2015-03-26
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 7 classes from Rosebery Middle School accompanied by Gillian Furniss and Sally Cotton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have placed on each member’s desk a ribbon for Purple Day. Purple Day is a grassroots effort dedicated to increasing awareness about epilepsy worldwide. On 26 March each year people from around the globe are asked to wear purple and spread the word about epilepsy.
LOCAL COURT BILL
(Serial 120)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to consolidate into one act all the key provisions regarding the establishment and operation of the main lower courts of the Northern Territory. This involves the consolidation of the Local Court and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; resolution of inconsistencies between the jurisdictions, for example in the area of contempt; rationalisation of standard quasi-judicial and non-judicial officers within the lower courts; reflecting current practices and be sufficiently flexible to cater for future changes to practice; modernisation and create consistency in terminology; rationalising provisions regarding sentencing jurisdiction and offences that can be dealt with summarily; and increasing the size of the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court.
The consolidation of the lower courts does not include the Youth Justice Court or the Work Health Court. Additionally, the government is also considering the establishment of a children and family matters court.
The bill has been developed following the release of a draft local court bill in May 2014. The bill was published on the website of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, along with a detailed explanatory document which sought comment on both the bill as a whole and a range of technical and policy issues.
Comments were received from most of the legal professions, legal institutions and from the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate. The department has published on its Internet site a detailed report of the outcomes of the consultation along with its analysis of what changes to the Local Court Bill 2014 might be required. The Local Court Bill 2015 adopts most, but not all, of the outcomes of the consultation.
Last year the government began its judicial reform project with the establishment of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That reform will, over time, provide for administrative appeals and reviews to be transferred from the Local Court to NTCAT.
This bill is the next major step in the process of modernising the courts’ legislation of the Northern Territory. At the end of the process I envisage that we will have the following acts relating to courts: the Local Court Act, the Supreme Court Act – noting that I do not expect any major changes to that – the Criminal Law Procedure Act, which will replace the current procedural provisions of the Criminal Code Act and Justices Act. The Criminal Law Procedure Act will cover procedural issues for the Local Court and may deal with Supreme Court procedure.
Currently the legislation for the lower courts comprises a number of acts. The Local Court Act, enacted in 1989, provides for the establishment of a Local Court which deals with civil matters. The Justices Act, enacted in 1928, deals with criminal matters. The Magistrates Act deals with the appointment and termination of appointments of magistrates. The Records of Depositions Act deals with the keeping of records for all of the courts.
Additionally, jurisdictional issues are dealt with in the Criminal Code Act, the Sentencing Act and the Interpretation Act. Not surprisingly, this legislative mosaic means the structure of how all the acts fit together is difficult to understand. It is replete with terminological differences that have arisen given the span of time over which the legislation has been developed.
The most obvious unnecessary complexity is that we have different courts for civil and criminal matters, despite the fact the same magistrates and general physical facilities are used for civil and criminal matters.
The bill, in clauses 4, 5 and 9, removes this complexity by establishing the Local Court of the Northern Territory and providing for the civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Local Court judges: at the request of the current and former Chief Magistrates, the discussion paper on the Local Court Bill includes an examination of a proposal that the title of ‘magistrates’ be changed to ‘judges’. This proposal was opposed by all commentators other than the Chief Magistrate.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice’s conclusion on the issue in its report of the draft bill reflected that general stakeholder view. However, the government’s view is that the term ‘judge’ is the appropriate terminology to describe the activities of the current magistrates in the Local Court. It reflects current levels of professionalism and responsibility of the judicial officers of the Local Court, and the bill provides for a change of this title.
In brief, the main arguments in favour of the change are:
magistrates operate as judges with a similar level of basic qualifications and the same standards of judicial conduct, competence and ethics. Accordingly, it is appropriate that they be called a judge
the name ‘magistrate’ reflects a public service magistracy of a bygone era, such as blur the perception of the independence of Lower Court judicial officers
the fact that in the Northern Territory magistrates have the functions and powers already exercised by county and district courts elsewhere in Australia
the change will raise the status of the Lower Court judicial officers and thus assist in attracting candidates to the position
In brief, the main arguments against the changes are:
it is not correct that magistrates are perceived as any less independent than Supreme Court judges. Magistrates’ appointments since at least 1980 have, in the Northern Territory, always been based on appointees being legally trained and competent judicial officers
courts are hierarchical, thus it is easier to be understood if the title ‘magistrate’, with all of its historical connotations, is retained in the lower courts
in the past, state, territory and Commonwealth Attorneys-General had agreed they should move on this issue in a uniform manner
the Commonwealth changes from the federal magistracy to Federal Circuit Court judges are not a precedent, because the new Federal Circuit Court judges took on judicial functions formerly performed by the Federal Court or the Family Court
the change of title will lead to pressure, in the longer time, to change other terms and conditions of the lower court judicial officers so they reflect those of Supreme Court judges, the view being that this may occur, regardless of any assurances from the current magistrates that they will not do this
This change in terminology has been made at the Commonwealth level of government, but nowhere else in Australia.
The change has been made in New Zealand, Canada and England. As far as is known no other Australian jurisdiction is likely to make this move in the near future though the issue has been canvassed in the past through former Attorneys-General Ministerial Councils. The Territory is willing to take the lead on this issue.
Other key provisions of the bill are as follows.
Change of judicial officer in the course of proceedings: clause 7 sets out the circumstances in which the court may be constituted by a judicial officer other than a judicial officer who was involved in another part of the proceedings.
This clause addresses problems identified in the Justices Act regarding when a magistrate becomes seized of a matter. It spells out that, as a general rule, until the taking of evidence commences the court need not be constituted by the same judicial officer. However, for guilty pleas a different magistrate from one who heard the plea may impose the penalty. A new judicial officer may take over if the original judicial officer is unable to continue after the taking of evidence has commenced. This may occur because of facts such as death, vacation of office or unreasonable delays due to illness or related causes. The clause will also apply to circumstances where a local court judge has accepted a guilty plea before hearing and adjourned proceedings on sentencing submissions.
Court of record: clause 5(1) provides that the court is a court of record. In relation to the exercise of civil jurisdiction it is a continuation of the current position where section 4 of the Local Court Act establishes the Local Court as a court of record. There is no equivalent provision in the Justices Act so the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, being a creature of statute, is not a court of record. The other current courts of record in the Northern Territory are the Supreme Court, the Youth Justice Court and the Work Health Court.
Characterisation as a court of record gives a court certain inherent powers, such as the power to punish contempt. This subclause establishes equal status on the exercise of the court’s civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Appointments: the bill deals with the appointment, powers and functions of judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial officers. The provisions of the Magistrates Act are, by and large, also incorporated into Part 5 of the bill. The Magistrates Act is being repealed by this bill.
Appointment of local court judges: Part 5 incorporates the current provisions of the Magistrates Act for the appointment of Local Court judges, with the exception that the criteria for eligibility have been changed to conform to the criteria in other Australian jurisdictions, and the provisions regarding the appointment of acting judges have been simplified and streamlined.
Role of Chief Judge of the Local Court: clauses 20 to 22 seek to clarify the position of the Chief Judge as the head of the Local Court and ensure that the holder of that office has the requisite powers to ensure the efficient administration of the court’s business.
Role of justices of the peace: the legislation maintains the current role of justices of the peace. Under current law, in practice it is up to the Chief Magistrate to decide whether or not to allocate matters to justices of the peace. In recent times Chief Magistrates have ceased allocating criminal work to justices of the peace.
In relation to criminal proceedings, the current provisions in the Justices Act regarding the judicial powers of justices of the peace are complex but do not reflect current practice. The bill, in clause 6(4), provides that the Local Court may be comprised of one or more justices of the peace for the purposes to be prescribed in the regulations. These will be the only circumstances where justices of the peace can function as the Local Court. It is proposed that regulations replicate the current role of justices of the peace. The regulations will provide that the Chief Judge may allocate any matter, other than those matters referred to in clause 6(5), to a justice of the peace.
Independence of the court: clause 8 provides a statutory statement on the independence of the judicial officers of the Local Court. This replicates a similar provision in the current Local Court Act. We are retaining it as a statutory recognition of the independence of lower courts in circumstances where there is no constitutional or formal separation of powers at the state or territory level in Australia.
General jurisdiction: the jurisdiction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is currently to be found by a general reading of a number of provisions in the Justices Act along with section 3 of the Criminal Code Act and section 38E of the Interpretation Act.
The purpose of clause 18 is also to consolidate in one provision the criminal jurisdiction of the court and, together with the proposed amendment to section 3 of the Criminal Code Act, to standardise, simplify and modernise the way in which offences are classified.
Increasing the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court: the bill provides, in clause 12, that the civil jurisdiction limit is $250 000. This is an increase from the current limit of $100 000. After the jurisdictional limit was reviewed in 1998, the limit became the largest for all of Australia’s Magistrates Courts. Since that time the limit for the court most similar to the NT Local Court, namely the ACT Magistrates Court, has been increased to $0.25m.
The limits in other Australian jurisdictions range from $50 000 in Tasmania; $75 000 in Western Australia; $100 000 in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia; and $150 000 in Queensland. The difference between the territories and the states is that most states have a district or county court jurisdiction of up to $0.75m.
Looked at in another way the NT Supreme Court has exclusive civil jurisdiction starting at $101 000, whereas the Supreme Courts of the states have exclusive civil jurisdiction which usually start at a much higher figure than $101 000.
The real value of $100 000 as set in 1998 has decreased. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that the Northern Territory average weekly ordinary time earnings from May 1998 to May 2014 increased by 91.8%, so that $100 000 of earnings in 1998 was the equivalent of $191 825 in 2014. If the increase in CPI for Darwin between December 1998 and December 2014 (56.6%) is used, the value would be $156 566. To bring the value up to date and then stay ahead of the inevitable ongoing inflation for some years to come, it is proposed that the limit be set to $250 000.
Clauses 12 and 13 are based on section 14(1) and (7) of the Local Court Act. They deal with how the jurisdictional limit works. For example, the parties can agree to the court dealing with a matter even if the jurisdictional limit set under clause 12 is exceeded. They replicate the civil jurisdiction currently enjoyed by the Local Court.
Appeals: it is proposed that the appeals provisions be retained as part of the Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act and the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. As explained later these acts will, at least for the short term, be renamed versions of the current Local Court Act and the Justices Act as they will be following the repeal of those parts of them that will be covered by the Local Courts Act 2015.
The bill provides for divisions of the court to deal with different types of proceedings. These divisions are likely to have different procedural rules, which can be made under clause 48.
The most basic distinction is separate civil and criminal divisions as provided for in the bill. Other legislation may require, or make implicit, that a separate division should exist. An example is the Care and Protection of Children Act, section 88, which has a quite separate procedural regime for dealing with child protection matters. The bill provides power for the Rules or another act to establish divisions. This would provide the flexibility for the court, for example, to establish a division to deal with a particular problem like drug or alcohol abuse.
Court management issues: the bill re-enacts current provisions of the Magistrates Act dealing with the appointment by the Administrator of judicial officers on a full-time or part-time basis. It provides that there is to be a Chief Judge and for such Deputy Chief Judges and judges as determined by the minister. The bill also re-enacts current provisions permitting judges to carry out a function conferred by other acts or functions conferred on a JP or any registrar, including a judicial registrar. For judges the core requirements for appointment are that the person be a lawyer of at least five years and be under 70 years of age. Salary, allowances and benefits will continue to be set out by the Remuneration Tribunal under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act. There is also a no-detriment clause in section 55(2) and an appropriation clause in clause 55(3).
The bill retains the current provisions of the Magistrates Act concerning the circumstances in which the magistrate vacates office. That is, the period of office ends when he or she reaches 70 years of age, resigns or the appointment is terminated under clause 57. The termination provisions in clause 57 are modelled on section 40 of the Supreme Court Act. As for that act, it does not address the procedure that should be adopted for the Administrator to exercise his or her powers under this provision.
Chief Judge’s power to direct judges: the Chief Judge is given the power to give directions regarding matters such as the place of work of other magistrates, and matters incidental to the performance of judicial duties.
It is obviously possible for a Chief Judge to overstep the mark regarding the giving of directions. That is, the existence of any kind of administrative power in one judicial office over his or her peers obviously opens up the prospect of abuse of the power and unhappy judicial peers. However, the object of the justice system is not necessarily happy judicial officers. The overriding duty of the Chief Judge in respect of the administrative role is ensuring that justice is dispensed fairly throughout the whole of the Northern Territory. For this reason, clause 22(2)(a), dealing with the performance of duties, is a critical power that the Chief Judge must possess.
The clause, like its predecessor, does not diminish judicial independence as the Chief Magistrate cannot direct how a judicial officer will perform his or her duties. Subclause 22(3) makes this clear.
Hours of work: clause 23 deals with the discretions that the Chief Judge can exercise regarding part-time work hours of judges. If a judge is appointed on a full-time basis, that judge and the Chief Judge may agree that the judge may work part-time. Similarly, if a judge is appointed on a part-time basis an agreement can be reached regarding a lesser number of hours.
However, if a judge is appointed on a part-time basis, the Chief Judge has no power to agree to that judge being remunerated other than on a part-time basis.
The bill retains, in clause 24, the current provisions regarding where a court may sit. As a general rule the court may sit at places and in buildings approved by the minister. As part of the Chief Judge’s responsibilities for the administration of the court, he or she is to decide when and at which approved places and buildings the court is to sit.
Clause 36 provides that as a general rule the court is to be open to the public. It reinforces the undesirability of secret trials and the presumption that court proceedings should be open and that justice should be seen to be done. There is currently power under section 61(2) of the Justices Act and section 28 of the Local Court Act for the court to order witnesses to leave the courtroom until called to give evidence, and this power is retained, sensibly, in the bill.
Under the current acts there is no general power to close either the Local Court or the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Clause 37 provides this power. The general rule will still be that the proceedings take place in open court unless there is an express statutory requirement that they do not. The new power places the court on the same basis as the Supreme Court, where the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would allow for the making of such an order.
Frivolous documents: there is currently no express power in either the Justices Act or the Local Court Act to enable administrative staff in the court registries to refuse to accept lodgement of a document on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court process. The purpose of this provision is to prevent wasting resources. It is based on a similar provision in section 17 of the Western Australian Magistrates Court Act. The exercise of the power by a registrar is reviewable by a judge so anyone aggrieved by a registrar’s refusal can apply to a judge for leave to lodge the document.
Exclusions from the courtroom: in a very extreme case, the defendant in criminal proceedings may need to be removed from court through constant and repeated misbehaviour, and the trial continued in that person’s absence. The point is that otherwise a defendant could make it impossible for a trial to take place. Similarly, in a very extreme case, a lawyer could, by their misbehaviour, so disrupt the proceedings as to prevent them from coming to a proper conclusion.
Section 361(2) of the Criminal Code Act provides that an accused person may, in Supreme Court proceedings, be removed and the trial proceed in the defendant’s absence if the accused person has conducted themselves so as to render the continuation of the proceedings in his or her presence impracticable. This section is now replicated for the Local Court as clause 38 of the bill
Singing of orders: clause 41(2) resolves current uncertainty about the power to cancel process, as there is no expressed statutory provision to do so in the Justices Act. Process may, for example, need to be cancelled when it has been issued in error or when a particular summons or warrant is no longer required.
Entry for the purposes of inspection: there is currently no express power for the court to order entry to make an inspection. Entry might be needed, for example, to inspect the scene of an accident or view exhibits that are too big to be brought to the court. The bill puts beyond doubt that there is a power for making such an order.
