent they might be in a normal year …
Mr Westra van Holthe: There is a policy in place for that already.
Mr WOOD: No, this paper says we will now have a water policy.
Mr Westra van Holthe: There are plenty of water policies, but we will have an overarching strategic one.
Mr WOOD: I did not interrupt you, minister. I am trying to be rational, but we did have some things in place, believe it or not. We had water advisory committees. We had the Howard East Water Advisory Committee with a range of people on it, and we had terms of reference. I am not sure if this is the same water advisory committee we will have now.
Is Greening the Territory the previous government or this one? The website says the committee was formed by the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. Was the previous water advisory committee disbanded? I did not receive anything to tell me I was not on the water advisory committee, but the government is now setting up a Howard East Water Advisory Committee under the Department of Land Resource Management. It looks exactly the same as it was under the previous government. I am not knocking the idea; I am confused about what happened to the previous water advisory committee and where the new committee is.
It is good there are other water advisory committees. There is one in Katherine, and one at Berry Springs, which was established by the previous government. The Alice Springs Water Advisory Committee was also established by the previous government. From memory there was also one at Mataranka. Those water advisory committees were made up of scientists and the community. The DRMAC was a water advisory committee. These advisory committees were established before so the government cannot say it is a new idea. To say it is re-establishing them would be fair.
The only new part of the policy is the government has decided to have a catchment authority, which seems to be broader and applies to more than small catchments; it is regional. From the statement it is not easy to see the major difference in the catchment advisory committee.
The NTCAC – I presume this is a Darwin version – is or has been looking at Darwin’s future water supply options, northern development, the Commonwealth white paper, water quality in Darwin Harbour – we had a Darwin Harbour catchment management group at one stage which was dropped – water allocation planning and the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. I am not sure those matters can be looked at by a water advisory committee.
What concerns me is two committees will overlap so there will be wastage of resources and energy. The difference between a catchment advisory committee and a water advisory committee is not clearly defined. Perhaps they take into account some broader elements, but I would not want these committees tripping over each other doing their jobs.
I do not have the details because I did not have time to chase it up, but there has been much discussion about an Indigenous water policy to reserve water in case some Indigenous groups want to use it. It is good people in the Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust have a water licence.
However, the government should recognise that the idea of the extractive water reserve we are discussing came from that water advisory committee. They helped develop that idea. The people in the area should not be rubbished simply because the government had a different policy. It is forgetting it was not necessarily a land council or Labor Party point of view. I understand some of that came from discussions amongst the local people on those water advisory committees. They were concerned about handing too much water out. Some of the scientists also said that before people got a water licence they should prove they can use the amount of water they already have. We have moved on from that. You can argue about what one group or another said.
This government has now set a policy and we understand where it is coming from. They want the Territory to grow. They believe there was not enough progress in handing out water licences, and the government gave out lots and lots of water.
That is fine, but the government has a responsibility to explain whether water has been used by the people granted a water licence. I remember the first famous water licence because it had a connection with the CLP and promises were made on the ABC Country Hour that certain crops would be grown. I expect this government to check whether crops were grown, bores were drilled and water was used because one issue not mentioned in this document is water trading.
I understand the government will only allow X amount of water to be extracted. A bathtub full of water can be used for irrigation. When it is all used and another farmer wants some water, the question not debated is should that farmer be entitled to some water? If the government says, ‘You have to talk to one of the farmers’, and that farmer says, ‘Yes, you can have some of my water but it will cost you $10 000 per litre’ – it would not be that much, but the original farmer got the water for nothing.
There are some fundamental questions. Will we have a water trading system where water provided by the government at no cost is available for people to make a profit? For example, I could have water on my farm but subdivide it. A farmer says, ‘Thanks for the land but I have no water’. I say, ‘I have extra water. If you want to pay for it you can have some of my water licence.’
Down south water trading occurs, but I find it hard to believe that water owned by the Crown is given to farmers who have applied for a water licence at no charge. They have a lot of money to put a bore down and irrigation equipment in. That is a big cost, but the water costs nothing. Is it right that the person can sell that water for a profit?
I believe if you do not need the water you should hand it back and it should be given to another person. You should not sell it for a profit because it is our water given for nothing.
People may disagree with that, but I am trying to highlight there has been enough debate about this issue. There will come a time when we cannot issue more water licences for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, the Oolloo Aquifer or the Berry Springs Aquifer. We will have used up all the water licences.
What is the system for trading water? Is it returned to the government to give to another person to use, or will a grower be allowed to sell it? That is an important debate that has to be part of a water policy but is not mentioned here.
The government has said it wants the Territory to grow and I do not have a problem with that. Therefore it has said, ‘We will issue lots of licences because the previous government did not’. Obviously it expects the people given a water licence to grow something. In some cases people might not be quite ready and that is fair enough. It takes a while to get established, but it would be great to know a person who had a tomato farm and said they needed water to grow another 50 acres of tomatoes …
A member: A banana farmer.
Mr WOOD: I have picked tomatoes because it is fairly safe … was doing that. That person was not keeping the water in the hope they could trade it later. It would be good if the government could respond to some of these issues so we know issuing licences is working the way the government said it would.
My area, which would come under the Howard East Water Advisory Committee, is a difficult one. I understand Power and Water will put more bores down in the rural area. They have a water extraction licence with a limit to what they can pump and are moving in that direction. That is why it is really important to have a water advisory committee. The sad thing is for the last two-and-a-half years we have not had a water advisory committee. The water advisory committee normally has a representative from Power and Water and one can keep in contact with Power and Water through the advisory committee and learn their policies in relation to more extraction of water from the rural area.
This is a very sensitive area for people with bores. The minister said there are 2100 bores in the rural area, but I think there might be more. For two-and-a-half years rural people have not had a say in what is happening with their water. We now have a water policy after Power and Water plans to put in more bores. I believe they are already planning to build some extra roads to their bore field in Girraween and will extract more water.
It is a little late for a resurrected water advisory committee that has been defunct for two-and-a-half years when there have been major changes in how much water Power and Water can take out.
They are quite within their rights if their licence enables them to do that, but if we get a long Dry Season people will ring me to say, ‘My bore is not pumping water’. They usually blame Power and Water. That may not be correct, but it has always been an issue with the Howard East Aquifer.
I thank the minister for the statement, which could have had more teeth. I would like the minister to come back – I do not know when this will come back because our Notice Paper has so many statements on it you wonder what is going on. We need statements earlier and need to debate them through. I can make points today about what farmers are growing with their water licences or about water trading, but this statement will be adjourned and I might get an answer in September.
It does not make sense for a statement to just disappear. To be honest, I will have forgotten what I said by September. It makes the debate a little disjointed. It was bad enough today, half way through a local government debate, having lunch, Question Time, a censure motion and then trying to remember what I was talking about. To wait a long period for answers does not give statements much value. It is important to discuss these things, and I hope the minister can come back earlier than September with answers because this is really important.
The minister said there would be a water forum in Katherine on 15 May. I would like to attend that, on the back seat, because it would be nice to hear what the growers and local community have to say. The centre for horticulture and agriculture is not small around the Darwin rural area. A range of crops are grown in the area such as vegetables, sandalwood, new banana plantations and opium poppy. I am interested in what people have to say about the government’s new water policy.
I thank the minister for the statement. I hope we can get back to the old system of receiving statements the day before so I can do some proper research instead of five minutes on the computer. This will improve the quality of debate in this House.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on the important topic of water in the Territory.
Following on from the member for Nelson’s comments – I raise this regularly in parliament – debate of ministerial statements has become a farce. We want to come into the Chamber, have the statement delivered and then have a detailed, constructive debate and ensure people can make phone calls. They can then do more research rather than half listen to the minister deliver his statement while trying to check information.
People want thorough debate in this Chamber. They want to know members of parliament are looking into important topics like water in some depth and detail. Instead, this government seems determined to gag constructive debate, which is why it changed the process around delivering ministerial statements.
To be frank, I thought the minister would come into the Chamber wanting to spruik his water advisory committees and saying the CLP government is adopting a consultative approach with people across the Territory. I thought he would be happy to spread the good word of the so-called good work he is doing, and would want to make sure there was thorough debate on this topic. Given I have not had much time to prepare, I will comment on some of the things the minister mentioned but not in the detail I would like to as shadow minister for natural resources.