Representatives: clause 44 reflects section 29 of the Justices Act. It provides that the general position is that a party must either appear for themselves or be represented by a legal practitioner. It does not prevent another person appearing for a party if the rules or another act so permits. For example, section 101 of the Care and Protection of Children Act allows for a legal practitioner or, ‘any other person’ to represent a party in proceedings in the Local Court’s family matters jurisdiction.
Rules and practice directions: Division 5 of Part 4 replicates the current power of the Chief Magistrate to practice directions or rules of court under section 21 of the Local Court Act and section 201A of the Justices Act.
In the current legislation there is considerable overlap between the subject matter of practice directions and rules, and it is not clear when one should be used instead of the other. Current practice is that criminal practice is regulated by practice directions, and civil practice by a combination of the extensive Local Court Rules supplemented by practice directions.
The distinction between rules, which are disallowable by parliament under section 63 of the Interpretation Act, and practice directions, which are not, is blurred as it is the Chief Magistrate alone who has the power to make both practice directions and rules. In the Supreme Court the power to make practice directions is vested in the Chief Justice (section 72 of the Supreme Court Act applies) but rules must be made by at least a majority of the judges (section 86 of the Supreme Court Act), which reflects that the rules are ‘rules of the court’. The Chief Justice can make directions for matters that are not covered by the act, regulations or rules (section 72).
Elsewhere in the other Australian lower courts, jurisdiction to make rules is not vested in the Chief Magistrate alone. New South Wales and Tasmania provide for a Rules Committee and the other jurisdictions for a minimum number of magistrates. Clause 48 adopts a similar approach by providing that the rules are made by the Chief Judge and at least four other judges. The expectation is that the Local Court judges will consult with stakeholders in the making of rules. As with all other subordinate legislation the rules are subject to the disallowance provisions contained in the Interpretation Act.
Practice directions: clause 49 re-enacts the power in section 21 of the Local Court Act and section 201A of the Justices Act. Practice directions are made by the Chief Judge and operate subject to both any rules made under clause 48 and the other provisions of the act.
Contempt: clear express contempt provisions are integral in legislation establishing a court of inferior jurisdiction. Unlike the Supreme Court, lower courts have no inherent power to punish contempt unless it is in ‘the face of the court’, for example, behaviour that occurs in the court. Without statutory power, such courts cannot punish as a contempt failure to comply with an order or undertaking to the court or failure to comply with a summons.
The new provisions are largely based on sections 33 and 34 of the Local Court Act. It is also made clear that a failure to comply with a court order is contempt, as is a failure to comply with an undertaking such as a promise in the court by a lawyer to do something.
The maximum penalty for contempt has been reviewed and increased. Currently it is $20 under the Justices Act and one month imprisonment, or 15 penalty units, which is $2235, under the Local Court Act. It is considered that the current penalties under both acts are insufficient and a new maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or 50 penalty units is proposed. This is the same maximum penalty as in section 86 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The power to punish for contempt is confined to judges only.
Clause 45 sets out all the ways in which a contempt of court can be committed, whether it is in the face of the court or not. It covers the existing situations under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act, and also includes a failure to comply with an order, subclause 3, and a failure to comply with an undertaking, subclause 4.
Raising the age of acting Local Court judges: currently a person cannot be appointed as an acting magistrate if he or she is 70 years of age or over that age. This is the same age for permanent appointments. Elsewhere in Australia it is generally accepted that it is often the case that there are many senior lawyers aged over 70 who are perfectly capable of performing judicial duties, particularly on a part-time basis. For example, under the Supreme Court Act there is no age limitation for acting Supreme Court judges. The options for reform are either to remove the limitation or to pick a new maximum age. The latter option was provided for in the department’s issues paper and this has received general support with the maximum age being 75 years.
Acting Chief Judge: clause 59 replaces section 9 of the Magistrates Act, and the drafting is based on Schedule 1, clause 8 of the Magistrates Court Act Western Australia. The current section 9 is not clear about the circumstances where an acting Chief Magistrate should be appointed. The new clause makes it clear that, as a general rule, the most senior Deputy Chief Judge acts in the position of the Chief Judge. The natural devolution to the first appointed Deputy Chief Judge obviates the need for an appointment by the Administrator for what could be a relatively short period of time.
The power of the Administrator to make the appointment of acting Chief Judge is retained. However, there may be circumstances where such an appointment is preferable to devolution to a Deputy Chief Magistrate. For example, if the office of Chief Magistrate becomes vacant it may be expedient to appoint a magistrate who does not want to apply for the permanent position so as to create a more level playing field for other applicants.
Acting local court judges: the Magistrates Act provides for three different types of acting magistrate, each with different methods of appointment. Section 9 provides for acting magistrates, section 9A for relieving magistrates, and section 14 for special magistrates, which applies to JPs appointed as a magistrate. Although titles differ, as do methods and terms of appointment, each of the other Australian jurisdictions has only one type of acting magistrate.
Division creates a single type of acting Local Court judge. The purpose of the provisions in this division is to enable additional Local Court judges to be appointed on a short, fixed-term basis to cope with particular circumstances, such as a temporary increase in workload or temporary shortage of judges, for example, where a judge is sick, on leave or involved in a lengthy hearing. The provisions also provide for acting judges to be appointed on a sessional basis. This will enable the Chief Judge to call on them on an as needs basis.
Clause 60 is based on sections 9 and 9A of the Magistrates Act. To allow for appointments that may need to be made quickly, the minister is empowered to appoint an acting judge for a term of up to three months. For a longer term, up to 12 months, the appointment must be made by the Administrator.
Clause 60(2)(b) is designed to ensure that acting appointments can be made on a sessional basis. Clause 60(4) is designed to make it clear that acting appointments can be extended, that is, so that clause 60(3) is not read as imposing a time limit for cumulative appointments.
In other jurisdictions a person who has retired as a magistrate because of the age restriction may be appointed as an acting magistrate for a period, commonly two years, following the statutory age of retirement. Retired magistrates provide a good source for acting appointments. This was the case in the NT before the statutory age for retirement was raised from 65 to 70 years. In considering the issue of whether a person aged over 70 is suitable to act as a judge, there seems to be no particular need for the person to have previously been appointed as an NT judge. Clause 60(3) provides that the maximum age for an acting judge is 75 years.
Records of the court: requirements as to the keeping of court records and access to such records or part of them, or to exhibits by parties and non-parties, are currently piecemeal and fragmented. Part 4, Division 2, provides a coherent statutory framework regarding what records need to be kept, and entitlements and applications for access to various parts of the records and to exhibits. The provisions regarding access are cast in general terms to allow for flexibility. Further detail as to the operation of these provisions can be made by practice direction under clause 49, or rules under clause 48.
It is intended that, consequent to the enactment of this Division, the Records of Depositions Act will be amended by removing all provisions related to the mechanics of keeping records.
Section 12(1) of the current Local Court Act provides that a registrar shall cause a record to be kept of all orders of the court and of such other matters as are directed by this act or the rules to be recorded. The Justices Act provides even less. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction is technically not a court of record at all, and the record keeping obligations seem confined to a requirement under sections 70 and 71 that a minute or memorandum be made of a finding of guilt or the dismissal of a complaint respectively. There is a power also, although no obligation, for the court to draw up an order of dismissal and give the defendant a certificate. Nothing in the Justices Act states who is responsible for keeping these records. In practice, criminal and civil registries of the courts keep case files.
Clause 25 is cast wider than being confined to the keeping of case files as there may be other records that may be considered proper to be kept. Clause 25 places the responsibility on the principal registrar for the keeping of the court records in all the registries around the Territory, both civil and criminal.
One of the aims of the bill is to rationalise the various non-judicial offices and the creation of the position of principal registrar is part of that rationalisation.
The requirements of the contents of the case files apply both to files in the criminal and civil registries. The non-exhaustive list of the required contents has been made following consultation with registry staff as to what is actually kept on the file. These contents more than cover the existing requirements under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act.
Currently section 12(3) of the Local Court Act entitles any person, unless the court orders otherwise, to inspect court orders on the payment of a fee. The fee is prescribed in the Local Court Regulations. Parties may, without charge, inspect records regarding their proceedings (section 12(4) of the Local Court Act). Section 12 of the Justices Act allows interested parties to inspect and receive copies of complaints and orders of guilt on the payment of a fee prescribed in the Justices Regulations. Access to other court records and exhibits by parties and non-parties is otherwise regulated by the Chief Magistrate’s practice directions.
Clause 29 maintains the current policy position that distinguishes between parties and non-parties regarding access to court records and materials on court files. Parties are entitled to have access to the information and documents on a court file listed in clause 29(a) to (h), with the exception of an audio or audiovisual recording of any part of a proceeding. For access to such recordings they must seek leave of the court. This reflects current practice and facilitates the efficient operation of the court’s registry so that arrangements can be made for listening/viewing or obtaining copies of such material. Although parties will be entitled to inspect and copy most of the contents of the court file, regulations may prescribe fees to do so (see clause 32), as is the current position under the Justices Regulations, the Local Court Regulations and the Record of Depositions Act.
Under clause 29(2) non-parties will require leave of the court to have access to any record other than judgments and orders. Subclause 29(3) provides that the court may grant access on any conditions it thinks fit. It is anticipated the guidelines for the exercise of this discretion will be included in practice directions, as currently, or in rules. As with access by parties, regulations under section 30 may prescribe fees for access.
Reflecting the current law under section 12(3) of the Local Court Act and section 72 of the Justices Act, access to judgments and orders is available equally to parties and non-parties unless the court makes an order under subclause 30(2), in a specific case, restricting such access.
Exhibits are not part of the case file or the records of the court. Accordingly, a separate provision regarding access to them has been included in the bill. However, clause 31 mirrors clause 29, distinguishing in the same way between parties and non-parties.
As with access to case files, it is anticipated the guidelines for the exercise of this discretion will be included in practice directions, as currently, or in rules. Regulations under clause 32 may prescribe fees for access.
In respect of fee waivers the Interpretation Act, section 65C, implies into all regulation-making powers concerning fees a power to also provide for waiver or refund of fees. For this reason the bill contains no explicit provisions dealing with waivers and refunds.
Clause 33 provides that it is the duty of the principal registrar to provide for copies of things that can be accessed in accordance with sections 27 to 32. This clause acknowledges that other legislation may limit access to court records or exhibits or to the publication of documents or other things. For example, there is a general power in section 57 of the Evidence Act to prohibit publication of evidence in the interests of public decency, or names of parties or witnesses in the interests of administration of justice, and there are certain prohibitions regarding the publication of matters from the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
Complaints against magistrates: this bill contains no provisions dealing with the process for making complaints about Local Court judges or for the terminations. The legislative provisions are largely the same as those applying to Supreme Court judges.
Judicial review: section 35 of the Local Court Act will be repealed and not re-enacted. This provision prohibits the Supreme Court from judicial review of decisions of the Local Court (civil jurisdiction). There is no similar prohibition regarding review for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Consolidation of the criminal and civil jurisdictions requires consistency, and the preferable policy position is to extend the power of review to the civil jurisdiction rather than remove it regarding exercise of the criminal jurisdiction, which makes perfect sense.
Completion of pending proceedings: clause 58 facilitates the completion of proceedings by a judge even if their appointment has been terminated or office vacated. For example, if a judge turns 70 in the course of a summary hearing, he or she would be able to continue to hear and determine the proceedings, including making judgment and imposing a sentence, if applicable. It is based on section 20A of the Magistrates Act. It does not apply if termination occurs under clause 57(2) and (3).
Acting judges: clause 62, dealing with the conditions and appointment of acting judges, reflects the existing provisions of the Magistrates Act. If the minister makes an appointment then he or she determines the conditions of appointment. If the Administrator makes the appointment then he or she determines the conditions of the appointment.
Clause 63 deals with vacation of office. It reflects existing provisions in the Magistrates Act and is similar to clause 56. It provides that an acting judge’s appointment ceases at the end of their term of appointment on reaching the statutory age of retirement of 75 years, on resignation on a termination by the relevant appointer (Administrator or minister).
Clause 66 deals with the prohibition of other work. It is based on section 11 of the Magistrates Act. It is a standard provision in equivalent legislation throughout Australia, although the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction where the minister can consent to a magistrate engaging in other paid employment. The ability for a magistrate to continue to hold office in another territory or to hold office in the armed services is proposed to be removed as being obsolete and out of date.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek a 10-minute extension of time for the Attorney-General.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members and the Chief Minister for their indulgence. I only have about 10 pages to go.
Part 6 provides for establishing the criteria for eligibility of appointment as a judicial registrar under clause 69; establishing the position of a principal registrar, clause 71; and rolling up the multiplicity of non-judicial officers under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act, for example, registrar, deputy registrar, acting registrar, the clerk of the court, a clerk of the court, into the office of the registrar (clauses 71 to 72).
The current position of judicial registrar was created subsequent to the enactment of the Local Court Act. The criteria for appointment have not been provided for by statute. Current practice is that judicial registrars must be legal practitioners as they exercise judicial functions in the Local Court, including hearing and determining matters in the small claims jurisdiction. They are public servants and they are appointed by the minister. In all respects their eligibility and appointment are similar to the office of the deputy coroner under the Coroners Act.
The power of judicial registrars to exercise judicial functions is left under the current law to be provided for in Rule 4.01 of the Local Court Rules and Rule 1.09 of the Small Claims Rules. As a matter of policy it is preferable that decisions about the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction should be made by parliament or the Administrator acting on the advice of executive council rather than being determined by the court itself.
Further provisions regarding the appointment, powers and functions are contained in clauses 69 to 70 of the bill. Protection from personal liability of judicial registrars would be covered by the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act of 2008.
Clause 69 sets out that the functions of a judicial registrar include the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Local Court as provided in clause 6, that is, dealing with other civil matters, except for hearing and determining claims and hearing appeals, and performing the functions provided for in the rules of court or in the Local Court Act or any other act.
Clause 71 provides for public servants to be assigned by the chief executive officer of the department administering the Local Court Act to the positions of principal registrar and registrars of the court. The position of principal registrar is new. The Justices Act provides for a clerk of the court, although throughout the act it is unclear whether there is only one clerk or a number.
In practice there are currently two positions of principal registrar in the Local Court, one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs, but there is currently no statutory basis for these positions.
In the interests of clarifying responsibilities, providing for uniformity of practices and mitigating any north/south divide, it is proposed that there be only one principal registrar. One of the responsibilities of that person will be the keeping of court records.
Clause 72 provides that the functions of the registrars are: to exercise the powers delegated to them under rules of the court; to perform administrative functions conferred upon them by rules of court or by any legislation; to perform other functions conferred by the act or any other act; and to perform administrative functions as directed by the Chief Judge.
Clause 74 is based on sections 9(2), 11 and 21(3) of the Local Court Act, section 201A(3) of the Justices Act, and section 28 of the Western Australian Magistrates Court Act.
It provides that the rules of the court may delegate to registrars some of the court’s jurisdiction. The rules of court cannot delegate the power to hear or determine civil claims, but this operates subject to other legislation. Nor can the rules delegate the power to conduct a preliminary examination, that is, committals, or to hear and determine a charge for an offence, nor can they delegate the power to punish for contempt.
Clause 75 provides that a magistrate can hear appeals from decisions of registrars.
Clause 76 provides that the Chief Judge may appoint bailiffs for the court. A police officer may also perform all of the functions of a bailiff of the court. This clause is based on clause 10A of the Local Court Act.
It can be noted that the Sheriff Act provides for the appointments by the Attorney-General of bailiffs for the purposes of the Supreme Court Act. The Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act also provides for the licensing of bailiffs.
Transitional provisions: the bill also contains transitional provisions in Part 8. These are designed to ensure the smooth transition from the existing Local Court and Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the new Local Court. For example, all proceedings already commenced will continue uninterrupted, judgments and orders made and process issued will remain valid, and all existing appointments, both judicial and other court officers, will continue. Clause 85 is intended to save the effect of various administrative actions, for example, swearing in of officers, done under the repealed acts so that they remain effective for the purposes of the new legislation. This, of course, will lead to consequential amendments.
Consequential amendments: there will be extensive consequential amendments to a large range of legislation to reflect new terminology and the creation of the new Local Court.
Up to 153 acts, rules, regulations and by-laws will be amended. They include:
amendment to section 3 of the Criminal Code Act so that all offences are classified as summary or indictable
amendment to section 122 of the Sentencing Act so that the default fines penalty is 500 penalty units for breach of an indictable offence dealt with in the Local Court under sections 120, 121A, or 131A of the Sentencing Act
amendment to sections 186, 188(2), 188A(2)(a) and (b) and 189A(2) of the Criminal Code Act and section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so that the default summary penalty is the one contained in section 122 of the Sentencing Act
amendment to section 121A of the Justices Act by adding to the list of offences that can be dealt with summarily, an offence under section 213(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code Act; namely, burglary of a dwelling house at night time. This offence carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment
Consideration will also be given to other offences that may be similar to section 231 of the Criminal Code Act.
As part of the process of implementing this act:
the Local Court Act will be amended so that its jurisdictional provisions are removed, that is, they will be in this act. The only provisions that will remain in the old Local Court Act will be those dealing with civil procedure. The intention is that the Local Court Act will be renamed the Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act
Other proposed consequential amendments would be as follows:
all references to ‘crimes’ will be replaced by references to ‘offences’ with, as a general rule, the size of the maximum penalty determining whether an offence is an indictable offence or a summary offence
Offences classified as crimes that might be reclassified as summary offences are found in the Biological Control Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act.
Generic references to the word ‘crime’ that might have meant ‘offence’ are found in the Australasia Railway (Third Party Access) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Coroners Act, the Criminal Code Act, Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act, the Gaming Machine Act, the Police Administration Act, the Prostitution Regulation Act, the Sentencing Act, the Utilities Commission Act, the Veterinarians Act, the Veterinarians Regulations, the Youth Justice Act and the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act.
This means now there will need to be an extensive consequential bill to make amendments to many other statutes and legislative instruments in the Northern Territory’s statute book. This bill will be developed over six months with the aim that it will be introduced into parliament in the October 2015 sittings so that the new Local Court Act can commence operation in early 2016. Between now and 2016 bills will continue to use current terminology regarding magistrates or the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend several acts and regulations within the justice legislation portfolio, including the Anti-Discrimination Act, the Fences Act, the Information Act, the Residential Tenancies Act and the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
Parts 2 and 3 of the bill amend the Anti-Discrimination Act and Anti-Discrimination Regulations to reform the complaint process to provide a quicker process for parties to enable the process to operate more efficiently with reduced resources.
The Anti-Discrimination Act promotes equality of opportunity in the Northern Territory by protecting persons from unfair discrimination in certain areas of activity, and from sexual harassment and associated objectionable conduct and to provide remedies for persons who have been discriminated against.
One of the functions of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner under the Anti-Discrimination Act is to carry out investigations and hearings into complaints made under the act and to endeavour to effect conciliation.
Complaints are made to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner regarding prohibited conduct which is defined as meaning:
(a) discrimination, other than discrimination exempted from the application of the Anti-Discrimination Act, or
(b) sexual harassment, or
(c) victimisation, or
(d) discriminatory advertising, or
(e) seeking unnecessary information, or
(f) failure to accommodate a special need, or
(g) aiding a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Part 6 of the Anti-Discrimination Act sets out the procedure for the resolution of complaints. In order for a complaint to be ultimately substantiated it must pass through three possibly four stages: acceptance, investigation, conciliation (possibly), and hearing.
A long-running review of the Anti-Discrimination Act identified a need to improve time lines for complaint handling. The amendments in this bill respond to that need and are intended to make the process of resolving anti-discrimination complaints quicker and fairer. The bill therefore amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to replace the investigation stage in Part 6, Division 2 with an evaluation for hearing stage by clause 24 of the bill.
Currently, on accepting a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act the commissioner must carry out an investigation and, on completing an investigation, the commissioner must determine whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding to conciliation or a hearing. If it is determined that there is no prima facie case the complaint is dismissed, but if the commissioner is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegation of prohibited conduct in the complaint, the complaint proceeds to conciliation or, if the commissioner believes it cannot be resolved by conciliation, to a hearing.
The requirement for a prima facie test has proven to be too low a test and is not always an effective way of screening to determine whether matters have reasonable grounds to proceed. The test is also complex and is not always understood by the parties.
Clause 24 therefore replaces the investigation stage following acceptance of a complaint, with a process of evaluation to establish if a complaint should proceed to a hearing. The new test during evaluation considers such things as whether the matter has a reasonable prospect of success. The new evaluation stage includes powers of inquiry to decide if a complaint should be referred to hearing in totality or on particular grounds. Such powers of inquiry are available where necessary (they will not be required in every case) and include a power to issue a notice to produce documents to a person and to require witness statements or that a party provide a statement or information on oath. While the powers will assist the commissioner in better evaluating complaints, they will also reduce delay and assist in the quality of evidence in cases where there are self-represented parties.
Clause 11 extends the limitation period to making a complaint from six to 12 months. Section 65 of the Anti-Discrimination Act currently provides for a six-month time limit on which to make a complaint, although the commissioner has discretion to allow the extended period of time for receiving a complaint beyond the six-month time limit.
The commissioner receives a large number of complaints outside the six-month statutory limit and the number is increasing. The current process for determining whether to exercise the discretion to extend takes approximately six months. This compounds the delay for parties if the complaint is accepted.
In a majority of cases matters that are outside the six months but fall within 12 months are accepted, but only after considerable delay because of the processes of determining whether to extend the time limit. Therefore, clause 11 amends section 65 and provides a 12-month limitation period which will enable complaints which otherwise would have required consideration for extension to be handled as complaints immediately, and potentially resolve matters sooner. All other jurisdictions in Australia provide at least a 12-month limitation period and the amendment will bring the NT in line with these jurisdictions.
Clause 13, through the new section 66B, allows the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to require a respondent, during the acceptance stage, to provide a written response to issues raised in the complaint. When a complaint is made to the commissioner, it is currently only able to be assessed on the complainant’s version of events. The provision was intended to enable a complaint to be assessed without the respondent being informed and is considered an important protection for complainants.
However, the amendment in clause 13 enables the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to seek a response from a respondent to assist in determining whether to accept a complaint. In many instances where a complaint is eventually sent to the respondent, their response makes it clear that the matter is not a complaint that the commissioner should continue with. For example, it may become apparent from the respondent that a complaint about being refused accommodation because of gender is in relation to the respondent renting out a room in their own home. This type of discrimination is exempted under section 40 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. This amendment is intended to provide more flexibility around the process so the commissioner is able to respond to the very different complaints received, and dismiss complaints which are baseless, exempt, or otherwise not able to be continued with under the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Clause 24 in the new section 84 enables the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to issue a notice in writing to a party to compel the production of documents or information during an evaluation. Currently, in accepting a complaint the commissioner is limited to the information and documents voluntarily provided by the complainant and freedom of information applications. Providing the commissioner with the power to compel the production of documents and information will assist the commissioner in assessing complaints by improving the quality of relevant material. It also brings the power of the commissioner in line with other discrimination jurisdictions.
Clause 13 in new section 66E further provides the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner with power to take no further action on a complaint. The commissioner at times has complaints that need to be discontinued, but the commissioner has no power to end the matter. In these circumstances the commissioner may be reliant on a party to withdraw their complaint under section 71, or for the complaint to lapse under section 72 (lack of interest), neither of which may be possible or wanted by the parties. Often the matters need to be ended due to no fault of the complainant, for example, if the respondent is a body corporate which no longer exists. The result of this is that the complaint remains as an open matter listed with the commissioner, though it cannot progress.
Clause 19 repeals and inserts new section 79 to allow the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to direct a person to participate in conciliation. Conciliations conducted under the Anti-Discrimination Act are protected, that is, no evidence can be used in relation to a complaint outside of the conciliation. It is anticipated that earlier conciliations will assist with the resolution of complaints.
Clause 24, by new section 86, refers the jurisdiction to the hearings under the Anti-Discrimination Act to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, known as NTCAT, by providing that hearings will be referred from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to NTCAT following evaluation that there is a reasonable prospect of success at a hearing.
Clause 40 provides for transitional amendments following commencement of the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act.
The bill also amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to apply to the principles of criminal responsibility set out in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
Part 5 of the bill amends the Information Act to include information created under the Anti-Discrimination Act as exempt under section 44 of the Information Act, because it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. The exemption will apply generally to information collected or provided as part of the formal complaint process, which includes conciliations, and to other information or advice provided to or by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner that would reasonably be expected to be confidential, such as personal confidential inquiries from the public. It will not apply to other functions of the commissioner, such as her education or research functions, or to operational matters of the commission.
Currently the commissioner relies on the tribunal exemption for bodies, other than a court, established by or under an act that has judicial or quasi-judicial functions. However, the exemption is no longer appropriate given that the hearing function is being transferred to NTCAT. This new section 49D is anticipated to assist in resolution of complaints by conciliation as it prevents the release, as a result of freedom of information application, of any material provided in confidence by a party.
I will now turn to other aspects of the bill. As you will be aware, NTCAT commenced operating on 6 October 2014. NTCAT is designed to be a one-stop shop for reviewing a wide range of administrative decisions and resolving certain civil disputes. The NTCAT can be given both original (that is, administrative decisions that can be made in the first instance) and review jurisdiction. Where NTCAT is given original jurisdiction decisions will usually be made by one general member of NTCAT. Review decisions will be generally considered by a legal member or panel of members.
The jurisdiction of NTCAT will expand over time with new jurisdictions gradually being conferred by legislation and phased into its business. Currently NTCAT has a limited jurisdiction, including lands, planning and mining tribunal matters and licensing matters. Relevant residential tenancy matters are currently being heard by NTCAT members as delegates of the Commissioner of Tenancies. The full transition of residential tenancy matters to NTCAT is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2015.
NTCAT represents a major step in improving access to justice for all Territorians. However, as with all major reforms it is necessary to continually evaluate and monitor the implementation of the reforms to ensure, particularly in the early stages, that they are operating as effectively as possible. Accordingly, Part 6 of the bill makes a number of amendments to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to improve the operation of the act, amendments that have been identified during NTCAT’s first six months of operation.
Clause 53 omits section 84, which currently provides the enforcement of NTCAT orders, and replaces it with a more comprehensive enforcement regime.
Section 84 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act currently reflects a policy position that prosecution is the main tool for encouraging compliance with NTCAT orders. Section 84 therefore creates an offence for failing to comply with an order of NTCAT, punishable by up to 100 penalty units or imprisonment for six months.
Although the threat of arrest and possible imprisonment under section 84 is anticipated to be an effective enforcement tool for most people, concern has been raised as to whether it will adequately address all situations. For example, imprisonment will not necessarily assist a person to receive money owed to them under a compensation order or to give effect to the termination of a lease. In those cases, for example, a warrant of seizure and sale or a warrant of possession that can be enforced by a court bailiff may be more appropriate. While section 84(1) allows for costs orders to be enforceable in an appropriate court as a debt, the definition of ‘costs orders’ applies only to orders relating to the costs of proceedings, not to monetary orders for compensation or non-monetary orders requiring a person to do or refrain from doing an action.
It is therefore proposed to enhance the current enforcement powers to create a full suite of appropriate enforcement tools. New section 84 is being added to allow for monetary orders to be registrable and enforceable as an order of the court of competent jurisdiction. Monetary orders under new section 84 includes all compensation orders and costs orders as well. The current jurisdictional limit of the Local Court is $100 000. This means that any monetary order below that amount is registrable and enforceable as an order of the Local Court. Any order of NTCAT relating to an amount in excess of $100 000 is registrable and enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.
New section 84A creates a separate provision relating to the enforcement of non-monetary orders. This section clarifies that, generally, non-monetary orders of NTCAT are all to be enforceable as orders of the Local Court. However, it is likely that there may be circumstances where a non-monetary order of NTCAT would more appropriately be enforced by the Supreme Court, for example, where the order is likely to involve complex matters or relate to a large asset.
In those cases the relevant act conferring jurisdiction on NTCAT could specifically override new section 84A so that such orders are enforced as Supreme Court orders. This is possible due to section 5 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, which specifically provides that if there is an inconsistency between the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act and the relevant act then the relevant act prevails. Section 5 also provides that a relevant act may modify the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act in relation to an exercise of jurisdiction conferred by that relevant act.
To ensure then that the full suite of enforcement tools is available in relation to all orders of NTCAT, it is proposed to make these amendments retrospective so that any order made by NTCAT since its inception on 6 October 2014 is enforceable under the new enforcement provisions.
It should be noted that the current offence provision in section 84 is preserved at new section 84B. This still will allow for the prosecution of a person if they do not comply with an order of NTCAT.
It is also proposed to amend section 140 and insert new section 140A of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. Firstly, it is proposed to insert the new section 140A to clarify the parties to a review of original decisions made by NTCAT. New section 140A provides that NTCAT is not a party to a proceeding for a review of a decision of NTCAT in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Section 140 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act allows for a person to appeal against a decision made by NTCAT in its original jurisdiction. Section 127(1)(c) provides that the decision-maker is a party to the proceeding. While it makes sense that the decision-maker is a party in matters where NTCAT is reviewing the original decision of another decision-maker, it is not appropriate for NTCAT to be a party in matters where it would be reviewing its own decision.
Section 140 is also being amended to insert new subsection 1A to allow for the regulations to exclude specific decisions of NTCAT from being reviewed by NTCAT. This regulation-making power is intended to be used only in limited and appropriate circumstances. For example, regulations could exclude original decisions of NTCAT where it is anticipated that original decisions may involve complex matters and be likely to require an original hearing by more than one member, including a legal member. Importantly, it should be noted that any regulation excluding a decision from the appeal right under section 140 does not affect the ultimate existing right to appeal a decision of NTCAT to the Supreme Court under section 140 on a question of law.
Accordingly, Part 7 of the bill proposes to make amendments to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Regulations to prescribe under new section 140(1A) certain suitable original decisions of NTCAT under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
The Health Practitioners Act is being amended by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) Act 2014, the relevant aspect of which is anticipated to commence in mid-2015. These amendments replace the Health Professional Review Tribunal with NTCAT for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. New Part 3 of the Health Practitioners Act sets out processes and procedures of NTCAT consistent with the national law, including requiring constitution by a panel of three when determining matters under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. However, section 22 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act limits NTCAT in the sense that, for any matter, the maximum number of members that can constitute NTCAT is three.
Therefore, in the case of reviews under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where NTCAT has an original decision referred to it under section 196 or 197 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, this would result in the situation where there would be duplication, that is, two full hearings before a panel of three. This introduces a new appeal right that does not currently exist and is not what was intended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. This is the type of unintended and inefficient circumstance where it would be appropriate to exclude the original decision of NTCAT from an internal review by NTCAT under section 140.