Water is a critical natural resource. It is the lifeblood of the Territory and life without water does not exist. It is vital to the future of the Territory. Water is critical to our environment, but it also plays an important role in the economic development of the Northern Territory. It is critical to get usage right. We have to ensure we protect our precious nature water resources for future generations. It is important to act on the opportunities for economic development, but it must be sustainable economic development which does not risk our precious water resources. There has been much debate about decisions made by the CLP government.
It has become a huge issue, and when people look back on this CLP government one legacy will be its approach to water. The government will say it leaves a strong legacy because it has given out so much water. This side of the Chamber raises serious questions about that. We have some huge concerns around the processes and this debate highlights those concerns.
The minister effectively said he, and this government, consults on water. The only problem is we are two-and-a-half years down the track of this CLP government and have seen water extraction licences granted for big allocations across the Territory and over-allocation of water extraction licences. We are two-and-a-half years into government and they are now consulting, asking a few policy questions about water and putting a discussion paper to the community. Is that a sound, logical pathway to some of the decisions they have made about water extraction licences?
In this statement the minister mentions the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and water advisory committees. Water advisory committees existed previously but the CLP government has dropped the ball on them in the last few years. I have some questions for the minister if he wraps tonight with regard to the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and the water advisory committees. Where is the transparency? How can Territorians have faith in the decisions the government is making about water and water allocation?
It is important we see the advice the water experts and the community involved with these water allocation licences is providing to government. Where is the transparency around that? Will we see the minutes of those meetings? Will we see reports issued by those advisory committees? What will Territorians see from those processes? I am keen for the minister to update us on how the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee and the water advisory committees will report back to Territorians on the advice they provide to government. We would like to hear more about those processes so people can have more faith in the government’s decisions about the significant allocation of water around the Territory.
Another thing the minister seemed to skip over – he made mention but did not go into any real detail – was the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing, when talking about the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee. We know fracking is a hot topic. After three long months of the government sitting on the Hawke report it was finally released. There is no doubt the number one worry people have about fracking is the impact on ground water and water quality. The minister mentioned that to date this committee has held four meetings and has received presentations on issues as diverse as the water resource implications of hydraulic fracturing. It would be nice to hear more from the minister on that because there is a lot of debate in the community and people would like to know more.
The minister mentioned that a discussion paper would be released in May titled ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’. However, we are two-and-a-half years into government and some very controversial decisions have been made about water allocations in the Northern Territory to people with strong connections to the Country Liberal Party. We are only now releasing a discussion paper on how water should be used.
Again it seems you have made the decisions about water allocation before having the important and informed conversation with Territorians. I look forward to seeing what is in the paper. Alas, nothing has changed. As the minister said in his statement, since coming to government in August 2012 they have issued 130 water extraction licences. This equates to around 178 000 ML of water a year across the Territory. The water has been given away before having the conversation and talking to experts and members of the community about what they want to happen with the water.
The minister raised strategic Indigenous reserves. This has seen another controversial approach by the CLP government. Prior to the CLP taking government a vast amount of work had been done on a strategic Indigenous reserves policy but that was thrown out by this government.
The minister mentioned success in some water licence allocations, but feedback is still loud and clear from the Northern Land Council, the Environment Centre and members of this parliament. Some government members have spoken about their concerns with strategic Indigenous reserves, but that was thrown out by the CLP government. It seems clear from this statement today that the government will not be exploring strategic Indigenous reserves again.
The last time I spoke about water I referred to a previous statement the minister delivered on water where he said he would report back on decisions around strategic Indigenous reserves. Clearly, they are well and truly gone.
It is concerning in an environment where we know water is a precious resource. It comes back to a point I raised before: under this government we have seen important funding to environmental advocacy groups such as the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre stripped away.
It is important we have these groups because they are an independent voice for the environment. There is no doubt they often tell governments things they do not want to hear. There will be times when they go head-to-head, but we know these severe funding cuts by the Northern Territory government have depleted their resources. They have lost staff, have had to severely cut hours of operation, it has been very hard for them to operate and things will only get tougher.
I thought a good government would be open to scrutiny and being held to account by independent environmental advocates and experts. I thought it would welcome scrutiny because it would want to make the right decisions. You have to question that given the funding cuts to those important organisations.
I thank the minister for his statement. I am pleased the government wants to take a more consultative approach around some of its decisions on water and talk to people who are concerned about water resources. However, it seems this consultation is happening long after the big decisions have been made.
I welcome the opportunity to give more thought and preparation to debate, and hope the government looks at its approach to ministerial statements because a topic such as water is so important. It is important to have robust debate in this Chamber because that is what Territorians expect. They expect us to take care of water and treat it as the precious resource it is.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and commend him on his work in protecting and managing our finite resources such as water. I do not mean to state the obvious, but water is a critical resource in the Northern Territory. Yes, there is plenty of water in the Top End with the big Wet Seasons, but south of Katherine it is more precious than rhino horn.
In my home community of Yuendumu water is under pressure through overuse and short supply. I have been encouraging people to be water wise to extend the local supply for a few more years. It is probably time to run a water wise audit and mini-campaign to explain to my people the real pressure placed on existing water resources and the difficulties we have in finding new bores that are not full of heavy minerals and contamination from metals such as uranium.
It is also crucial for the cattle and pastoral industries across my electorate of Stuart. These stations provide produce and cattle to Australian and overseas markets. Water is also critical to produce growers such as Red Centre Farm at Ti Tree in my electorate, which grows melons, grapes, mangos, strawberries and so on. It is a great Territory business employing locals. It supplies produce to towns like Alice Springs, and it is great to see local produce being sold in local supermarkets and local towns supporting these small businesses. These businesses need our support to make sure there is enough water. We look at where water tables can be accessed.
I can talk about the little community of Alyuen in my electorate which has been waiting for water since 2007. This year we were able to give them water. That was so precious because they have been patiently waiting for water to wash themselves, water their gardens and make sure their dogs and everybody else in the community has plenty of water.
This statement is timely because it provides an update to this House and Territorians on what this government is doing with water resources in the Northern Territory. One good thing we are doing is establishing water advisory committees. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring that development using our natural resources, especially water, is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy.
The Department of Land Resource Management is in the process of developing an overarching water policy for the Territory. The Northern Territory water policy will provide a framework for water management in the Territory and ensure the Northern Territory aligns with national best practice in this regard.
In May the Country Liberals government will release a discussion paper for developing the Northern Territory water policy called ‘Our Water Future Strategic Plan, a Conversation with Territorians’. A key aspect of this policy is the establishment of water advisory committees. Water advisory committees play a crucial role in determining the safe, sound and sensible use of water in the Northern Territory. The water advisory committee is made up of members of the community who provide independent advice direct to the Minister for Land Resource Management on the responsible use of the Territory’s water assets.
Two distinct types of water advisory committees have been established. The first is the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee, which was formed last year to provide advice directly to the Minister for Land Resource Management on strategic water policy issues. Establishment of the NTCAC has enabled independent input into water policy development and has provided the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. The NTCAC will engage directly with stakeholder groups on water issues. It will also work on developing a plan to promote water stewardship. The NTCAC will empower stakeholders in catchment protection, water conservation, water efficiency strategies and solutions to water issues throughout the Northern Territory.
The second type of advisory committee the minister can appoint is a water advisory committee. This can be appointed for a particular water control district if a water allocation is in place, or to provide advice on development of a water allocation plan. To date, water advisory committees have been established to cover the following areas for water catchments: Katherine, Alice Springs, Mataranka, Oolloo, Berry Springs and Howard East. The establishment of these two distinct types of water advisory committees is another example of the Country Liberal government’s commitment to wide-ranging consultation with Territorians about water issues. These include sensible and contemporary water policies, long-term strategies and legislative reforms which are essential for the growth of the Territory economy, and the sustainable use of our most precious resource.
I thank the minister for his statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for Members for Wanguri and Casuarina
Schedule of Members’ Travel and Mobile Phones
Travel Reports for Members for Wanguri and Casuarina
Schedule of Members’ Travel and Mobile Phones
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table three travel reports, two from the member for Wanguri and one from the member for Casuarina, pursuant to Clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
I also table a report to the Legislative Assembly regarding the annual schedule of member travel and an annual schedule of payments for each member for satellite and mobile phones.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, tonight I speak in support of the comments made by the Chief Minister in Question Time today relating to some observations he made on a matter still under investigation and before the courts. I am anxious not to dwell on any of the details of the matter now before the courts. Suffice to say, it is my understanding that there is a victim of a heinous crime in a town camp in Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister made comments about the media reporting of that incident, and I believe he called it right. The Chief Minister identified something which has been in the public domain on a number of occasions and he has every right to be concerned about the way we respond to these types of events.