Part 4 of the bill makes minor technical amendments to the Fences Act. The Fences Act was recently amended by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) Act to confer the current jurisdiction of the Local Court under the Fences Act to NTCAT. However, a small number of references to ‘court’ in sections 5(2), 8(2) and 15(6) of the Fences Act were inadvertently missed during the drafting process and were not converted to references to NTCAT. Part 4 of the bill corrects these references.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School accompanied by Wendy Bishop and Sharna Crockett. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I can see that they are as thrilled as I am to be dealing with this highly important piece of legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure they will pay close attention, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Their excitement is noted.
Finally, Part 8 of the bill amends sections 122 and 170 of the Residential Tenancies Act in minor respects, similar to the amendments to the Fences Act. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments)(No 2) Act of 2014 will amend the Residential Tenancies Act to confer the current jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Tenancies on NTCAT. However, a small number of references to the commissioner in section 122 were inadvertently missed during the drafting. These references are being corrected and replaced with references to NTCAT.
The amendments proposed in this bill will significantly improve the complaint process under the Anti-Discrimination Act and the effectiveness of NTCAT.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I stand here on behalf of the Business minister, the member for Sanderson, who is away with a debilitating injury. I put on record my disgust at members opposite who could not see fit to give the member for Sanderson a pair. Government tries to work with opposition in making sure when members are disabled or the like they can get a pair, but it seems the opposition is more interested in playing silly political games than it is about working together to make sure this place functions well.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to adopt a new national uniform template legislation for the regulation of cooperatives in all states and territories, as provided for in the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement.
The main purpose of this bill is to enable the uniform cooperatives national law and the national regulations to be applied in the Northern Territory. The law is set out in the appendix to the bill. The law will apply to the non-banking cooperatives, which are also known as general cooperatives. The banking cooperatives, sometimes called financial cooperatives, such as credit unions, building societies and friendly societies, are regulated under separate legislation administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
Cooperatives are mutual organisations and they continue to be a significant part of the Australian and world economies. There are approximately 1700 registered cooperatives in Australia. About three-quarters of cooperatives are established as not for profit, in that they have rules that prevent them from distributing any surplus to their members. These cooperatives may provide crucial services to their members, such as health and medical care, job searching, training, housing or childcare.
Cooperatives are known for their distinctive member-owned, member-controlled and member-used focus. They provide an organisational structure for individuals and small businesses by which they can acquire goods and services in economies that increasingly are dominated by large corporate organisations. The Northern Territory currently has four cooperatives.
Cooperatives are also important in rural communities where they enable those communities to retain and develop services that have been eroded by the withdrawal of other corporate businesses which seek to maximise profits for investors and so relocate elsewhere for bigger profits.
Investor-oriented firms, member-oriented cooperatives and other types of organisations all have a role to play in providing services in a modern and balanced economy. Governments continue to have a role in providing a legislative framework to assist with the operation of cooperatives and other forms of organisations.
The Northern Territory, as part of the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement, continues to promote the principles of cooperatives through implementation of cooperatives national law. This legislation will continue to enable the formation, registration and operation of cooperatives, promotion of cooperative principles and protection of the interests of cooperatives, their members and the public in the operations and activities of cooperatives.
The cooperatives national law introduces a number of reforms. Importantly it will ensure consistency of laws across all jurisdictions. This will be achieved by jurisdictions either directly applying the uniform template cooperatives national law, or making their own legislation consistent with that law. All jurisdictions will use their best endeavours to administer the cooperatives national law uniformly in line with the agreement.
This improvement in the consistency and administration of cooperatives laws will provide greater certainty to all parties with rights, duties and powers in relation to cooperatives, and assist in lowering costs and red tape through cross-border operations. Automatic mutual recognition of cooperatives by other jurisdictions, once they are registered in one jurisdiction, will facilitate cooperatives conducting operations across state and territory borders. Currently a cooperative needs to apply separately to each jurisdiction in which it wishes to operate.
If a trading cooperative wishes to operate in all states and territories it would pay an average of about $1700 in registration and compliance fees to do so, as well as having to lodge reports annually to those jurisdictions. By comparison the corresponding fee for a company registered under the Corporations Act is about $450. Under the cooperatives national law, costs will be lowered and paperwork requirements simplified, which is similar to a company requirement in this context.
Simplification of the financial reporting and auditing requirements for small cooperatives, by using a risk assessment-based system, will reduce costs and red tape for those cooperatives. Responsibilities and duties for directors and officers of a cooperative have been updated and made consistent with those requirements applying to directors and officers under the Corporations Act. This will mean that directors and officers in similar circumstances in a cooperative will be treated similarly to those in a company. Director liability for corporate fault under the cooperatives national law has been revised according to the Council of Australian Government’s director liability reform.
As a result, blanket liability provisions have been removed and directors face liability where there is a clear link between the director’s responsibility and action or inaction and the contravention of the law.
More flexibility for a cooperative to raise funds from both members and the public has been created by the introduction of the option to use cooperative capital units by cooperatives in all jurisdictions.
To save reinventing the wheel, cooperatives laws have for some time referenced the Corporations Act where appropriate, for example, in dealing with disclosure of information for fundraising from the public, insolvency, liquidation and winding-up situations. The referencing of the Corporations Act has been updated and made consistent across all jurisdictions.
The introduction of enforceable undertakings is a cost-effective method of facilitating compliance with the law. For example, the registrar may accept a written undertaking from a cooperative to take action to prevent contravention of the law. This can be reinforced with a court order, applied for by the registrar, provided there is agreement from the cooperative.
The adoption bill and the law have been approved by all states and territories via the Council of Australian Government’s consumer affairs forum out-of-session process. With these milestones having been met, it is now timely for the bill and law to be considered by this Chamber in keeping with the terms of the agreement.
The Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement requires states and territories to secure the passage and proclamation of their laws by 18 May 2015. I commend the implementation and ongoing uniform administration of this national template cooperatives legislation for the benefit of all in the cooperatives sector and for the future development of business in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
Continued from 18 February 2015.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of my Labor team in response to this legislation, which I find shameful. I think most people in the public domain would be shocked that the government is opening a pathway to get big fat pay rises for politicians while it expects public servants to cop a 3% pay increase, which is less than CPI.
Unbelievable! Absolutely appalling! I guess you are hoping the greed will be infectious and this will slip through without notice. We do not share your greed, Chief Minister, and we condemn you for even trying this sleight of hand to bring in this legislation so you can say, ‘This isn’t a pay rise. This is just setting up an independent process where politicians are not deciding what politicians pay is.’ You would not want to be held accountable would you, Chief Minister, for any consequences of this? The consequences are writ large if you refer to the Remuneration Tribunal decisions of 2012, 2013 and 2014. But this is what we have come to expect from this Chief Minister
Following the recent leadership coup, the ongoing dysfunction and personal acrimony within the CLP, the Chief Minister promised in this Assembly that:
The bill before the House is living proof that the Chief Minister and the CLP are focused 110% on themselves, not on the Territory community. The inevitable consequence of this bill is that the salaries of Assembly members will increase to levels in excess of increases for public service employees under enterprise agreements, and those available to workers in the private sector.
The primary focus of this bill is to break the nexus between the quantum of salary increases for MLAs and the public service. You are repealing the legislation that caps us at public service pay increase rates. Is this fair or equitable? In the most recent Northern Territory public service EBA, salary increases were capped at 3% per annum for four years, effective from October 2013. In stark contrast, since 2009 Labor took the view that salary increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly should be linked to the general wage limits of the Territory public sector. Today, you break that.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Larrakeyah Primary School accompanied by Ms Claire Rowat, Mrs Tanya Harvey and Mr Bradley King. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: The Labor position which remains today is based on fairness, equity and the reasonable expectations of the Territory’s hard-working public sector and the wider community that salary increases for politicians will not outstrip those available to public servants. This remains our position. We will oppose this legislation.
We have before us the Chief Minister’s proposal to cap Assembly members’ base salary at 80% of the salary available to federal parliamentarians. That opens the door for salaries to be increased. So much for a 110% focus on Territorians. You sit here exposed.
Members opposite might ask themselves how Territorians might react to a scenario under which it is now possible, if this legislation passes, for politicians to get higher salary increases than those available to public sector employees. Remember, this Chief Minister is so out of touch that last year he thought the cost of living in Darwin shaped up well compared to other parts of our nation. This is the view of a Chief Minister who has burdened Territory families and businesses with savage cost-of-living increases not only in Darwin, but across our regional and remote towns, and across our remote communities.
The Chief Minister is saying with his legislation today, effectively, that politicians should have the option of substantial salary increases, but everyone else can fend for themselves and he will enforce a 3% wage restraint policy on our public servants.
In a statement to this Assembly in the February sittings, the Chief Minister said:
Is the Chief Minister seriously suggesting that in determining the quantum of salary increases offered to public servants, his government would be influenced by the link between public sector remuneration and salary increases determined for members of this parliament? Would he abandon wage constraint in the public sector to ramp up salary increases for members of this Assembly? Even by the appalling standards demonstrated by this government, such an approach would be utterly irresponsible. If that is your position, say so unequivocally today.
We in Labor retain the view that it would be more equitable and relevant to link wage movements of members of this House with those in our Territory public sector, rather than federal politicians.
I guess the Chief Minister thinks we have all forgotten the significant pay increases federal politicians received a few years ago based on a remuneration decision that included rolling certain condition into the salary package. Our federal parliamentarians, since we have had a direct link between public service pay rate increases and politician pay rate increases, have had significant pay increases. That is the sneaky bit we are meant to not notice in linking us, once again, to the federal parliamentary salary – the 80% nexus link returning. It is a disgrace. It does not go unnoticed and you are being called out for your behaviour.
I do not accept the view that there is any conflict of interest involved in us ultimately having a decision to accept or reject pay rates. We are elected to serve the public. Government sets the policies, including the wage policies, for our public servants. We have a duty and an obligation to stay in step with that. It is part of our responsibility as elected members of parliament. It is something you are trying to tear up today so you can pretend, with an RTD determination with an independent body, that you have nothing to do but to accept the pay rate increase you will get.
Shame on you, Chief Minister! You will be exposed for this. The public are not fools. They are fed up with you treating them like fools and with contempt. Shame on you!
Is the $288 565 you are already paid not enough for you? You want more, and you want to set up a system where you can pretend you have no choice but to accept that pay increase – divest yourself of responsibility to open the path. The responsibility sits here today with you, with the legislation that has your name on it, Chief Minister.
Is it not enough for the ministers of your Cabinet to earn $219 000, the same that I earn? That is enough. I am happy to accept any pay increase public servants get. If it is 3%, then it is 3% for me too. Your motivation is to cut adrift to an independent RTD so you can open the pathway for more funding for pollies. Really? When Territorians are doing it so tough under your government, where they do not even have job certainty and had to put up with the fact that you sold TIO without a mandate.
Successive tribunals have undertaken their work with professionalism, impartiality and integrity. We do not need to cut them adrift. I have the utmost respect for our tribunal. John Flynn is a fantastic and outstanding Territorian. He has served us with distinction and will continue to serve us with distinction. This is not about the professionalism and integrity of John Flynn; this is about the accountability of the government of the day and the parliamentarians who sit in this parliament and put their name to and seek to pass legislation that opens the avenue for politicians’ pay rises above and beyond public servants’ pay rises. Shame on you, Chief Minister!
I pick up on the chortle from the member for Fong Lim. You find this a laughing matter. You will not be laughing when members of the public hold you to account.
Mr Tollner: When you have stopped your puerile comments you will hear what I have to say.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: Little wonder, member for Fong Lim, that you are one of those who will lose their seat in the coming election.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, direct your comments to the Chair please.
Ms LAWRIE: If a tribunal makes recommendations concerning remuneration of members of this Assembly which we believe exceed reasonable community expectations, this parliament currently has the right to not accept them, and we believe we need to reserve that right. We need to be held accountable and responsible for what we accept. We need to stay in step with public service pay increases, not break the nexus.
Mr Tollner: Hand back your pension.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: If that is what you truly believe, hand back your pension.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection because I knew this would be the line of attack on me personally, and perhaps the Independent member for Nelson. The member for Fong Lim is saying, ‘Hand back you pension’, because it is an issue in this parliament, as it is in other parliaments, that there are some members of parliament who are under the old Legislative Assembly members’ superannuation scheme because we were elected when the pension existed. There is me, the member for Karama, and the member for Nelson.
Mr Tollner: Donate it to charity.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: They sit there chortling. Are all the previous CLP members of parliament handing back their pensions? Has anyone handed back their pension? Are you going to hand over your pension?
Mr Giles: I don’t have a pension.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes you do, you still pay superannuation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Ms LAWRIE: This is how low and puerile the members of government are.
Mr Giles: You can’t have an open debate – hand back your pension.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Stop being so disingenuous.
Madam SPEAKER: Government members, I ask you to cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The chaos and dysfunction continues, does it not?
Mr Tollner: Hand back your pension.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to stop interjecting. Pursuant to Standing Order 240A, leave the Chamber for one hour.
Ms LAWRIE: The issue of remuneration for members has become so much more difficult under the Giles government. You have to ask yourself why, and it leads back to the chaos, the dysfunction and the incompetence of this government that has damaged our reputation both locally and nationally.
If the Chief Minister was the chair of a private company, the board, by now, would have sacked him. His own board tried to but he refused to resign. If the Chief Minister was a public servant he would at the very least be on performance management or would have been terminated for ongoing failure. The service to the public and contribution to society of members of this Assembly should be recognised, not diminished by an arrogant Chief Minister and his incompetent government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to tell us she will hand back her pension.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Katherine. It is not a point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: By all means keep up the personal attack because it makes you look appalling.
The service to the public and contribution to society of members of this Assembly should be recognised and not diminished by an arrogant Chief Minister and his incompetent government. Members opposite need to think very carefully about what their constituents will think about the implications of this bill. Are you focused 110% on Territorians or are you focused 110% on yourselves.
If the CLP government demands wage restraint from our public servants, it must be prepared to set an example when it comes to salary increases for members of this Assembly. Not to do so will further erode the little credibility, if any, the government has with Territorians.
On the basis of fairness and equity, the direct link between salary increases from members and public servants should be retained. The government may wish to spin that I am making up that there would be pay rises to politicians as a result of this legislation. I refer you to page 5 of 28 of the Northern Territory of Australia Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012.
The tribunal refers us to the legislation that you are seeking to appeal with this bill today. It is the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act which linked our percentage of pay increases to Northern Territory public servants. This is what you are breaking and removing if you pass this legislation today. I quote from Determination No 1 of 2012:
In case you were not aware of that, I refer you then to the Report on the Entitlement of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013, page 6 of 29. The tribunal again refers to legislation that ties our percentage increases to those of public servants, which will be removed if this legislation passes today. I quote the tribunal again:
Just in case you missed that, I refer you to the latest report, Northern Territory of Australia Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlement of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2014, page 6. Again, the tribunal says:
In the tribunal’s own words, office holders and members’ remuneration has been devalued. What does that mean, members? Will you come clean in your responses? Will you admit the truth? I know that goes against the grain, but will you admit that the view is that our remuneration has slipped behind those of other jurisdictions and this legislation before us opens up the path for pollies’ pay rises, in excess of the 3% our public servants are forced to live with. Shame on you.
You see it fit to enforce a 3% pay wage restraint on public servants at a time of escalating cost of living under the CLP government, therefore making the ability to afford to live here ever so diminished. You cannot. Families are packing up and leaving, yet you shamelessly come into parliament with legislation you think you will just slip through. ‘We can bully and threaten the Leader of the Opposition because she is sitting on a parliamentary super scheme that only she and the member for Nelson are on’.