The Chief Minister’s statement today was courageous because it challenges us all to think about how we approach these issues. From time to time we are confronted by these things, and as the minister for Child Protection I am often confronted by some dreadful stories about things that happen in town camps and remote communities. I am often concerned that these things are under-reported because they happen in remote areas or town camps.
I congratulate the Chief Minister on this call. The Chief Minister has shown some ticker because a politician holding the light up to the media and asking if the response is appropriate is risky. It has often been said that you are a brave politician if you criticise someone who orders their ink by the barrel. Nevertheless, the Chief Minister has every right to call all Territorians on this issue, including members of the Country Liberal Party, the Labor Party and Independents. The tough question is: do we respond well enough to these things in remote communities and town camps? We have to ask that question of ourselves from time to time.
I am glad the Chief Minister said what he did today and I support him in that. Of course, I am mindful that these matters are still afoot. I make no observation on the guilt or innocence of any party; that is for the courts to decide. However, I turn honourable members’ attention to what the Chief Minister raised and the reasons and motivations behind it. Reflecting on that, by all Territorians whether they are in the media or otherwise, is worthwhile.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish I engaged in reflection like that more regularly. Of course, being a busy minister in a busy government you do not always get the opportunity. What was said today was valid and a reasonable question to ask. I urge all members and the media to ask the question as well.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I adjourn on one of the biggest issues concerning my electorate at the moment, antisocial behaviour and crime.
We heard the CLP government promise to cut crime by 10% in the lead-up to the 2012 election. In this Chamber and in the media the Chief Minister has said repeatedly that he is cutting crime. However, his words do not match reality. I am worried about what I see in my electorate and what my constituents are telling me about crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also worried about what my colleagues tell me is happening in their electorates and across the Territory.
At present the crime statistics say it all. The latest crime statistics released for the Darwin region show assaults have gone up by 12.5%, domestic violence-related assaults by 4.9%, alcohol-related assaults by 6.9%, sexual assaults have gone down by 6.7%, but house break-ins have gone up by 65%. Commercial break-ins went down by 18%, but motor vehicle theft went up by 35% and property damage by 17%.
We have seen some staggering statistics in Palmerston as well. House break-ins are up 57%, commercial break-ins up 102%, motor vehicle theft up 52% and property damage up 19%. The figures tell a worrying story.
As a member of the Legislative Assembly my constituents come first, which is why I doorknock as often as possible. It is the ultimate way to stay in touch with the real issues impacting people in the electorate. While doorknocking over the last year I have been alarmed by what constituents have told me about their personal experiences in dealing with crime.
I have heard too many stories of people having car keys stolen from their home while they sleep and the car being taken for a joy ride. I doorknocked one of the biggest streets in my electorate last week and heard too many stories about property theft, from pot plants to clothes taken off the back line, to cars being rummaged through, grog stolen from back yards, kids bikes and family possessions being taken, through to cars being stolen. It was very concerning.
It was part of my discussion with local police to make them aware of my concerns. I also encourage my constituents to report any theft, no matter how minor it is, to police to ensure they have a clear view of crime patterns in the area.
I have heard stories similar to this in many other streets in my two years in this job. There is no doubt in my mind that property crime is on the increase. From what I have been told by my constituents and what we see from the crime statistics, it is through the roof.
Mr Deputy Speaker, antisocial behaviour in my electorate is alarming. This year it has been particularly bad in a very quiet part of Darwin which did not see the antisocial behaviour that has become obvious in other parts of the Territory. It seems to be moving into the electorate.
There have been numerous incidents of drunks around Hibiscus. That comes in waves. People have had to put up with drunks sleeping, fighting, humbugging and littering around the shops. Only last week on a morning run I counted 10 empty wine casks between Hibiscus shops and the Vanderlin Drive roundabout, which is a sight I am not used to seeing.
We had shop cleaners and their manager escort people to vehicles to help them avoid some mouthy drunks a few weeks ago. People should not have to put up with this behaviour when they are just doing some shopping.
It is concerning when staff have to cop it too, especially younger staff working in casual jobs; they are only teenagers. It is not good for children to have to see this type of behaviour when they go to the shops with their parents.
I have to thank our hard-working police, who have always done what they can to address concerns from our office or when shop owners or centre management raise them. Our police do the best they can but have limited resources.
It is clear there are numerous drinkers around Darwin and when they cause problems in one area they simply go to the next. This is why groups are coming to the electorate at the moment.
I have received reports of, and seen myself, people drinking and camping in parts of Wanguri as well. We have let police know, and my constituents have let me know loud and clear they are not happy having people camping in the parks and drinking. It is not something you want to see in your neighbourhood.
It is clear that alcohol is a key driving factor to this unacceptable antisocial behaviour. The Banned Drinker Register was a good tool to help tackle the issue of supply, and it was scrapped with too much haste and for political reasons by this CLP government. The CLP government then flooded the Territory with problem drinkers. Their answer has been temporary beat locations.
It is clear that in Darwin the temporary beat location model is very resource intense. There are a huge number of bottle shops and alcohol outlets and the model would be very difficult to deliver and sustain. We have seen problem drinkers move around Darwin when TBLs are established. Rather than tackling the problem of alcohol abuse with a more holistic approach the problem is pushed around the Territory.
We also see some strain on our vital police resources. Police are taken off normal duties to stand in front of a bottle shop. The police association, and any police officer you talk to, will tell you it is a major strain on their ability to do their job.
We are currently living under the most chaotic and dysfunctional government in the history of the Territory. Our police are doing the best job they can in a challenging environment and their efforts should be applauded, but there are only so many of them.
This government walked away from a commitment to deliver an extra 120 police and has scrapped the BDR. Police are under the further strain of trying to stay on top of antisocial behaviour, crime and problem drinking. The government needs to stop talking spin and start looking at the statistics to realise there are real problems in Darwin with crime and antisocial behaviour at the moment.
People want action, and I hope this government starts listening to what is happening and delivering actions which drive crime down. Our community deserves to feel safe.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the goings-on at the Bees Creek Primary School, which is located in Bees Creek of course. It has a student …
Mr Wood: No, it is in the Freds Pass District Centre.
Ms PURICK: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson, it is in the Freds Pass District Centre. If they had their way at the start it would have been called Freds Pass Primary School, but it is called Bees Creek Primary School and is a good school.
They had their annual general meeting recently and I congratulate the new council chairman, Alison Hanna. Also elected to the council are Aleka Freijah, deputy chairman, Nicole Sawyer is the secretary, Sheryl Ainslie is the treasurer, and the general members are Marissa Vetter, Vanessa Cuttriss, Jodie Pavlou, Terri Barnes, Beverley Ratahi, Katrina Walker and Anne Groves. The staff representative is Margaret Syme, the preschool representative is Kate Kilgour, and they have a co-opted member, Mark Brustolin. Mark has been on that council for some time. He also served as the chairman, having had his boys go through that school. He has done an enormous amount of work for the school in a voluntary capacity, both with goods in-kind and also his labour.
I also want to acknowledge the good work, efficiency and effectiveness of the staff in the office at Bees Creek Primary School. I personally thank Lynda Stanwix, Alison Dixon, Lynne Logan and Sheryl Ainslie for all the work they do to help me do my job. It is always a pleasure to visit that school because they are such a happy lot, and that goes across the school generally.
The new principal is Ryan Martin from Batchelor Area School. Ryan is a role model for all teachers. Last year he picked up the Palmerston and Rural Regional Winner for Principal of the Year and then went on to take out the NT winner for 2014. Ryan has gone to Bees Creek Primary School and I know he will have a great time there and will be well supported by the teachers and staff. He is also a keen surfer, but there is not much surf in the rural area so he will struggle that way. I am sure he will find it in the Nightcliff beach area next time we have a big storm or, heaven forbid, a cyclone threatens.
I want to compliment some of the students who were recently appointed as house captains at Bees Creek. They play an important leadership role within the school and are eager to help out whenever they can, not only with the students but supporting the teachers, staff and visitors to the school. As we know, lots of visitors go to primary schools whether it is for sport, art, music or even science.
There are four houses at Bees Creek: Sattler, Livingstone, Pell and Strauss. For those not fully across what these houses are and the airstrips on the Stuart Highway, Sattler is named after Flight Lieutenant Geoffrey Sattler, who was with the 13th Hudson Squadron for the RAAF. Sadly he was killed in the Celebes in 1942 during World War II. The house captains for Sattler are Isabelle Hanna and Tom Demamiel, and the vice captains are Amelia Hore and Codie Norman. Well done to them.
Livingstone is at the 34 Mile and is named after Lieutenant Livingstone, who was with the 9th Fighter Squadron. The Livingstone house captains are Shonna Overend and Trent Marshall, and the vice captains are Joey Misener and Jeremy Lewis.
Pell house, which is green, is named after Major Floyd Pell, who was killed in Darwin in the first Japanese attack. Sadly, many people were. Pell house captains are Ruby Jensen and Jackson Reid, and vice captains are Will Rowlands and Elena Baxter.
The last house is red, which is Strauss. I know the member for Nelson knows the Strauss family very well. It is named after American Captain Allison Strauss, who piloted USAAF P-40 Kittyhawk. He was also killed in 1942, is that correct member for Nelson?
Mr Wood: P40s they called them.
Ms PURICK: All those Bees Creek sports houses have a strong link to the rural area and the history of the Northern Territory during World War II.
The Strauss captains are Tahlia Martin and Cameron Connor, vice captains are Jade Ehrlich and Lauchlan St Clair. Congratulations to all those students. I know they will step up to the mark and will be role models for the younger students and also for the pre-schoolers who interact with the big kids at assembly time. Well done to Bees Creek. I know they will have a successful year, as they always do. They work hard and fundraise hard.
Recently they had a sausage sizzle at Coolalinga shops to raise money, as they do all the time, for all types of activities and projects in the school. I popped down to say hello and provide them with some goodies. Congratulations to the fundraising team, and congratulations to Bees Creek School community generally.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, Coconut Grove, Nightcliff and Rapid Creek are located on the beautiful Darwin coast, and the popular foreshore area attracts large numbers of visitors and locals alike. Since 2012, a number of things have taken place which have left the community feeling unsupported. This, along with an increase in antisocial behaviour, has pushed our community. Our community, to put it quite simply, has had enough.
Since the CLP came to government the local police beat has been removed. The Nightcliff area is a crime and antisocial behaviour hot spot and the police beat was popular with traders and locals alike. Closing it was not only wrong, it is also another broken CLP promise. The police station has also been closed. The CLP promised to upgrade Nightcliff Police Station to a 24/7 station.
I questioned the elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, not long after the election on whether he would deliver on that commitment and he said he would honour his promise. The $2m commitment to upgrade Nightcliff Police Station was not just a promise according to the CLP, it was a special contract with the people of Nightcliff. The CLP, under Adam Giles, has turned its back on the Nightcliff community.
The police station was quietly closed last year; so quietly that some police are not aware it has been shut. I read from an e-mail from a local resident dated 30 July 2014:
- This week my car has been keyed twice when parked in my own external driveway at night. Yes, I know after 20 years of doing so I shouldn’t and I no longer will.
Anyway, I thought I should report this to the police as the keying is very distinctive – large slash crosses, three on each occasion. I didn’t expect any investigation as such, but I thought being so distinctive if anything ever came to light my report would add weight.
Anyway, I rang 131 444 and the operator advised such a report can only be done in person at my local police station, i.e. Nightcliff. I politely informed her that the Nightcliff Police Station was no more and she insisted, even after making a call to confirm that the police station was still open and operational.
Doubtful, I agreed to go round and lodge my complaint only to find the police station vacant and, of course non-operational. I chatted to a staff member who happened to be there, and she confirmed that it was indeed closed to the public. So I rang 131 444 again, only to be told again that the Nightcliff police station was open and that that was where complaints were to be lodged.
I became a little adamant at this point as I was standing in front of a closed police station. After being put on hold – the girl was actually really helpful and quite confused – she came back and no further mention – not surprising – was made about the Nightcliff Police Station, and I was instructed to go to my nearest police station at Casuarina to lodge a report.
The local community is concerned about the effect the closure will have on antisocial behaviour and crime in our community. The Nightcliff community wants an active police station. The CLP government has taken away the Nightcliff police beat and shut down Nightcliff Police Station. The CLP promised crime would go down, but it has gone up and recent crime statistics reflect this. In Darwin we saw assaults up 12.5%, domestic violence assaults up nearly 5% and alcohol-related assaults up nearly 7%.
The CLP government has clearly broken its promise to reduce crime by 10% per year. Across Darwin public drinking and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour is out of control in our parks and public spaces, especially in Nightcliff, Rapid Creek and Coconut Grove. The CLP government is failing to address these issues. I held a meeting with local traders and police yesterday. At this meeting we discussed how often people were calling police in regard to antisocial behaviour.
Some traders were calling police twice a day, others daily and others weekly, with some stating they do not bother now as they feel they will not get a response and it makes no difference. Last Wednesday was a typical week day morning in Nightcliff. An incident occurred outside my office near the children’s playground. I went outside to meet a trader who had come to my office to talk to me. Police were called and the incident dealt with.
In the evening police reportedly pulled tasers on a person as traders were walking to their cars to go home. Later the same day there was a stabbing along our foreshore.
I could go on with stories or incidents I witness or are reported to me but the message is clear: something needs to be done, people do not feel safe. The local fish and chip shop has had people walk in and grab food from customers’ plates, and the local restaurant has had drunken people defecate in pot plants while staff are serving dinner. Our community has had enough and it is impacting on businesses and residents.
The CLP government is using police officers as bouncers at bottle shops in regional towns in an attempt to bring down the escalating crime statistics, and the Chief Minister is using them as bouncers at bottle shops to remedy his flawed alcohol policies. This is an expensive exercise using highly-trained police officers. There have also been reports that Tactical Response Group officers are being used in this capacity. This is the same CLP government that cut $12m from the community policing budget and broke a promise to add 120 officers to the force.
According to police, the Banned Drinker Register was the most effective tool to deal with alcohol-related crime. Simple and effective, it took 2500 people off the grog. Traders want the BDR back, and that was the overwhelming comment yesterday. They cannot understand why it cannot come back. It was simple and effective.
In regard to the 700 people on Alcohol Protection Orders, what does a shop person do? Do they have to confront someone and say, ‘Hold on, let me check through hundreds of photos’, or do they make a split-second decision? The BDR was simple and effective and the community does not understand why you will not bring it back.
Police believe it was one of the best tools they had to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. When commenting on the Banned Drinker Register, then Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Payne stated:
- Police did see it as one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool available, to police to actually deal with the source problem of antisocial behaviour and the violence that was occurring in our community. I think these early indicators prove the initiative is working.
From a policing point of view, we see some tremendous results with this initiative.
People do not feel safe in their community and have to deal with antisocial behaviour just to go to the supermarket. Traders are sick and tired of cleaning up or hosing down the mess. The owner of a corner shop told me he sees people park their car, walk around the corner and then get back in their car and drive off. The local hairdresser was spat on while walking outside her shop. This is appalling and something has to be done.
There has been a huge increase in house break-ins, which are up 64.8%. Motor vehicle theft is up 35.1%. Only last week there was a spree of break-ins in one suburb in our community. People told me the unit next door to theirs was broken into and a car was parked outside their unit so nobody could get past. There are also stories of people standing outside houses whistling, and if a dog comes out they just move to the next house. Break-ins occurred in many streets.
Something needs to be done. This antisocial behaviour and the crime statistics reflect what the community is feeling and the government needs to listen. The BDR was simple and effective and people cannot understand why the government will not bring it back. It is because it was a Labor initiative. Police have said the TBLs are resource intensive. Even AHA has been critical of the government not having a clear alcohol policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these issues are affecting our community, businesses and residents, and people have had enough.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, a comment today from the member for Arafura concerned me. He said he hoped there might be some changes to local government on the Tiwi Islands. He also mentioned regional councils.
That issue has been around for some time and I would be concerned if the government supported that concept. There is no doubt that TOs have a role to play in how the land is managed through the Tiwi Land Council. However, I would be concerned if they moved into an area a different group of people run, that being local government services.
You need to provide local government services equally to all people who live in communities. Whether you receive those services should not be affected by your position, culturally or otherwise. Obviously the Tiwi Land Council has a role to play in what areas local government should control. Generally speaking, that is a community. The council’s role is to provide rubbish collection, fix roads, collect rates if applicable, keep the place tidy and perhaps offer some sporting facilities and run sports programs. It is done by an elected body.