I will not be bullied and we will not be silent. We will oppose this shameless behaviour by this shameless CLP government today. You will be held to account for it. Maybe you think because you are already headed for a slaughter you will fatten up your pay packets on the way out. Maybe that is the logic behind it, ‘Quick, let us get a cash grab on the way out’. What a disgrace!
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are probably upset because you will not be around long enough to get the benefits.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Katherine. He said, ‘You are probably upset because you will not be around long enough’. You are disgraceful! I will be here longer than you, mate.
I will call a spade a spade. This is shameless greed by the CLP members who want to fatten their pay packets at the very same time they are exerting wage restraint on our public servants and capping them to 3%, which is below CPI, and escalating the cost of living so families are struggling to pay their most basic bills. Shame on you!
The pretence that this will not open up pay rises is rubbish if you read the RTD views contained in three consecutive Remuneration Tribunal Determinations. John Flynn is a great man. As I said to him, ‘Bless you, Flynnie, for thinking we deserve to be paid more’. The problem is no one else does because they see the behaviour of this dysfunctional, chaotic CLP government which embarrassed them nationally and internationally.
Another big problem is why should we be paid more in percentage terms than the people we are elected to serve? Why should we get more than 3% if that is what the public servants get? It is fair and equitable to tie our remuneration increases to those percentages that we deem reasonable increases for our public servants.
We will oppose this. You can bully and threaten me all you like, and I will oppose and call you out.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments and have some valid reasons for that.
When I travel around my electorate many people make the point that politicians are not paid a salary that is appropriate to the work they do. I always say to them that any salary paid to people should be independently assessed. Under these changes there will be an independent body doing that.
I hear a lot of hypocrisy in here when people talk about the determination of politicians’ salary. There are very few people here who have ever been self-employed and know the true value of work. I was self-employed for 16 years and I know the value of a hard day’s work and what people should be paid in return for it.
Public servants’ salaries are not determined by an independent body but by people who are being paid a salary. I would like to see our Remuneration Tribunal be independent people who are not on the public purse and have a true understanding of how these things work.
I get really upset when the Opposition Leader says how wonderful she is because she will keep her salary tied to the public service, yet she will leave this House and be on superannuation paid by everyone in the Northern Territory until the day she dies. She and one other member in this House are the only two who fall into that category.
If she really feels what we are doing is incorrect why not give up her super? Why does she not put herself on the same footing as everyone else in this House? I think everything should be the same. I am disgusted that years ago people in this House decided they would set two standards, one for them and one for everyone who follows. This House should look at making everyone the same.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we could get into a discussion about the issue the member for Daly raised and ask why Mr Howard and the Labor man made those changes, but we are here to discuss the amendments before us today.
I do not accept that these changes to the act are about wage increases. They may allow a wage increase, but this act is about how those wage increases should be determined. After all, the Remuneration Tribunal determines not only wages but a range of other matters in relation to members of this parliament.
This issue will always cause controversy and debate. Perhaps I should read the preface from a report of the Parliamentary Salaries and Allowance Tribunal inquiring into basic salary allowances and benefits provided to members of the Tasmanian parliament. It says:
I will read the final bit:
That is part of the reason I have brought on some amendments which I can discuss now and later; I will be going to committee stage.
I expect a tribunal to be looking at what is a fair wage for a member of parliament, the economic conditions of parliament at the present time, or of the Northern Territory economy, and the community expectations?
It is not fixed based on one position. My personal view is it is not an appropriate time for wage increases. I am not saying we do not deserve more, but government has said time and time again that we have a budget deficit which was caused by the Labor Party, therefore we cannot do certain things. If you really believe that is the case, we have to bear some of that burden as well.
I leave that up to the tribunal to look at. Let us not forget, regardless of what a tribunal says this parliament does not have to accept its recommendations. Some states do, but in this case the government can say we do not accept that. We leave a tribunal to look at what changes there should be.
I have been doing as much research as I can. I used the document here, called Parliamentary Remuneration Entitlements, by Cathy Madden and Deirdre McKeown of the Politics and Public Administration Section for the Parliament of Australia. It is a couple of years old, but it gives you the idea that in most states a tribunal is how wages of members of parliament and other statutory people are determined.
The ACT has a tribunal, and the Remuneration Tribunal announced that it would review members’ salaries, allowances and other entitlements in 2013. You can get a copy of that from the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. The list of determinations is on the website and it gives you the reasons why they believe that should be the pay for members of parliament in the ACT. It also works out the relationship between the basic salary and that of people with an office within the parliament.
Western Australia has a tribunal; I will come back to that in a little while. New South Wales has a Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. I do not believe the ACT necessarily has a nexus with Commonwealth salaries. They do work out the Chief Minister’s salary and that of others based on a percentage of the basic salary. In the case of the ACT a Chief Minister’s salary is 110% of the basic salary, so there is a formula to decide that.
In New South Wales they have broken the nexus between the basic salary of a federal MP to ensure New South Wales members’ salaries align with public sector wages, and they made a determination in 2013, and I imagine there has been one since then. The Premier’s salary is based on 95% of the basic salary.
In the Northern Territory we have a tribunal, but we have taken away the power of the tribunal to make a decision on members of parliament’s salaries. We do not have a direct connection between the basic salary and the Chief Minister’s salary.
In Queensland they tried to have a 41.9% increase when Campbell Newman was Premier, which was howled down, and probably rightfully so. That caused them to introduce and establish an independent remuneration tribunal to determine the future remuneration and allowances, for MPs to break the nexus between federal and state MPs. That was interesting. Their connection between the base salary and the Premier’s was:
I think that is how the NT does it, and there is a piece of legislation which is the formula we use. Is that the fair way to go, or is the system New South Wales and other states have the fairer system?
South Australia has the Parliamentary Remuneration (Basic Salary) Amendment Act and they do something different. They set the basic salary at $42 000 under the federal government’s wage. They calculate the Premier’s salary at 100% of the basic salary.
Tasmania had a report done and its basic salary, allowances and benefits are based on that. It has also broken the nexus between the basic salary of federal MPs.
Victoria has the Parliamentary and Public Administration Legislation Amendment Act. It does not have, as far as I can see, a tribunal. It uses that act which sets out the basic salary. In July 2013 that was $140 973. It sets an increase for the next year. This is interesting, their salaries:
They moved to a different perspective. Their Premier has 100% of the basic salary.
Western Australia has the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, which determines parliamentary salaries and allowances. It has been carrying out a wide-ranging review. The Premier of Western Australia has a salary based on 132% of basic salary.
I mentioned that the Victorian government uses AWOTE, which means adult average weekly ordinary time earnings. The Tasmanian report refers to the Victorian position. I will quote from a section in the report, 4.13.18, which mentioned that AWOTE neatly achieved two objectives:
There are other ways of looking at what a parliamentarian should get which are mentioned in this document. You can look at average weekly earnings, AWE, a wage price index, WPI, and AWOTE.
I also note that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree that the public might be a little cynical about the government arguing or debating with the public service what the CPI would be. That is what I think the opposition is supporting. In some cases people are saying if the government is setting itself up to get an increase in its salary based on the CPI, do we have a conflict of interest if it technically is taking part in the debate about what the CPI level should be or how much the wages of the public servants on which we base our own salary should be raised?
The report under 4.14.5 said:
In another report I read something similar. I take from that is we need to have a system which reflects more than just an economic formula; it must take into account other things, as I said before.
I will give you some interesting statistics from Western Australia’s report. This is point 6 of the Remuneration of Members of the Western Australian Parliament document. I do not have a date, but Table 1 on page 4 is headed, ‘Changes in salaries of Members of Parliament and selected Public Offices in Western Australia 2001-2013’. I will use some of it. For a Western Australian member of parliament backbencher, in 2001 the salary was $100 000 and the 2013 salary was $148 638. That is an increase in salary of 48.64%. For a federal member of parliament backbencher, in 2001 the salary was $95 600 and in 2013 it was $195 130. That is an increase in salary of 104.11%.
For a Public Servant Class 1 in Western Australia the salary in 2001 was $96 297 and the 2013 salary was $158 811. That is an increase of 64.92%. For a senior sergeant of police at the top increment, excluding overtime, the 2001 salary was $63 955 and the salary in 2013 was $112 247. That is an increase of 75.51%.
For a departmental head the top salary determined by the tribunal in 2001 was $232 343. In 2013 it was $429 409, an increase of 84.81%. A Public School Principal Level 6 in 2001 had a salary of $85 776 and in 2013 the salary was $156 729. That is an increase of 82.72%. For a magistrate in Western Australia the 2001 salary was $156 938 and in 2013 it was $313 848, an increase of 99.98%. The tribunal said.
I am not necessarily arguing that case, but it highlights there are inequities. Of course, the position titles I read out are generally not subject to public commentary; they are not political people. We are happy for those professions to receive that wage, but as members of parliament we can say we do not do it just for the money, we do it because we believe we can contribute to the Northern Territory. Some of what we do is because we have a conscience about trying to help people in the Northern Territory. That is not necessarily an argument for an increase. These are some of the facts a tribunal would look at.
I am not here to be, ‘Goody goody gum drops’. I am not unhappy with my wage. My wage is a lot higher than other people I meet, so I am not here to discuss whether I am worth more than anyone else. However, we have a new three-person tribunal and, unfortunately, one of those members has passed away. I understand where Mr Flynn was coming from when he was on the tribunal. He was doing it for what he believed to be the right reason. He thinks we should be paid a lot more. At the moment that would be madness. The general feel of people in the community is they have no time for this place so this would be a most inappropriate time. In the Tasmanian report I read about community expectations, and they are probably below zero.
When the government debates this it needs to enforce the fact it is not about a wage increase but the process for members of parliament’s salaries to be determined.
I have tried to look at as many possible scenarios as I can. Something came over my desk today at lunchtime. It was sent to me by the Chief Minister, and my good secretary scanned it for me; it is the Mercer report and it makes for some interesting reading.
I do not agree with it. I am not a great fan of this nexus between our wages and the Commonwealth, not because that is not a convenient way to have a formula but because we should be paid according to who we are and what we do.
I should read the introduction to this report. I do not know how many people have a copy, but mine turned up today. I asked the Chief Minister last week if I could get a copy. It says, ‘The Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister has sought Mercer’s assistance to identify an appropriate formula for setting basic salary for NT Members of the Legislative Assembly, NT MLA. This will form a proportionate relationship with the basic salary for a member of the Australian House of Representatives, an MHR. This formula is evidence-based and determined as a less by percentage amount to be used at the upper end of the appropriate salary range for Northern Territory MLAs.
‘This is a proposed formula which will allow for the resulting dollar change to change over time in accordance with the adjustments made to MHR salaries.’
My problem with that is it seems to be what the Northern Territory government was asking Mercer to look at. In my amendments today I am saying that is too narrow. You want a tribunal that is free to look at this issue, independent of us, and to take all other considerations in the matter into account –to look at reports in other states, community expectations, and the economy of the Northern Territory and find out what formula would suit us. It may be that the formula changes from time to time. I am not sure it has to be totally rigid, but this is a failing of the Mercer report because when you come to the end, the recommendation is, ‘that the Northern Territory MLA basic salary equals federal MHR salary, minus 20%’.
From my understanding, except for South Australia, all states got rid of the nexus between the federal government and the Territory government. Some people might say if you have that nexus you will never risk a tribunal putting up a percentage increase in the salary which is above the members of parliament in Canberra.
That is one factor the tribunal needs to have in the back of its mind all the time when it looks at what should be an appropriate wage, and that is where community expectation comes into it.
The Mercer report, from what I have read, is far too narrow; it should have been a lot broader. It is interesting when you read the Tasmanian one – Tasmanian politicians are probably paid the least. They did get a committee allowance, but that has now been scrapped. Tasmanian basic salary in 2013 was $118 466; the Northern Territory’s was $138 000, so we earn $20 000 more. Tasmania has a reasonable economy, but it has struggled over the years also. Perhaps that is reflected in what they are paid.
Politicians in Canberra possibly do more work in some ways, because they take over local government functions as well as normal state functions. One could say they should get paid more because they are doing the work of two forms of government.
It is interesting to see that this debate can easily move to the point of view that we are after a big wage increase. I am not thinking of a wage increase. I am taking this legislation which says there is a process – and some people might say the present process is okay; others might say it is not. I looked at the other states and saw that most states have a tribunal which determines those salaries. It is not necessarily set in concrete, although as everybody knows when the global economic crisis happened most states and territories cut back on those increases. You will see that if you read the reports.
I should give people some ideas if we did go ahead with some of the changes. For instance, the basic salary in the Commonwealth is $195 130. I had trouble getting some of these figures, but I think I am right. The present basic salary – and that would be for 2014 – is $147 416. If you took the 80% of the Commonwealth basic salary that would bump us up to $156 104, which would be an increase of $8688. I do not think people would accept that at the moment, to be honest with you. If we had the 3% EBA increase that would bring it up by $4422.48.
What concerns me at the moment is people should know what would happen if you went in a certain direction. But they are the issues I expect a tribunal to be looking at. I again emphasise that if you take those three items of reasonable wages, community expectations and budget considerations, unfortunately we are at the bottom of the pile with community expectations at the moment.
The federal government has frozen its wages for very good reason. It argues the case that they have some major deficits to overcome. Maybe it has quietened in the last year or so, but how many times did I see my good friend, the member for Sanderson, holding up those little …
Ms Fyles: No, we have missed him these sittings.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. He has them under the desk, those laminated …
Ms Walker: Props.
Mr WOOD: Yes, props – those graphs.
Mr Giles: It is called Labor’s pyramid of debt.
Mr WOOD: That is right. You are exactly right; I have heard it many times.
If a government is fair dinkum that we have debt, then we tighten our belts as well. Maybe we cut out some of the perks. If we are asking people to tighten their belts then we have to tighten our belts too. Again, that is the tribunal’s job, to see the state of the Territory at that stage.
I will try to summarise it. We can destroy this debate if we say this has just been put forward to give us a wage increase. The Mercer report, from what I have read, has not gone deep enough. It has just created a simple formula. It has judged on what we do as members of parliament compared to what members of parliament do in Canberra, which is fair enough, and has come up with a formula which it was asked to come up with – as you see when you read the introduction – that is based on a nexus with the Commonwealth. I do not think that is broad enough or sufficient. That is one of the reasons I have given for proposing this amendment which we will debate in committee stage.
By giving the tribunal a less prescriptive formula for it to work on you have a lot better chance of coming up with something that is reasonable. Again, the tribunal is independent and the government does not have to accept the tribunal’s recommendations. That will be the political side of whatever happens. The tribunal will not be involved in the political side, it will be involved in coming up with a determination that needs to be fair for members of parliament. We work and are entitled to some increases in our wage. As you saw from the figures I gave, in comparison with various people in the Western Australian public service, the increases have not kept up with some of those people.
That is the tricky balance the tribunal will have to work its way through. I would rather leave it to the tribunal to come up with what it determines; we do not have to accept the recommendation if we think it is over the top or inappropriate.
I will continue this debate when we get to the committee stage.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this is a good opportunity to comment on a few things raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning.
I found the comments delivered by the Leader of the Opposition to be disingenuous and puerile. The Opposition Leader was arguing from a self-interest point of view. The Opposition Leader is the only person on the Labor side who has access to the parliamentary pension, and not one member on this side has access to one.