The important thing is the elected body is voted in by people who expect them to provide a service no matter who they are. The danger with having a council – if you can call it that – run by TOs is they are not elected so are not directly responsible to the people for provision of essential services. Essential services need to be provided by a group of people who are not there because of their status but because the people elected them to provide that service.
There is a real danger if the government thinks it is a good idea and that a few people have wanted it for years. There needs to be a clear distinction between the role of local government and TOs as it is not the same. They are integrated and that is the way it should be, but they are certainly not the same thing. I hope the government does not go down this path because it is the wrong way to manage local government.
The difference between the two is clear and if you start putting them together local government becomes blurry. Provision of services may not be provided to people on an equal basis, and people could possibly get favours based on their status rather than the concept of local government. That concept is to provide essential services to all people equally regardless of who they are or what their status is in the community.
Today the Chief Minister spoke passionately about an audit of town camps in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. I have trouble with the word ‘camps’. We need to move out of the 1950s and 1960s. I first heard that word when I went to Daly River and we have moved away from that. ‘Communities’ is a better word. We should not even give them a name. If it is a suburb, it is a suburb. We do not say east side camp, it is east side. We do not say Casuarina camp, it is Casuarina. It is easy to get into the habit as I have the 15 Mile and the Knuckey Lagoon community. I slip into it at times, but it is outdated and something we should move away from.
I understand what the Chief Minister said, but I have called for a task force to look at communities in the Darwin area. People have heard me talk about the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. They have issues just as bad as the Chief Minister mentioned today.
There are real issues around who owns the land, who manages the land, who owns the houses and who manages the houses. Can people buy their house? Who is in charge of the area? Is there a process for people living there to have a spokesperson? Could a small group of people represent the Knuckey Lagoon people or Bagot or One Mile people?
I mention the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon area because they are in my electorate, but we need to get people together from the bottom up, not the top down, and ask what they think. I have spoken to the government about this before, and I also spoke to the previous government. This government said, ‘We are doing something’, and split the task force between the department of Community Services and the department of Lands and Planning. That makes life complicated. Someone needs to put it together. Now we have a Minister for Indigenous Affairs perhaps the Chief Minister should take a lead role in this.
Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are not the only places with issues in relation to communities and how they are run. It is easy for me to drive past them and say, ‘Who cares?’, but I care. I do not have the power to make the changes. The government does, and I ask the government to expand the audit and talk to these people.
The government said it would bring these departments in. Make sure you start from the bottom up. There will be lots of departments, but I have seen things in communities where heaps of people turn up and residents are overwhelmed. We need to be talk quietly with people to find out what they think and what the issues are.
The member for Goyder presented an electronic petition with 400 signatures from people concerned about the number of break-ins in the rural area. I have been approached as well. Their concern is – whether it is accurate is not for me to say – they believe the judicial system is letting them down because people have broken into a car, stolen a car or have broken in somewhere and are released to do it again.
Much as I do not believe kids should be locked up, there are times when we need to. If people repeat crime then the only alternative is to take them off the street. Obviously we need programs to help those kids turn things around. I have mentioned diversion programs at Wongabilla, where kids learn to deal with horses and animals. That is important, but it does not mean kids have a right to steal cars or break into places again, and that is what these people are concerned about.
I hear what they say but do not necessarily have an answer. It would require more research to see if it is accurate, but I feel it is not an off-the-cuff point of view. They see this happening and their concerns are reflected through this petition. The government should take notice of what people are saying.
The members for Wanguri and Nightcliff say crime has increased. The government says it has gone down in some places, but I hear the Alice Springs gaol has more inmates than it has for a long time so there are mixed messages. From a rural perspective, the government should check these facts, discuss things with the DPP and find out what is really happening. People are frustrated if kids are being released then committing the same crime.
I hope the government can investigate that and come back to the members for Goyder, Nelson and perhaps the member for Daly. I do not know if he has heard the same reports, but could we find out if it is true and give us some indication of the government’s view on resolving the matter.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to long-time Territorian and Daly constituent Jackie Hargreaves. As honourable members would know, Jackie was a farmer, a barmaid, a passionate advocate for tourism in the Top End, a racehorse owner and trainer, renowned publican, an active member of the Country Liberal Party and a unique and much-loved character of the Territory.
Jackie moved to Darwin from Wollongong in 1959 with her then husband, Bill. After barmaid stints at the Vic Hotel and Hotel Darwin she opened Jackie’s Fruit Supply at Nightcliff. She and Bill decided to buy land in the Daly River area to grow fruit, vegetables and lucerne for stock feed. Being the go-getter she was, Jackie learnt to drive farm machinery including tractors, slashers, harvesters and bulldozers. She separated from Bill, sold the shop to work on the farm, and in 1973 met Laurie McIntosh, who serviced her bulldozer.
Jackie’s background is well-known, especially her work in the hospitality industry, and Jackie and Laurie’s building of the Rum Jungle Motor Inn which she labelled ‘the flashest pub in the scrub’.
She loved to tell a good yarn and loved being part of the tourism industry. Stories about Jackie abound. I remember being told about her traversing Litchfield Park in a four-wheel drive showing visitors around long before it was an official park.
She was also a well-regarded publican and the Rum Jungle Motor Inn was known as a great place to go. Jackie would go overboard with hospitality, especially with any groups holding workshops or forums at the inn. Down to earth she loved a chat, but only if she liked you.
In 2002 she was presented with the Tourism minister’s award for outstanding contribution by an individual at the Brolga Awards.
The word ‘legend’ is often used in this House and it is most applicable when it comes to Jackie Hargreaves. I heard about Jackie while I was at the Daly River where I was involved in tourism, as you know. I was chairman of the Katherine Tourist Association, and also had a lot to do with her while she was at Batchelor. I held a lot of respect for her. Rest in peace, Jackie. The Territory is poorer for your passing.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I want to talk about the ongoing rise in antisocial behaviour across my electorate of Johnston.
All of us in the Territory, whether we live in Millner, Moil, Jingili, Coconut Grove or Ramingining, deserve to live in a community where we and our kids can feel safe and enjoy everything the Territory lifestyle has to offer. Unfortunately, for many of us this is not the case. We all remember the CLP’s form before the 2012 election. Despite every attempt to wriggle out of it, we will hold them to account for their promise to cut crime by 10% each year. Like so many of their promises, this is one they have failed miserably to keep.
Territorians in my electorate are paying the price. The latest crime statistics show this government is failing the people of Millner, Moil, Jingili and Coconut Grove. Assaults are up 12.5% in Darwin. Domestic violence is, sadly, up 4.5% across Darwin and alcohol-related assaults are up 6.9%.
Rarely a day goes by without my office receiving complaints about antisocial behaviour. Whether it is abusive and disruptive Territory Housing tenants, itinerants in our parks or assaults in broad daylight, people in my electorate have had enough.
This behaviour can be witnessed any given day directly outside my electorate office. A few weeks ago we had a stabbing only 100 m from my office, with the front of my office taped off as a crime scene. The lady was stabbed by her husband and was in a serious condition as she walked to the shops for assistance. When the police were called the husband legged it, throwing the knife away close by. My electorate officer was in charge of minding the knife while police apprehended the man.
Drunks hurling abuse outside my office is a weekly occurrence. I have been abused by drunks for just walking past them, with threats of more violence when they come back tomorrow to sort me out. I have had punches thrown at me for asking them to move on and for trying to stop a group of drunken people fighting in front of my office where a man was punching a drunken woman. I am bloody sick of it and so are the residents and businesses of Johnston. Antisocial behaviour and violence at the bus stop opposite my office happens all too frequently. I intervened when a fight broke out at the bus stop and people were trying to get on the bus. I assisted the bus driver to get these people off the bus.
The common denominator in much of this is alcohol. There is no doubt many of those engaging in this behaviour and disrupting the quality of life in my electorate were on the Banned Drinker Register. These people, under the previous Labor government, were turned off tap and were unable to purchase takeaway alcohol. Remnants of takeaway alcohol are now strewn around my electorate and litter the gardens outside my office.
Unfortunately, once again Territorians are made to suffer the policy failings, arrogance and the refusal to listen which are hallmarks of this Giles government. There is no hope that this will change.
Territorians who want an effective stand against crime and antisocial behaviour should know that Labor shares their frustration and desire to see effective policies in place to combat alcohol abuse. Only a vote for Labor at the next election will see any chance of a government with the courage and good policies to tackle these problems once and for all. Territorians deserve it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, netball is the most popular sport in Alice Springs and has the highest participation rate of all Alice Springs sports.
Despite the fact that every other girl or woman in Alice Springs is involved, netball remains the poor cousin to just about every male-dominated sport in town. Our netball facilities are old and tired. Due to a serious lack of parking most netballers have to either park along the busy Undoolya Road, in the dust bowl across the road, or in the IGA supermarket car park around the corner. It is surprising no one has been hurt with such a level of pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic congestion.
A local Alice Springs businessman has been trying for several years to give the Northern Territory government a substantial amount of money towards new netball facilities. To date nothing has happened. It is all too hard because it requires a matched or greater financial commitment from a government which does not prioritise netball. A fraction of the money spent on automotive sports and football in recent times could have built a decent car park for the thousands of people who flock to netball each year and significantly upgraded existing netball facilities.
The amount the Northern Territory government has spent on Alice Springs netball over the past three years is less than $10 000. The amount spent on football equates to millions, which includes NRL and AFL. The amount spent on motor sports in Alice Springs also equates to millions of dollars.
With Cabinet currently presiding over the 2015-16 Northern Territory budget now is the time for all netball players and enthusiasts in Alice Springs to write to the Chief Minister and demand a fair go for netball in our town.
I also ask that ministers generally develop a fairer and more equitable approach to all sport funding in Alice Springs. Funding not based on the personal sporting interests of particular ministers would be a good starting point.
More specifically, I ask that significant sport funding be allocated to netball in Alice Springs to provide well overdue netball facilities, including a car park, new toilets and change facilities, new indoor and outdoor courts and modern administration facilities. By many people’s estimations, a Northern Territory government funding commitment of approximately $5m would be required, in addition to the $1m donated by local business operators, taking the total to $6m. This would bring the Alice Springs facilities in line with the modern netball facilities at Marrara.
I respond to the Chief Minister’s initiative announced today to undertake a review of every non-government organisation and third-party provider funded by the Northern Territory government to service town camps in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. This is in response to the horrific and vicious attack on a young girl in a town camp in Alice Springs recently.
The Chief Minister called it a personal tipping point when he realised the severity of what had happened to this poor young girl and the problem of child sexual abuse within our community. I find it a little hard to understand how a member of parliament for six years and now Chief Minister could have an epiphany at such a late point in time over the severity of child abuse in the Northern Territory.
We have had so many reports over the years highlighting this very serious problem including the Little Children are Sacred report, which led to the Northern Territory emergency response and the intervention. This was all about addressing the widespread and often unreported problem of child sexual abuse throughout the Northern Territory, but it is good that the Chief Minister has had this personal ‘tipping point’ and is now taking some action.
He has called a meeting on Friday which may be productive. However, I caution the Chief Minister that a lot of work has been done over many years in this very sensitive area of government to correct the situation where children in the Northern Territory continue to be sexually abused at a rate unprecedented anywhere else in Australia. I ask the Chief Minister to be kind and sensitive when he approaches the service providers who work very hard, generally speaking, to keep children safe, as do their parents.
It is important to be respectful of the expertise of these professional people who have given their life to creating a better life for Aboriginal people living in town camps, as well as trying to address the horrific problem of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse in their communities.
Child protection is not like other portfolios the Chief Minister has been involved in, Transport, Infrastructure or Police, Fire and Emergency Services. You cannot go in all guns firing. There is no quick fix and it takes a lot of talking and engagement with communities to address these deep-seated problems.
In 2007, prior to the Little Children are Sacred report, the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse produced 97 recommendations. Some included the fact that child sexual abuse is serious, widespread and often unreported. Important points made by the inquiry are that most Aboriginal people are willing and committed to solving problems and helping their children, they are also eager to better educate themselves, and Aboriginal people are not the only victims or perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Much of the violence and sexual abuse occurring in Territory communities is a reflection of past, current and continuing social problems which have developed over many decades. The combined effects of poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, gambling, pornography, poor education, poor housing and a general loss of identity and control have contributed to violence and sexual abuse in many forms.
At the meeting called by the Chief Minister to look at what services are provided in town camps, it will be important to remember these problems are deep-seated, have come about through many decades of disadvantage and there will be no easy fix. It is important not to disempower these people, criticise them or diminish the work that has already been done in this important area.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Araluen. When talking with organisations that are committed to the wellbeing of children we must make sure it is done in a partnership and in a respectful manner. I will be keeping my eye on what happens at those meetings as well.
Tonight I want to talk about my electorate of Casuarina, an area that I love. In my electorate we have the largest shopping centre in the Northern Territory and the beautiful Casuarina Coastal Reserve, one of the most visited parks in the Territory. Yesterday I was told we might be about to hit the one million visitors a year mark. That is exciting for us but it is unfortunate that constituents and I have rising concerns about the escalation in antisocial behaviour around our suburbs, recreation areas and retail precincts.
As I move around my electorate I hear more and more about property crime, as do other members on this side of the House. Some residents are worried about leaving their homes over holiday periods based on their experiences of repeated property crime and break-ins. People are extremely frustrated about what they can do to protect their homes and feel very little is being done.
In the last week some constituents have raised the issue of break-ins with me in surprise because it is occurring in areas they have lived in for a long time or I grew up in with few incidents. The crime statistics show it is supported because in Darwin there has been a 65% increase in break-ins from the previous year. That is huge and we all see it, feel it, and it indicates something needs to be looked at. Members on this side of the House from the northern suburbs have these issues raised on a daily basis. Constituents do not feel safe and are worried when they go away.
In Darwin there has been a 12.5% increase in assaults from the previous year. With crime against the person increasing it is no wonder people do not feel safe and are reporting an escalation in crime.
In Casuarina people see violence when they leave their workplace. They see violence and antisocial behaviour when they go shopping, and we see it at Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Of course, the Casuarina Interchange is never far from our minds, particularly after the disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and the brawl that occurred in October last year. The safety audit was released after significant pressure from the member for Fannie Bay and me during the Casuarina by-election last year. Despite efforts from the member for Johnston, the constituents of Casuarina and the broader community who use that public bus system continue to wait for the CLP government to confirm what recommendations have been implemented and which are outstanding. Those recommendations are on how we improve safety around the bus interchange. It is used by children going to school, people commuting to work in the morning, people who want to get to the hospital on a regular basis and for recreation activities. This is about safety. We would appreciate greater communication on which safety recommendations have been implemented so far, which are yet to be implemented and the time frame to completion.
However, it is not just the Casuarina Interchange. Antisocial behaviour where alcohol is a factor is still a regular occurrence. That has been reflected on tonight by the members for Johnston and Wanguri. Listening to other people in the House talk about this issue I was transported straight back to last time we were here. On the Thursday, the last day of sittings, I was driving home down the Stuart Highway. I wondered why I could see a whole heap of cars swerving in front of me in the dark. Of course, it was because there was a drunken domestic incident happening in the middle of the three-lane Stuart Highway near Parap. People were not moving and I had to call police. I imagine lots of other shaken people, including myself, wondered what would have happened had we not seen those people. The issue was reported to police. I am always thankful to the police, who have been wonderful every time I have raised a concern myself or on behalf of constituents, which is becoming increasingly regular.
It is not fair that people are increasingly exposed to the vitriol of problem drunks. This is happening outside my office. The bushes, I have discovered, are an excellent place for hiding casks of wine. This has also been reported. Our police work exceptionally hard trying to stem these issues, particularly around Casuarina Plaza and Casuarina shopping centre.
While the other side of the House spruiks temporary beat locations, we know they do not provide the consistent approach something like the Banned Drinker Register would. It is far more expensive and unsustainable to have police officers acting as bouncers outside bottle shops. The CLP promised to take drunks off the streets but has failed. Public drunkenness remains very much a factor in the issues raised about antisocial behaviour by constituents.
I understand that temporary beat locations will be rolled out around my area soon. The anecdotal evidence is clear: problem drinkers are following the grog. Public drunkenness in Darwin is at crisis levels and we see the result in the crime statistics. Alcohol-related crime is up 7% in Darwin, with 1125 offences in the past 12 months. This is huge and is what we see and feel. Residents in my electorate ask if the current inconsistent alcohol measures are displacing problem drinker issues. Given the huge investment of resources in this alcohol measure, and the recent recommendation from the Senate committee into domestic violence that we bring back the Banned Drinker Register, surely it is a fair request that the CLP government release this information as part of its analysis of temporary beat locations. Let us see what impact this is having on the Territory.