I think the line the Opposition Leader has used with her colleagues is, ‘Sit there, shut up, oppose this, we will act like the government is doing this for its own greedy purposes. They will do it anyhow so any benefits will fall to you guys, but it is important we are seen to be winning a political argument.’ I find that highly disingenuous and a disgusting argument.
The Opposition Leader wants her pay scale tied to the public service because she knows whilst the public service is getting these incredible deals – the 3% pay increase, the most generous pay increase given to public servants anywhere in the country – she knows her superannuation fund is maximised. It grows exponentially every time there is a pay increase. The Opposition Leader almost solely stands to benefit the most, and I find it appalling that the Opposition Leader is arguing to cut the pay of ministers and members of this parliament, and people on her own side, while she knows when she leaves this place she will be on a pension of around $170 000 per year. She does not have to wait until she turns 60, like the rest us who were born in the era the Opposition Leader was born. The day she leaves she starts picking up a pension of $170 000 a year and, whilst it is linked to the public service, she knows full well she is in line for pay increases which increase the rate of that pension.
It is completely disingenuous of the Opposition Leader. If we were to follow her advice she would be sacrificing her own parliamentary team. New members would see their wages and entitlements slashed, whilst the Leader of the Opposition walks away with $170 000 a year indexed for the rest of her life. If she cared about her parliamentary team and this institution she would be keen to see this remuneration disengaged from the public service because there is a clear conflict of interest with politicians setting their own pay scales through the increases they deliver to the public service which needs to be removed. Sending it to an independent tribunal removes that conflict of interest and allows a tribunal to take into account the unique circumstances that politicians occupy in the world of industrial relations and human resource management.
As all members in this place know, there is no sick leave, annual leave or long service leave entitlement. All of these things naturally occur in any other job. If I work for a private sector employer or the public service and am injured at work, I can take time off due to injury. I can take annual leave and have long service leave paid to me. I get annual leave loading if I am working in the public service or the private sector. Those things do not apply, as members opposite know, in the political world. For those reasons it is important that we have a tribunal in place that can take into account the unique circumstances of politicians, especially in the Northern Territory.
This stinks of cheapjack political opportunism at its most base level. Knowing full well that the system we have is broken, the Opposition Leader decides, ‘We will let Adam Giles and his government take all of the pain on this because they have the numbers. If they have a bit of ticker they will force this thing through. You guys behind me will get all the benefits, but you will not take any of the political pain. We can cause all the political pain in the world to the government and we bear none’.
For the Opposition Leader, almost the last remaining person in this place on a parliamentary pension, to come in here knowing she will get $170 000 a year for the rest of her life from the day she leaves this place, whilst everybody else misses out - what appalling stuff. If she was half genuine and reasonable, she would come into this place saying, ‘I will put myself at the same level as every other member in this parliament and hand back my parliamentary pension. If that is not possible I will donate it to a charity and support a worthwhile organisation. I do not need the $170 000 a year indexed for the rest of my life.’ I would find that an admirable decision. To sit in here and argue anything otherwise is an incredibly appalling way to conduct yourself. I think people will see through it.
This is not an idea I have come up with recently. I was a part of the federal government when Mark Latham made the call saying when he was elected we would see the end of the parliamentary superannuation scheme. I sat in the parliamentary party meeting when that decision was taken by the Howard government. I argued exactly the same things then as I am now. It is fine that members of parliament chose to do away with the parliamentary pension for future members of parliament, but they should also have the decency and strength of character to say, ‘I do not want mine’.
The reality is that all of those people around Australia who made the decision to turf the parliamentary pension never turfed their own, not only John Howard and Mark Latham, but state leaders around the country. Clare Martin, Paul Henderson and all the others who were around when that decision was made, whilst they drove that decision through their parliaments, were more than happy to take the pensions they argued so ferociously against on the floors of places like this.
I find rather disgusting, base and pathetic that the Labor Party members – and I am interested to see how many of them say the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition is quite deserving of $170 000 a year for the rest of her life, bearing in mind she was the one who left the Territory staring down the barrel of a $5.5bn …
Ms Walker: Oh, rubbish.
Mr TOLLNER: … debt and racked up a $1.2bn budget deficit. She is the reason …
Ms Walker: Oh rubbish, you have it in for her, haven’t you?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr TOLLNER: … we have had to have belt-tightening budgets and that the Northern Territory was facing a budget crisis.
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: To be rewarded like that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, order!
Mr TOLLNER: … I find absolutely appalling.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, it is best for this Chamber that you leave for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Ms Walker: With pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Reflecting on the Chair.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am seeking clarification. Are you allowed to refer to someone leaving the Chamber?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly am. I suggest you take your seat or I will have no hesitation in asking you to remove yourself from the Chamber.
Mr Vowles: I was seeking clarification, that is all.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please remove yourself from the Chamber for one hour ...
Mr Vowles: I was seeking …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I will not ask you again!
Mr Vowles: Under what standing order are you making me leave?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not ask you again. Remove yourself …
Mr Vowles: Under what standing order are you asking me to leave?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Reflecting on the Chair. I ask that the member to be named.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I name the member for Johnston and I ask the Leader of Government Business to embark on the appropriate course of action.
Mr Vowles: I have advice that I am allowed to ask under what standing order.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston is still talking.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Sit down.
Mr Vowles: I do not know whether I am supposed to leave or stay. I do not know what I am doing.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 239, I move that the member be suspended from this House for 24 hours.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for bringing order back into this place.
I will not speak for much longer, but as I was saying, I was disgusted with the Leader of the Opposition’s comments this morning. They were puerile, disingenuous and all about her shoring up here future with no regard for Territorians and members of this parliament, particularly her colleagues.
I find it appalling that the Opposition Leader can get away with that nonsense. I thought her colleagues would have pulled her up on an issue like this. Clearly they lack the ticker, are convinced government will be the ones who wear the pain on this, and they will come through it unblemished. Most Territorians see through what is going on; the member for Karama is the only one who will benefit whilst this conflict of interest remains between politicians and public service pay scales.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very shallow level of debate which is totally and solely focused on personal attack. That is what happens when the government has no cards to play. It was a personal attack from the start.
Government members have been screaming across this Chamber. They do not like what they hear so they attack the person. That is all they have. That needs to be put on the public record. Territorians need to know that in this debate all the government had was to attack one member of parliament.
I did not get into this job for money. I do not see money as my goal in this job. I spent 30 years as a public servant, and I got into this job to work for the community, take my work to another level and represent the people I had shared my life and raised my family with and grown a very holistic – I do not want to get philosophical. I should not look for philosophical words. I have a great affinity with the Territory. It is the best thing that ever happened to me and my family, and I chose to jump through the hoops to get into this job to make a difference and represent the people I have lived, worked with and shared blood sweat and tears with for over 30 years.
If we want to get to the bottom of this, speak of us as the Territory opposition and do not try to attack one of us personally. The Leader of the Opposition, as is convention in this House, spoke first to deliver the government the Territory opposition’s position in this debate – very simple. She was immediately attacked on a personal level – superannuation policy, pension, whatever.
Member for Fong Lim, a two-word answer, so what? I did not come into this place to compete with anybody financially; I came to work for the Northern Territory. I had been a public servant for 30 years, so it makes good sense to me as a politician, now very much ridiculed within the community – someone who saw my life in the Barkly change considerably once I put a political hat on when suddenly people I had related to for 30 years did not treat me the same anymore. They did not treat my family the same anymore. I do not worry about those things; we move forward. Being a public servant for 30 years I saw Labor’s benchmark to stand solid with public servants in the Northern Territory as a good, realistic and pragmatic one.
In the most recent NTPS EBA, salary increases were capped at 3% per annum for four years effective from October 2013. Since 2009, Labor has taken the view that salary increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly should be linked to the general wage limits of the Territory public sector. Our position is based on fairness, equity and the reasonable expectations of the Territory’s hard-working public sector and the wider community that salary increases for politicians will not outstrip those available to public servants. This remains our position. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said amongst the aggressive attacks from the other side.
The Leader of the Opposition really unearthed the venom from those opposite when it was explained that this mechanism can be used to attract considerable financial advantage. That was a fair point in the debate. Looking at the record of this government, getting rid of the Government Printing Office, selling off Darwin buses, the forced sale of TIO without a mandate from the Territory community, the most recent Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill being fused with the firefighters rehabilitation for a political point-scoring opportunity and media releases trying to convince the public that Labor was bad and did not stand up for firefighters, are the most recent examples of your political games.
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, unearthed that raw nerve again by asking all members in this House, ‘Did you read the bottom line? Do you see the fine print?’ We all represent a constituency of around 7000 people. This really is an individual debate and it unearthed that raw nerve and immediately drew the venomous vitriol and attack of the CLP we are so used to seeing in this House when they are on the back foot with nothing else to contribute.
The member for Fong Lim, who I admire – I like people I learn from – could sell snake oil in Cincinnati. This is an important point to raise. Is it clear? Is it honest? Is the CLP telling the whole story? They want to use the word ‘disingenuous’ in this debate. The member for Nelson made a good point about fiscal restraint, and the Territory opposition’s point of aligning our salaries with public sector increases is a pragmatic way to show solidarity and fiscal restraint, in my opinion and that of the opposition, and of the Independent who spoke in this debate.
That seems to be a sensible way to do business, particularly in the current climate where we have been reduced to a laughing stock. I did not get into politics to have others drag me down to be a laughing stock within the community I represent, the Northern Territory, the Australian community and now the international arena.
Ladies and gentlemen on the other side, I am afraid you can take full credit for dragging us down in our credibility as politicians. You want to embark on this legislation that provides a mechanism to put us into the public arena as what the negative element of the community perceives us as: hogs with our snouts in the trough.
You want to go down that road, and anybody who stands up and says, ‘Let’s get a more balanced debate; let’s look at fiscal restraint, a clear wage index, and at working together through this’, you attack personally.
Nobody in this debate has talked about the disallowance of the RTD. I read it with much enthusiasm, and I look forward to the RTD being passed in this House because for me as the member for Barkly it created a significant increase in electorate allowance where I could support the community.
I took great delight in listening to the member for Daly, the Minister for Sports and Recreation, talk about the under-15 junior rugby league carnival selecting an NT representative side in Palmerston tomorrow. I started a junior rugby league development project in Tennant Creek and ran it over eight years. We competed in under-12 and under-15, and the Barkly was there. Our benchmark each year was to have a Northern Territory representative picked. We went from nobody to having four reps picked in 2005, and the following year we had a player picked in the combined Australian states and territories.
They were great memories, and I celebrated that Dorothy Dixer. If I had an increase in the electorate allowance I could do more for those kids. There was no mention of Barkly in the minister’s Dorothy Dixer because Barkly will not be there tomorrow, due to the cost-of-living impacts.
We are trying to raise money for a couple of AFL reps in a community who have an opportunity in an international tour, but everybody is tightening their belts. They do not have disposable income, and our kids miss out because it is an expensive exercise to bring them to Darwin to compete for their fair share. In this debate nobody wants to talk about fiscal restraint and elected community members showing leadership.
The Chief Minister might be interested in this opportunity to show leadership. If you lead here and the mechanism is exposed that this is purely a cash grab, it will not go so well for you. If you stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians and continue the benchmark, that would be a mark of real leadership.
The disallowance of the RTD also related to jobs in the Barkly. I was to be able to employ a 0.25 FTE electorate officer. That was a job I was focusing on the gulf country; it was for a person who would be active in the community, who took an interest in how this system works and who could possibly be the next member for Barkly. That was scrapped, as was the increase in the electorate allowance, which would have paid dividends into regional and remote areas. That was all thrown out the door.
I will not support this motion. I want to go back to what was proposed by the RTD that is not broken. The RTD I came to know in this House when I became a member of parliament is not broken. It is a very sophisticated, well-oiled machine that kept pace with what we were doing and what we needed. When the government completely ignored the latest RTD and made its decision to disallow it, I asked what the problem was. The debate in the community was, ‘Oh is it the accountability debate? They did not like to have to report quarterly on electorate accounts.’ I said that could not possibly be it, but that is in people’s minds; they do not trust us. I went to great lengths to explain that I already run a Mind Your Own Business program. I submit it to the Australian Taxation Office annually and they examine it. There are no problems with that; politicians are upfront and honest.
I cannot believe we have walked away from a very good, pragmatic RTD that was already in this place, and suddenly we have this mechanism that could be exposed. As I said, with all these examples of sales of assets like TIO, the pure politics being played where you are trying to jam out in the media today about the Labor Party deserting our firefighters, do you think they really buy that? Do you think their families buy that? We have been fighting you guys for two years over firefighters. Members on this side have put in their time and energy, and have not asked for more money. They have asked for a fair deal for firefighters.
As we have said consistently and will continue to tell the community, if we are privileged to be elected as a Northern Territory government we will amend that legislation from yesterday for Territory workers and firefighters. We have a plan, a policy, all we need to do is get enough votes to get us back in. We are on the come-back.
Mr Deputy Speaker will not like me holding this up, but that is the story at the moment. I have already challenged the Chief Minister. He can get some points here; he can see the polls start to shift. As I keep saying, I study people closely, and our Chief Minister is the quintessential politician. He can play that game as a very aggressive opposition member and very aggressive Chief Minister. He does not mind wielding the firearm to get the whole show back under control and put the fear of God into the others. He is a politician who can stand and deliver. Unfortunately, Chief Minister, the Territory is not buying that. Leadership could be agreeing with the member for Nelson and looking at amendments; it could be going back to the RTD, which I found very satisfactory, but obviously members of the government did not. We need to get down to tin tacks. There is an opportunity.
Chief Minister, what I learn from you is how to throw mud. I have lived in the bush for a long time. Member for Daly, I have not been a mango farmer but I I worked in a chain factory when I was 16. I fudged my age. I was operating a gantry crane producing industrial chains in Padstow when I was 16. I am sure all members in this House can share their life experiences. That is what it is about. It is not about whether I have been a successful entrepreneur or businessman, it is about our life experiences, how we share them and to get – what is it, member for Port Darwin, achieving the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory? Absolutely! We should not be distracted with personal financial gain, we get a fair shake. We can benchmark ourselves with Territory people and their families in tough times.
I could have possibly got some kids to Palmerston tomorrow to represent in rugby league as I did for eight years. What a pity, but we will continue on.
Chief Minister, you can get some serious acknowledgements here in the polls. I will use a few of your strategies; I will throw a bit of mud. I still remember the $100 000 charter flight for a photo shoot with the Prime Minister, and the community remembers it too. That was a bad decision, but let us move on. It really hurt when you told me to get my own charter flight home for the Borella Ride. I have heard all the great stories about that event. The town stood rock solid and everybody consoled me with, ‘You should have been there, but we understand why you couldn’t be’.
They are a few stories around aviation and charter flights, linked to fiscal restraint. There is an opportunity.
I stood in this debate to reiterate the Territory opposition’s position. We have a clear alternative and, frankly, the Leader of the Opposition had to unearth that raw nerve because we no longer trust what you say. There are so many examples where what you say is not necessarily what you do. The member for Fong Lim, twisting the argument and making personal attacks was probably the lowest contribution to debate I have ever seen him produce. He is way better than that. He is a big hitter on that side. I always told our members, ‘This guy had six years in the federal parliament. Do not underestimate him.’ I studied him in opposition. I study him now. I study him as the Treasurer. He is a big hitter, but today he had nothing except personal vitriol and attack. So I said, ‘So what?’