Madam Speaker, those of us in the northern suburbs want to be taken seriously when raising our concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour on behalf of our constituents. It would be fair, after two-and-a-half years, to tell Territorians what the government’s plan is for the ongoing sustainable management of issues relating to alcohol and violence because we deserve to feel safe and continue enjoying our beautiful electorates.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I too want to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents about a wave increase in juvenile antisocial behaviour and petty theft in and around our shopping centre. There is also an increase in property crime in Karama and Malak, and deep-seated concerns our community has expressed over an increase in public drunkenness and antisocial behaviour in both Karama and Malak. In the last few months it has escalated to a point many of us cannot remember it being at for years.
I know that the CLP likes to think this is a matter of politics, but it is definitely not. It is a matter of having a right to live, work and enjoy the community and be safe without intolerable levels of criminal and antisocial behaviour. It got so bad at the local shopping centre in Karama that we have worked closely with Casuarina police, who do a fantastic job in responding to what they would describe as hot spots, in a proactive policing resource response. Full congratulations to the police who do a great job, albeit with incredibly stretched resources.
The police have recently responded with deployment of a mobile police station in the shopping centre precinct that had a measurable, real and immediate impact in reducing antisocial behaviour. I hosted a meeting of Karama Shopping Plaza traders. The police very kindly attended that meeting, reported their efforts and engaged in some ideas and discussions around what we could collectively do to make the police more informed about what was occurring in the area and how we could work together as a community. Congratulations to police for their effort, but I did make the point their resources are stretched.
Karama and Malak are no different to other areas of the northern suburbs. This is also occurring across Darwin and Palmerston. This is not something we are making up; this is genuinely affecting people lives at an escalating rate to the point where the community is saying enough is enough.
The people of Palmerston have presented a petition and are calling for harsher penalties for criminal behaviour but, at the end of the day, that is chasing something after the event. Surely preventative measures need to be deployed. In looking at preventative measures, Labor had a supply tool in the Banned Drinker Register and so many people are asking me, ‘Whatever happens can we have the BDR back?’ It was a fair and equitable system which meant, based on behaviour, anyone could be turned off tap for takeaway supply, which is 70% of the alcohol consumed in the Territory.
Both liquor licences at Karama have responded. I congratulate Karama Tavern, which has instigated a reduction in wine cask supplies in recognition of the need to tackle the escalating behaviour in and around the shopping centre and our local parks. Congratulations to a liquor outlet for taking a proactive measure in alcohol supply reduction.
It takes more than that. We have a dire need for reinstatement of the youth services cut by the Northern Territory government when it came to power. We were once able to rely on Mission Australia being funded for Youth Beat, which was a mobile youth service designed to engage young children at risk in the after-hours time slots. It did a great job with our local kids but no longer exists. The need for a dedicated youth service does exist.
The debate about Alice Springs has been very vocal. Our experience in Darwin and across Palmerston is the same. We desperately need funding into the delivery of after-hours youth services to respond to a large number of young people who are basically – to use local parlance – running amok. The shopping centre traders report increasing rates of theft and have reported that to police. These juveniles have had issues regarding truancy. The police education officers had some good suggestions and ideas about how they could respond. There were also suggestions regarding truancy officers attached to the Education department.
As a local community we will continue engaging with local traders. We have a great relationship with the local schools and will continue to work in a holistic way to deal with young children running amok. At the end of the day, if there is no support service for children to be referred to the cycle does not break. That is what is sadly missing, given the CLP funding cuts in the area of youth services.
Regarding police resources being stretched, it beggars belief that the one-shot-in-the-locker response to supply is the temporary beat location. There is no issue with it being a tool in a swag of tools for supply of alcohol, but it has become the only tool. In smaller regional towns, albeit it stretches police resources, it is possible to have a beat located outside the liquor outlet. You can see the positive effect it is having on crime reduction in Katherine and Tennant Creek. However, Darwin and Palmerston have about 89 liquor outlets. How on earth can police resource beat locations outside 89 liquor outlets? It is unrealistic and unsustainable.
All the studies in the past have shown that people will follow the rivers of grog. We have people who have followed rivers of grog to Darwin and Palmerston where it is logistically beyond the resources of police to place someone outside liquor outlets in the vast numbers they would need to. It has become so ludicrous lately that the Police minister mentioned the potential of transit safety officers or housing safety officers being trained and deployed as the new wave of bouncers outside liquor outlets. Police minister, you missed the point. They are transit safety officers or housing safety officers because of the dire need to make transport safe and deal with safer housing complexes and homes around our communities. Do not rob Peter to pay Paul. Why not listen to the recommendations of a Senate inquiry that said if you want to reduce violence, particularly domestic violence, bring back the Banned Drinker Register.
We are here to represent our communities. My community is crying out for the appropriate resources to be deployed. One of the saddest things I have seen with the CLP coming to power is breaking a series of promises. It has broken the promises to recruit 120 additional police and provide a 24-hour police station at Nightcliff. One of the first things the CLP did was stop the establishment of a Police Beat at Karama Shopping Plaza which would have been opened otherwise. It is pretty sad to see resources stripped away from a community in the area that would deliver improved safety and an improved community for Territorians.
This a call to the CLP: stop the petty politics and stop being in a bubble of denial. Things have escalated and are out of hand. We do not have access to data to determine the split between alcohol and other drugs, such as the ice epidemic affecting our community. It is one of the difficult things in the culture of cover-up with the CLP.
However, we know about what we see, hear and experience every day in our communities. Get out of the bubble of denial, put the resources into the police budget, and stop relying on one temporary beat location policy for supply.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I support the people of Palmerston because the CLP members from Palmerston are silent and absent in their duty to their constituents.
Their silence relates to the CLP government’s failure to cut crime and antisocial behaviour in Palmerston. The latest crime statistics for Palmerston show house break-ins are up 57% and motor vehicle theft is up 53%. Media reports have highlighted the crisis in Palmerston, reporting that 159 Palmerston businesses were broken into last year, double the previous year.
Palmerston residents are fed up with the out-of-control crime wave. Residents are fearful their cars will be stolen and fearful of being broken into while asleep. The CLP says crime is down in the regions, but in Darwin and Palmerston the facts say otherwise.
The CLP, going into the election in 2012, promised to reduce crime by 10% per year. This is definitely not happening in Darwin and Palmerston as property crime is on the increase. In Palmerston offences involving property damage rose 19%, to 775 offences over the past 12 months.
Territorians are equally concerned about antisocial behaviour. Problem drinkers in the Northern Territory follow the grog. In Palmerston alcohol-fuelled assaults are up 6.2% over the past 12 months and public drunkenness is on the rise. It reflects a failure of the CLP alcohol policy holistically.
I advised the Territory opposition Caucus debate months ago that putting pressure on regional problem drinkers through the TBL policy would put them on the road. It will mobilise them and they will continue to look for grog. We have experienced it in the regions, especially in the Barkly with Prime Minister Howard’s intervention, where we saw problem drinkers relocate interstate to Mount Isa to avoid income quarantining and application of the BasicsCard.
We implemented the Enough is Enough policy. When the opposition talks about alcohol policy we talk about a suite of major reforms, not just the Banned Drinker Register the CLP wants to harp on about.
The Enough is Enough policy related to a supply mechanism with an electronic database to single out problem drinkers and turn them off the tap in relation to access to takeaway alcohol. This impacted on 2500 problem drinkers across the Territory in less than six months, until the CLP cut the legs from under the Enough is Enough policy.
The Banned Drinker Register was one element of a major reform. Once a person was identified as a problem drinker and registered they were mandated to appear before a tribunal – outside the legal system to avoid clogging up our courts – which reflected experts in the field. That tribunal had the power to mandate work, education or rehabilitation relating directly to the problem drinker’s offending behaviour. If the offender did not attend the tribunal or comply with the mandated requirements of the tribunal’s decision, up to 80% of their income could be quarantined.
This was part of the Enough is Enough policy, a holistic alcohol policy for the Northern Territory. The CLP cut the legs from under it on 26 August 2012 with nothing in its place. The Territory experienced one of the most devastating years of crime in 2013, where blood was running in the streets.
The CLP crisis management put in a temporary policy, but what gets me is in estimates early in the term of this CLP government it was advised $100m would be appropriated to CLP alcohol policy over four years. We are now in the third year of that policy delivery and are in chaos. We have results in the regions to be acknowledged, but we have what we predicted: a shift of problem drinkers from the regions to the urban areas.