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Fong Lim and Nelson for their contributions. I am sad that what we feared would occur in this debate did occur. Aside from the member for Nelson, it became a slinging match about salaries and incomes, and that is not what it is about. It is about removing a conflict of interest that is present in the way wages are determined.
Currently there is a link between politicians’ salaries and the public service in the Northern Territory, which is a challenge because as a Cabinet we determine the wage policy for public servants across all EBAs. Last year we negotiated through Cabinet that the policy would be 3%, but fundamentally that means we are negotiating our own salary increase because we are tied to the public service. That left a bad taste in my mouth, and it was the same with my Cabinet colleagues.
Should we have gone for a 1% increase in an EBA we would have only had 1% or 2% or 3%. Fundamentally it is incorrect, and whenever you talk about politicians’ salaries, everyone says we are paid too much. I understand that argument, and it is a sensitive topic to talk about. It would have been good to have a debate on ideas and philosophical views rather than a screaming match which degenerated into who gets paid what. That is exactly what it came to, and the personal attacks by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly I found offensive.
In regard to some of the points made by the member for Nelson, it refutes some of the salary questions put up, and I will clarify one of those points for him. I do not have a calculator in front of me, Gerry, but I know a couple of these things.
In regard to the proposed legislation and the capping of 80% that was a recommendation of the Mercer Report, you spoke about what the increase in a backbencher’s salary would be to an 80% level if that was taken up. Off the top of my head I think you said about $6000, and you said that is a big jump. I understand that; however, if it was a 3% increase this year and a 3% increase next year, which is currently proposed in the EBA, the salary increase would be more than that. Keeping it at the current frame with that conflict of interest philosophical approach I have just mentioned actually increases the salary further than that, to clarify for you.
We have proposed to take it completely out of the hands of politicians and have the Remuneration Tribunal do that, which was one of the recommendations of the last Remuneration Tribunal Determination which came before this place.
I will go back to the debate, or the screaming, of the Leader of the Opposition where she tried to allude that this is all about pay rises. In fact, this is a pay cut in what is forecast to come with the 3% increase.
I will talk about the conflict of interest, keeping in the back of the mind that a month ago Labor said they would support this and understood the reasons for it, and now they have said no. There is an additional conflict of interest. The member for Fong Lim raised that additional conflict of interest, which is the benefit the Leader of the Opposition will receive post her retirement. She will be on $170 000 a year for the rest of her life, indexed. The linking to the public service and the 3% means she will actually get more, and if we decouple it she will have less in her pension. She has managed to convince seven people on her side to stick with opposing this so she gets a bigger pension.
When you talk about being frugal and managing budgets responsibly – the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer, reflected on the high levels of debt and deficit we received, and the need to be wise with managing our money – put that into the context that it was the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, who got us in that position and is now holding the Northern Territory government to ransom for $170 000 per annum for the rest of her life. She was calling for wage freezes. If you want to go down this path instead of having a serious debate, hand back the $170 000 golden handshake you will receive when you retire. You will be the only person in Labor who gets that. That is why you are so opposed to this. If your colleagues knew just how much you are ripping them off they would not be supporting you. You are ripping off Territorians.
Member for Nelson, I understand you have some amendments to clause 3A in regard to removing the 80% cap and leaving it up to the remuneration tribunal. We are happy to accept your recommendations. It allows for the removal of a ceiling, but that is based on your thoughts. Originally we were not going to put the ceiling into the bill, but if you want to remove or change clause 3A we are happy to take that on board. I understand the cap would have seen a guaranteed reduction in salary as opposed to the enormous increases Labor put in by coupling it to EBAs in the public service, but we will accept that.
The debate on this shows how bad Labor is. They go straight to the gutter in their debate. It is not about current salary, it is about independence in salary setting for politicians in the Northern Territory, as there is in a range of areas. It is only right that we have nothing to do with the setting of our salaries or benefits, and that the independent tribunal moves in that way.
In regard to the change from Mr Flynn being the sole person on the tribunal to there now being three people, unfortunately the former Auditor-General of the Northern Territory was to be on the tribunal. His passing has left a vacancy. We have identified another person and that will be announced in the next couple of days. I signed off on that earlier today, so that will be made public very soon.
I commend the bill and your amendments, and I hope we have a sensible debate throughout the committee process.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move that proposed clause 3(a) be omitted and a new 3(a) be inserted which states:
I have asked that the clause in the existing proposed amendments to the bill be deleted because I feel that if you were to have an independent tribunal, it should be independent, and to some extent you are getting prescriptive and telling it what to do.
I am not saying the matters you have in that bill are irrelevant, I am just saying that if we want this body to be independent, it needs to be given freedom to look at any aspects before it makes a decision.
I know the debate is difficult. I know that any time you talk about a politician’s wages it is a no-win situation, but we have to deal with it. We are entitled to be paid a reasonable wage, just like anybody who wants to work in another job. They expect to be paid for the work they do and the qualifications required. We also have a job to do.
I know there is a belief that we should be connected to the public service wage increases, and I understand that – that is part of what a tribunal could look at – but we are not the same as public servants. We work for the people, but we are not the same.
We have a different job. It is a job that puts us in front of a television camera and public meetings. It puts us out there as someone the public can write letters to and abuse. It can have some good sides to it; going to my local garden club is great; going to the school and giving out awards is fantastic. It has its up sides and its down sides.
It is not an easy job. It usually involves a lot of stresses and strains, especially on your family. Sometimes in this job, especially a few years ago, I do not think I saw my wife. I would come home at 11 pm or 12 pm and get up at 5.30 am; she would be asleep. Probably for a whole week I would only say hello and she would be well and truly asleep. So we are servants of the people, but in a different way.
They are some of the things an independent tribunal should take into account. We are not just public servants even though we do similar work. We have a special role, which we have to swear an oath to in this parliament. We should do our best in the time we are here. The tribunal’s deliberations and recommendations should take that into account, as well as the other things I have mentioned: the economy and community expectations.
That is the reason we should not lock them into something that is too prescriptive. I understand, Chief Minister, that by setting a cap you make sure the tribunal does not go above it, but I trust the tribunal. The tribunal will read the debate we have had in parliament today and reflect on some of the issues raised.
I note you said that if we had two 3% increases it would be higher than if we went down the path you mentioned of 20% from the existing federal government pay rise ...
Ms Lawrie: What about office holders?
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 3A(1)(b) deals with office holders. That is another area that needs some discussion. I have looked at our figures, which you can get off one of our websites. There is a list of office holders and the history of the office holders’ wages in the Northern Territory over about the last 10 years. I am not sure whether there has always been a connection.
We have the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act that sets out some formulas for connecting basic salaries to office holders’ salaries. That is an area the tribunal needs to look at because in some states the basic salary is connected to the office holders’ salaries. In the case of a Chief Minister it could be 100%, and in some cases 132%. You see a formula in that. Ours is that if you put up the basic salary by 3%, you put up the Chief Minister’s salary by 3%. That 3% of the basic and the 3% of the Chief Minister’s salary would be two vastly different amounts of money because you are working from a bigger base. I do not know whether that is a good idea. I do not know whether the 100% of the basic salary, or 132% in some cases, achieves the same thing. That is what the tribunal should be looking at it.
From the point of view of transparency, people need to understand why certain office holders receive that amount of money. That is all part of the tribunal’s role. That is why I have in here ‘the basis on which these amounts have been determined’. There is a document which you can get off the website which deals with the wages. For instance, the Chief Minister’s wage in 2007 was $114 000. It was frozen for one year in 2008. Now in 2015 it is $141 000. It lists the Leader of the Opposition, the chairpersons of Public Accounts Committees and a range of positions, and you can see what the wage increases were.
The wage increase is not the core issue of this; it is about allowing an independent tribunal to, in an open and transparent way, come up with how they think our members of parliament should be paid and explaining how they arrived at that resolution. What was the reasoning behind what they did? That needs to be done and the best way is not to get too prescriptive but to give responsibility to the tribunal to come up with something. Not everybody will be happy, but at least you know why they arrived at that decision.
Proposed section 3A(2) is a request under subsection (1) for an inquiry for a specified time or inquiries for specified intervals. Part of the reason for that inquiry is we will probably have to work out whether to set something for the full term – four years – or review it annually. Part of the reason it is there is to give some flexibility to the tribunal to review it when necessary.
It does not change the idea of an independent tribunal – we are dealing with proposed section 3A, the tribunal’s powers in relation to salaries. The powers are there, we are just removing the section which says, ‘the tribunal must take into account the following’. I know there is a section relating to any other matter the tribunal considers relevant, but it is better not to have that and allow the tribunal the freedom to assess everything without being prescriptive. That is the reason for the change.
Mr GILES: I support it. The basic principle behind this is philosophical in that politicians should not have anything to do with pay, and removing the link to public servants is in keeping with that philosophical principle. Whenever we are negotiating EBAs we have a conflict of interest. By going to the tribunal, (1) it supports the recommendations by the tribunal in their determination and, (2) it takes it completely out of our hands.
The 80% cap was identified in the Mercer report and something we took from it. To be frank, accepting these amendments follows that same philosophical line of having nothing to do with it and leaving it completely to the tribunal, which of course reports back to parliament with a six-day disallowance period. We will be supporting that amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: You will change this clause? You are removing the 80% cap? Can you respond?
Mr GILES: I responded before you spoke. The member for Nelson raised a very good point, that having an 80% cap still holds the shackles of the tribunal. Mr Flynn has made quite clear on several occasions that he believes, from an independent point of view, that an independent tribunal should be able to set all components of salaries and workplace conditions for politicians. We had set it at 80% based on the Mercer report, but following the same principle of politicians having nothing to do with it and following those recommendations, we will be supporting that.
The people on the tribunal have a lot of knowledge about this, do a lot of analysis of the conditions of the economy, the job market, salaries and so forth around the country. They have knowledge of how political conditions and wages operate around the country.
Removing politicians from having anything to do with their salaries is really important. We should not have anything to do with it, and that is the fundamental basis behind this legislation.
Next time we go to an NTPS EBA, if it was to remain the same we would be negotiating pay rises for ourselves. I do not stomach that; I do not think it is the right thing to do. We should have an independent. They may suggest more, less or the same. It is out of our hands and that is only fair.
As I said in the second reading speech, whenever you talk about payment for politicians, everyone thinks they are paid too much; we understand that is the public sentiment. We do not want anything to do with the way politicians are paid so we are setting up an independent tribunal.
Mr WOOD: As I said earlier, most states do not have a nexus with the federal government. The legislation was talking about a cap, but it is still a nexus with the federal parliament. The only state that clearly has a nexus is South Australia, which sets a basic salary of $42 000 less than the base salary.
Queensland has moved that way. Tasmania also talked about the act being repealed and broke the nexus with the basic salary of federal MPs. New South Wales had an amendment in 2011 which broke the nexus with the basic salary of federal MPs. I am not sure about the ACT; this does not have a lot of information.
My general feel is that most parliaments are getting away from it, because the other issue you have working with the nexus is that people think every time federal government pay goes up you get an automatic pay rise, and what did you do to deserve that? That is one of the complaints. We might not deserve it. I do not know. That is one of the complaints I have heard from people, they do not think that is a good connection. Some people might say it is an easy way to regulate wages and salaries and it might be the very reason Western Australian salaries are far behind other members of the public service.
The view I have is that when salaries go up in Canberra they look at us too and ask how much they are going up. To some extent that is why the nexus has been broken by many states. It might be for other reasons too, but that is part of the reason. Let us now have that in there. It looks like we are going back to where we were before. Other states are changing so we should as well.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
The Assembly divided.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, one question I have at the tail end of listening to this debate is why the Labor Party agreed to this a month ago?
Ms Lawrie: We did not.
Mr ELFERINK: You did. This is the conversation I had with the leader of opposition business. We were left in no doubt a month ago that bringing this bill to the House was something the Labor Party agreed to. Now, all of a sudden, miraculously they do not. Of course what has happened is that …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is new material. This is the third reading. This is out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I have to agree, Leader of the Opposition.
Attorney-General, you know full well about third reading speeches and the parameters surrounding them, so can you please keep it relevant.
Mr ELFERINK: Of course, but during the debate political opportunity was raised by the Treasurer in relation to this issue and the arrangements that were in place prior to this bill coming forward. What has happened today is a clear reflection of political opportunism by the members opposite. I am desperately disappointed that they turned a straightforward thing of decoupling politicians from setting their own wages, either directly or indirectly, into a political opportunity, and that is all we have seen today.
I listened to what the Treasurer had to say in relation to this, and it has been writ large that this opposition sees these sorts of things, like everything else, as an opportunity for political manoeuvring. We should be separated from the decision-making in relation to our wages. I agree with the premise of the bill. I agree with the member for Nelson on these issues. The assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that wages will rise automatically as a result of this cannot be supported by what is in the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an absolute disgrace. You have picked up and wholeheartedly embraced the amendment by the member for Nelson because that is open slather – pay rises as big and fat as your greed wants to see achieved.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That was a highly offensive comment. I am offended by it and I ask you to ask the Opposition Leader to withdraw it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, Treasurer, I know that you have a thick skin and you are very tough, so I find it extraordinary that you would find that offensive, but nevertheless you have raised it. Opposition Leader, would you please withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
This is the CLP giving open slather by removing the existing legislative requirement to give politicians no more than the percentage pay increase that public servants get. They have wholeheartedly, on the floor of parliament, embraced an amendment by the member for Nelson because it gives them open slather; there is no more cap at 80% of the federal pay rates.
They pretend this does not mean a pay rise, yet three consecutive Remuneration Tribunal Determinations state that the remuneration of Northern Territory Legislative Assembly members has been devalued. Yes, this is an open slather pay rise legislative move by the CLP and you should be condemned for it.
In response to the Leader of Government Business, Labor, as a Caucus, decides our position on legislation. Labor, as a Caucus, opposes this legislation. We will continue to oppose this.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had any mettle she would hand her $170 000 a year pension for the rest of her life to charity. I call on her to hand it to charity. Give it to one of the most needy charities in the Northern Territory and help the people who do not earn $170 000 a year. These are crocodile tears and I challenge you to hand your $170 000 pension for life to charity. If you are serious, hand it to charity.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have recently recognised our Afghanistan veterans and their contribution to Operation Slipper over the last 14 years. On the back of recent commemorations to mark the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin, and preparing to commemorate the brave Anzacs who 100 years ago went into battle for a very young nation, I deliver a statement which acknowledges the important contribution that Defence makes to the Northern Territory.
The development of the north and the Defence presence across the Top End have for a long time been intertwined. I will outline the ongoing importance of the Defence presence to the Territory economy and the contribution of Defence members and families to our community. I will also address the opportunities on the horizon arising from the increased US Navy and Air Force activity in the region, and how this may benefit Territorians into the future. Finally, I will outline the strategy and initiatives this government is implementing to capture the opportunities, grow the economy, create jobs and protect the fabulous Territory lifestyle which makes us the envy of all Australians.
The Northern Territory’s relationship with Defence started in 1824 when HMAS Tamar transported Royal Marines, sailors and civilians to establish Fort Dundas on Melville Island.
Today there are over 6000 Defence Force personnel employed in the Northern Territory. Add to this partners and children, and there is an estimated 14 000 Defence members and family in the Northern Territory, about 6% of the Territory population.
The major growth in the Defence presence in the Northern Territory began in 1992 with the Army Presence in the North project. This saw the first brigade relocate to Robertson Barracks near Palmerston which has and will continue to contribute significantly to the Northern Territory economy.