Today’s modern transport and the improvement in road transport infrastructure gives problem drinkers the opportunity to relocate to urban centres like Palmerston or Darwin where they can access alcohol from corner shops. This is a dire circumstance. We are offering the Chief Minister an alternative realistic policy in a bipartisan sense. The Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim, his right-hand man, need to accept an alternative policy from the Territory opposition is premised on all Territorians being part of the solution. I am sure Palmerston people are sick to death of the increase in crime in their city. I know from members on this side of the House that the people of Darwin are completely fed up with crime and alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in their city.
Let us all be part of the solution. Part of the solution we will challenge Territorians with is a seven-second delay in the purchase of takeaway alcohol. You have to produce recognised photo identification. It will take you seven seconds to be part of a Territory-wide solution that has been used and exploited by the member for Braitling, the Chief Minister, and by the member for Fong Lim in an election campaign pitching to a populist vote. The populist vote has now turned. People are sick of the increase in crime in Palmerston and Darwin but they can be part of the solution. We need to revisit the Enough is Enough alcohol policy and not just the Banned Drinker Register, but the other elements of the policy with appropriation of $100m over four years. We know the alcohol mandatory treatment centres are not delivering the results the CLP promised and are an expensive way to do business.
Let us look at expert research, let us take the knowledge we have learnt from the CLP’s alcohol mandatory treatment programs and turn it into recognised family crisis treatment. It is not about taking the addict out of the family unit or the community; it is about taking the family unit. I have spoken at length in the regions about doing this and starting a trial in the current term of this CLP government. We could duplicate $5.5m worth of infrastructure in the Barkly Work Camp in a regional area, and we could deliver in excess of 74 beds for a family drug and alcohol crisis centre. We could take the serious problem drinkers out of the community of Tennant Creek, giving respite to the families trying to battle through this particularly difficult era in alcohol abuse. We could then have the families involved in rehabilitation. We could be mandating education, mandating rehabilitation and mandating work under the guidelines of the Enough is Enough policy implementation. It is not rocket science and I do not want to use clichs. It is not too hard; it is there for the solution.
The people of Palmerston, Darwin and the greater region are sick to death of this issue. People in the regions acknowledge what the temporary measure has done, but they question the sustainability. Let us all be in this together and all be part of the solution. Let us accept the seven-second delay in the purchase of takeaway alcohol unless you are a problem drinker, where you will be turned off the tap. If you engage in secondary supply you will be off tap as well. It will not be long before the education process takes precedence, as I witnessed in the six months I was conducting my own workshops through the regional and remote areas.
Madam Speaker, I ask the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim to show leadership and take charge of this change.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this evening I talk about the wave of crime evident across the Top End and confirmed by the release of crime statistics last week. I also offer a few comments about crime and antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs.
We know while the CLP spruik statistics they are ignoring the reality of what is happening on the ground in Alice Springs. The crime statistics tell a different story to what is occurring on the streets of Alice. I heard many of those stories firsthand during a two-day visit to Alice Springs last week.
Despite what the Chief Minister says CLP policies are not protecting the community, young people in particular. Without a doubt, there is an element of the Alice Springs community calling for a youth curfew in response to antisocial behaviour following the CLP cuts to youth service funding. I acknowledge the good work Northern Territory police men and women are doing to keep the people of Alice Springs safe.
I was pleased to have a briefing with police while in Alice Springs. We talked about a number of broad-ranging issues, including temporary beat locations, the issue of alcohol and young people congregating in the CBD. I was advised one of the issues is that young people are going to the mall to access free WiFi. Whilst the free WiFi is no doubt in place for the convenience of people, including visitors, perhaps it needs to be looked at if it is bringing young people into Alice Springs at night.
During an interview with ABC radio in Alice Springs I was asked about a youth curfew and reiterated that a curfew was not what the majority of residents wanted. This was an issue the CLP was dealing with when in opposition. It discussed a curfew but later dropped the idea.
Police do not want to be chasing kids around the streets at night, which is what a curfew would do. We know if funding cuts and the axing of youth services were reversed we would see measures in place to assist kids get to a safe place. We would also have preventative measures or programs in place to keep kids out of trouble in the first place.
I am weary of the hands-off approach of the CLP government, which wants to blame all youth issues on bad parents and say it is not the government’s responsibility but the parents. Parents need to accept responsibility for their kids, but as we heard the member for Araluen say this evening, some of these kids are from families where problems are deep seated and embedded in disadvantage. Parents, and those kids, need assistance to turn their lives around. It is impossible to do that when all the funds have been cut from preventative programs.
The CLP should be following the advice of the member for Araluen, who also weighed into debate on ABC radio in Alice Springs last week over the curfew issue. She was also very vocal in calling for immediate reversal of the cuts implemented by her colleagues to after-hours youth services.
Alice Springs people also told me of the growing black market for alcohol which has emerged since temporary beat locations have popped up. I daresay that would also be prevalent in Tennant Creek and Katherine. As you know, when you have a measure in place to restrict and put a lid on an issue the problem of supply will simply pop up somewhere else.
I heard from Alice Springs residents about alcohol-fuelled and antisocial behaviour continuing on Friday nights and weekends. People thought it was rather humorous to hear these crime statistics and of the reduction in crime, while at the same time what people saw on the streets told a different story. I heard from a St John Ambulance employee about working a recent Friday night – this is not an uncommon story – for nine hours without a break because of the demand for the service. As he put it, he was ‘swimming in alcohol and blood for nine hours’. We know CAALAS, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, has also stated it has not seen a decline in caseloads or in the demand for services. The Alice Springs Correctional Centre is still full of people who have committed, and continue to commit, crimes.
Meanwhile, the CLP has police standing outside liquor outlets to plug the gap left behind after the Banned Drinker Register was removed including, around the Darwin area, our highly-trained Tactical Response Group members. There is no doubt that TBLs have made some difference, but the presence of a police member is quite intimidating to people who may be considering purchasing alcohol knowing they are not supposed to be drinking it. TBLs take police away from their job in other areas in communities, keeping people safe and protecting them from crime. It is not a sustainable resourcing measure to have temporary beat locations transfer to a permanent beat location. There is nothing wrong with them popping up from time to time during peak periods, but we know they are not sustainable. Police have been deployed from Darwin to conduct TBLs in Katherine and rotate through Alice Springs. It is not sustainable. Our police men and women have not signed up to be glorified bouncers at bottle shops, especially not in Alice Springs last week when temperatures of around 41 or 42 were recorded.
The CLP has also failed to deliver the 120 extra police it promised during the last election, one of many broken promises. If it is serious about tackling crime it must deliver on its commitment. Two-and-a-half years into this term the CLP has failed to deliver 120 extra police officers.
It has also failed to give town camps the tools they have been asking for to increase community safety, including the call for whole-of-community trespass orders and other visitor management controls that will give people in town camps the safety and assurance they have been looking for to implement community control measures. From an earlier visit to Bagot community I know the residents are quite adamant that most issues happen when visitors come to stay and do not manage to find their way home. This is not dissimilar to what is happening in Alice Springs.
We also know the CLP has stripped millions out of social services and infrastructure designated to help deliver those social services. We still have not received any reasonable answer to what conversation the CLP government is having with its federal counterpart on IAS funding, which is seeing further services stripped out across the Territory, including Alice Springs. I know programs for youth in Alice Springs are being defunded under IAS and no doubt across some of the remote communities. If you remove activities for kids that are keeping them occupied and out of trouble they will travel into Alice Springs looking for fun and excitement. These funding issues have not been answered by the CLP. It seems to be washing its hands of it. They say IAS funding is the federal government’s responsibility.
The sheer arrogance of the CLP to say they have solved crime and the Chief Minister in particular, is breathtaking. Yes, TBLs are making a dent on crime in Alice Springs. It is not sustainable and the crime statistics do not match with what people see on the ground.
I know the Chief Minister does not get to spend too much time in his home town of Alice Springs these days and that is definitely starting to show. He is quite clearly out of touch if he continues to think that crime is under control and everything in Alice Springs, or the rest of the Territory, is hunky dory.
The crime statistics across the Top End, in Darwin and Palmerston, as my colleagues have mentioned, are staggering. They are alarming and highlight the fact that the CLP has failed to implement any real sustainable and consistent policy for dealing with crime, youth and alcohol.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016