Defence recurrent expenditure in the NT during 2013-14 financial year was $1.5bn, equivalent to 6.9% of the gross state product. The location of Defence facilities, personnel and families in various regions across the Territory generates significant demand for goods and services. RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine, and joint Defence facility, Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, are also key contributors to the economies of these regions.
Every year there are a number of Defence exercises which also contribute to the Territory economy. Exercise Kakadu during 2014 involved 15 nations, eight ships, 26 aircraft and about 1200 personnel to test each nation’s ability to work together in a realistic and unpredictable warfare environment. More than 100 aircraft and about 2300 personnel from seven nations participated in exercise Pitch Black last year. It is estimated that in 2012 Pitch Black contributed $25m to the local economy. This biennial training will occur again in 2016.
In July of this year the Northern Territory will play a major role in exercise Talisman Sabre. Australia, the United States, New Zealand and Japan will participate in the exercise, which aims to improve the combat readiness and interoperability between the forces of each nation.
These exercises, as well as the many others that have taken place each year in the Territory, bring a significant injection into the Territory economy which translates into jobs and business opportunities for local companies.
The large Defence presence in the Northern Territory contributes to our economy in many ways that people do not realise. Defence Housing Australia manages over 2000 properties located in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. DHA is working with the Northern Territory government to provide additional dwellings in Darwin for Defence members, with the excess being made available to the general public. This is a fantastic new initiative. As Defence houses are made available this should have the effect of reducing the pressure on the rental market in Darwin.
Territorians are well aware of the current US Marine rotations. In a couple of months we will see the fourth rotation of its kind, with the US Marines, Marine Rotational Force – Darwin, arriving here in the Territory. This will be very similar in size to the last rotation, and the Marines will be coming from Camp Pendleton in California. The current US Marine rotations are around 1100 personnel and are expected to increase the Territory’s gross state product by about $5.6m this year. This will grow as the size of the rotations also grow towards the planned 2500 over the next few years.
Local business, Sitzler Bros, also benefited by winning an $11m contract for facilities at Robertson Barracks to accommodate the Marines. I toured these excellent facilities and met many of the Marines who were there last year. I received a warm welcome from the Marines, who are very proud of their facilities and their battalion, and are enjoying their short six-month stay in the Territory.
Defence industry expenditure such as this is just another contributor to our economy. In December last year the Defence Joint Logistics complex at Robertson Barracks was officially opened. The $124m project was just one of a number of Defence infrastructure projects in the Northern Territory.
Looking to the future, the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighters at RAAF Base Tindal in 2022 will necessitate a $474m infrastructure project to accommodate and support those new aircraft. The project is expected to provide a range of opportunities for Darwin and Katherine businesses.
I am pleased to report that the federal Defence department has confirmed a five-year, $603m package of construction work in the Territory. In addition to the Joint Strike Fighter infrastructure, this package includes high-voltage power supply upgrades to Shoal Bay Receiving Station worth $6m, flood mitigation works at RAAF Darwin costing approximately $10m, construction of new married quarters at RAAF Darwin worth approximately $53m and major aircraft pavement upgrade works at RAAF Tindal and RAAF Darwin costing in excess of $60m. There are even more projects on the horizon which are pending Defence approval. The future looks bright.
Encouragingly, Defence has acknowledged the need to sequence these very large projects so they minimise the peaks and troughs in local industry capacity.
We see many other opportunities ahead for the Territory. For example, the new MAN fleet of trucks will replace many of the Army’s current Mack and Unimog fleet from 2017. In addition, to the Bushmasters and other light armoured four-wheel drives belonging to Darwin’s 1st Brigade will require Defence industry support throughout their lifespan.
An increase in US Marine rotational presence may add to this demand for services as they pre-position similar heavy vehicles and armoured platforms for training and humanitarian relief. An increase in the presence of Australian Defence Force and US naval activity across the Top End may provide further opportunities for business to compete for naval ship maintenance work.
The second order effect of greater military training activities and ship visits provides opportunities for our tourism industry. With an increase in training activities, Australian, US and other foreign defence service men and women may be able to take advantage of leave before and after their training activities. We want to encourage our military tourists to enjoy the many tourism products on offer, as well as the vibrant pubs, clubs and hotels, while on liberty.
I have already spoken about the large Australian Defence Force presence and the activities which generate economic activity. Further opportunities could make the Northern Territory the nucleus of Australian and foreign Defence Force operations training and exercises in the Asia-Pacific region.
Darwin recently hosted a visit from the Australian Chief of Navy and the US Chief of Naval Operations. The visit, as was widely reported, was part of a joint study with the Australian Defence Force to see what might be feasible for naval cooperation in and around Australia, which might include basing ships.
Darwin’s strategic location makes it ideal for supporting the ADF and increased US Navy presence. Into the future, better maritime infrastructure will be required to support this presence. The Marine Industry Park is being developed adjacent to the East Arm port, which will provide a growing maritime maintenance capability.
A cornerstone to this development is the multiuser barge ramp facility recently announced as a joint venture between Defence and the Northern Territory’s Land Development Corporation. This $18m facility provides a valuable piece of strategic infrastructure to support the ADF’s ability to operate from and exercise around the Northern Territory. Additionally, the multiuser barge ramp facility has a commercial utility to support coastal shipping to remote communities across the Top End.
Smart investments in joint-use infrastructure by Defence will see value for money for the taxpayer by sharing costs with the commercial sector. It also provides opportunities for local businesses to grow, but importantly creates jobs, and services the needs of Territory communities.
As the United States shifts its focus through its foreign policy by staging a pivot to Asia we are likely to see increasing activity in coming years.
With a strong focus on developing the north, the recent resource boom in the area and the significant Defence presence already in the Northern Territory the basing, operation and support of Defence unmanned aerial systems in Darwin or Katherine is an important priority for the Northern Territory.
Darwin is closer to other countries than it is to the nation’s capital, as we all know. It is also closer to many large population bases throughout the strong growing economies of Southeast Asia than any other centre on Australian soil. We have the potential to play a major role as an operating and supporting base into the future for a range of military and border protection capabilities. It is a perfect location to support a variety of unmanned aerial systems which are likely to be used for border protection and exclusive economic zone security.
Protection of Australian offshore fishing, oil and gas interests and the northern Australian offshore Territories of Christmas and Cocos, or Keeling, Islands is essential to Australia’s national interest. As a major LNG and transport hub, the top half of the Northern Territory is a logical place to position assets for the ADF to implement border security requirements. The flight time to the majority of the northwest oil and gas resources is shorter from Darwin and Tindal than from any other major established centre.
Operating and supporting unmanned aerial systems from Tindal or Darwin will provide operational and cost benefits when compared to basing in southern states. It will also create the opportunity to develop a new support industry based around the unmanned aerial systems which may have great utility in other industries such as land, emergency and asset management.
To promote the Territory case for basing and operation of UAVs in the north, the government made a submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Inquiry on the potential use by the Australian Defence Force of unmanned air, maritime and land platforms.
I have spoken at length about the importance of the Defence presence, the Northern Territory government’s plan for Defence and how that impacts our economy and families. There is another side to the Defence presence in the Territory which is of equal importance. I am referring to the people of the Defence Force, their partners and their children. As I have already stated, there are about 14 000 Defence members, partners and children in the Northern Territory. These Defence members and family members attend schools and universities, play in sporting teams, and are members of our school councils and community organisations. Partners of Defence members are an important part of our workforce who bring with them skills and experiences learnt in other locations, and are highly valued by employers.
The Giles government understands the challenges faced by Defence families when they are posted away from their traditional family support networks. While the majority relish and make the most of the unique Territory lifestyle we all enjoy, much of this does not fill the gap left when a family member is deployed overseas or on an extended training exercise. Integrating Defence families into the broader community will help them to settle quickly, as well as establish a strong society, a focus of the government’s Framing the Future strategy.
I spoke earlier about a range of opportunities for Territorians. To capitalise on these opportunities for the Territory I have directed the establishment of a high-level Strategic Defence Advisory Board and the formation of a Northern Territory and Defence Strategy. The board will consist of a number of recently retired senior military officers from Australia, the United States and Indonesia, in addition to a retired Defence public servant.
Membership of the board has been selected to align with the Northern Territory government’s ambitions in the Defence sector and key opportunities we see ahead of us. Membership of the board is for two years only and renewal will be based on the results each member of the board has achieved.
The board will provide high-level advice to government. It will see board members use their strong existing networks and relationships with the ADF, as well as our close allies, to bring to reality the government’s ambitions to grow the Defence sector in the Northern Territory. The board will bring skills and knowledge in relation to Defence protocols, systems and procedures which will assist the government in its negotiations with Defence.
My aim is to integrate Department of Defence future planning with Northern Territory government future planning. The integration, as you can imagine, will bring many benefits, including shared infrastructure, de-conflicting of major projects, and growth in industry capability and capacity. Importantly, it will provide jobs for Territorians, not interstate companies.
The board will be guided by, provide input to, and assist the Northern Territory government with the implementation of a Northern Territory and Defence strategy. The formation of a strategy will focus on how the Northern Territory government can capitalise on these opportunities I have previously mentioned and others that will come into the future.
In bringing together the strategy, key stakeholders have been identified and engaged for their input. Stakeholders, including local businesses, industry associations, the Department of Defence, ADF, Defence prime contractors and the US Marine Corps have all been included in these consultations.
The strategy aims to connect and develop local businesses by partnering closely with industry associations and other stakeholders. The Australian Defence and Industry Association, the Industry Capability Network and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, together with the Department of Business, will all have a vital role in implementing this strategy. Whether it is identifying opportunities, assisting businesses to develop the skills and capability to bid for and win Defence support and maintenance contracts, or helping them to be part of the Defence prime contractor supply chain, everybody has a job to do.
The strategy aims to connect and promote local Defence industry capabilities to the Defence Materiel Organisation so it is well placed to understand what resources it has available in the Northern Territory for future projects. Too often we were overlooked.
The strategy aims to represent the interests of the Northern Territory and safeguard our unique way of life. It is important that the Australian government and the Department of Defence are fully aware of the Northern Territory government’s desire to remain engaged, in fact, to have a seat at the table when conducting future planning. In recent times that cooperative relationship has been working quite well in the conversations I and officers of the Northern Territory government have been involved in.
An example is the proposal currently being investigated for the potential forward staging of US ships in northern Australia in a similar model to the current US Marine rotations. It is imperative that government and Territorians are consulted and that we understand what these plans may mean for local businesses and Territorians across the Top End in particular.
The strategy aims to promote the Territory and its vast open spaces, which can accommodate air, land and maritime training areas. This is not just the existing Defence training areas, but the potential for new training areas to meet the needs of the ADF and our allies, and not just in the Top End, but in all areas of the Northern Territory.
An increased ADF and US presence in our world-class training areas means more opportunities for business. It also means a greater requirement for infrastructure, such as better roads, rail, port and airport facilities. Australian government investment in infrastructure in the Territory is consistent with our program of developing northern Australia and has the potential to attract further private sector investment.
Defence is a priority for the Northern Territory government and I suspect the Northern Territory will again be recognised as strategically important to Defence in the Defence White Paper which is due for release later this year. Accordingly, three NT government ministers have areas related to Defence in their portfolios. As Chief Minister and Minister for Economic Development and Major Projects, I have responsibility for strategic Defence liaison. The Strategic Defence Advisory Board will report to me. I will work with the board as we engage with government and Defence at the highest levels to achieve our vision and benefit for Territorians.
Hon Peter Styles MLA, as Minister for Defence Industries, has a responsibility to ensure our local businesses are Defence-ready. That is very important. Whether it is the maintenance of new Defence equipment, the construction of new infrastructure, the support of visiting Navy vessels, providing tourism services for visiting foreign forces or providing base support services, we want our businesses to be informed, skilled, accredited and capable of taking up that challenge, all in the interest of creating jobs for Territorians.
This brings me to the veterans support program. I am aware that with the number of overseas deployments over the past decade the number of Defence veterans in the Northern Territory has grown. The veterans within our community contain a mix of veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and more recent conflicts, such as Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Iraq, Afghanistan and a vast range of other UN operations around the globe.
Veterans and veteran organisations have spoken to me about this growth and I have listened to what they have to say. As a result, for the first time in the Northern Territory government we now have a Minister for Veterans Support, Peter Chandler. It is clear that while the Northern Territory is strategically important to Defence, Defence is also important to the Territory. Defence and its members and families make an important and highly-valued contribution to our community, our social lifestyle and our economy.
It is also clear that Defence activity and opportunities are increasing in northern Australia, as I have outlined today. The Northern Territory wants to be a part of that growth to capture the opportunities and share those benefits across our community.
The Northern Territory Country Liberals government has a vision. We have a plan and we will partner with stakeholders to capture opportunities, grow the economy, create jobs and preserve our lifestyle.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is a good opportunity to talk about Defence in the Northern Territory and the significant role it plays now, and has played in the Territory over a long period of time.
We have always had a bipartisan attitude to Defence issues in this Chamber. I think in many ways that is a product of the history of the Northern Territory and the experiences we have had, as well as the community and cultural impacts of that. That is why parliament, the City of Darwin and others are able to pull together a fantastic commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin. It has had a profound impact on many of us in the Northern Territory; it has an ongoing impact and we appreciate the valuable work our Defence Force does. We have experienced and appreciate the reality of war. Many Territorians take a very realistic attitude towards the work Defence does, which is why it is more important to be friends. That is why the Northern Territory, of all the jurisdictions in Australia, has an Asian Engagement minister and actively forges relationships with our near neighbours.
We have a very positive strategic role to play in that area and we do that. We work well with the people in Defence in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister opened by acknowledging the work of our Afghanistan veterans and their contribution to Operation Slipper over 14 years, and recently we commemorated the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin. We are also coming up to the 100th anniversary of our Anzacs.
Anzac Day is a very emotional experience, and for those from the Territory going to Gallipoli this year, that will be a very emotional experience. I, and I assume others in this Chamber, have been. It is confronting and emotional to be there. In that spirit – I said before how it is more important to be friends and not enemies – the relationship between Australians and Turks in Gallipoli is extraordinary. It is very close and a bond has been forged between two nations. We in the Territory appreciate that, coming from a place that was bombed during WWII.
We appreciate the Chief Minister bringing this statement forward. We have a significant Defence presence in the Northern Territory and we, as a parliament, want to provide support to them.
It is also important to industry. The Chief Minister, towards the end of his statement, broke down some of the things Defence does in industry and the community, and how we need to work with them professionally and make sure we maximise the spend in the Territory. As a parliament, by and large, our bipartisan attitude to Defence has been based more on the realities of the blood that can be shed. But Defence also has a massive economic impact, and we want to work well with it to leverage that, provide the services it needs locally so it does not need to get them from other places.
We have about 14 000 Defence and families members in the Territory. It is a significant part of the Territory population, and I am sure all of us who were in the Territory in the early 1990s have noticed the significant increase in the number of Defence families and personnel here. It is quite noticeable and very much welcomed. From about 1992 on that increased Defence presence made a massive contribution to Darwin, from a community point of view. There has been some focus on the economic contribution Defence makes, but having those people as part of our sporting clubs, community clubs and school councils makes a valuable contribution to the Territory outside their day hours.
We are a small place and it can be hard to find people willing to be on committees, boards and all those things. It is one of those problems we have in the Territory. Often too few do too much, and since the Defence Force came to town the contribution they make outside of their working hours has been very noticeable and greatly appreciated. That strong community relationship they have holds them in good stead. Exercise Pitch Black, for example, causes some concern in the community with noise – I am sure my electorate office is not the only one that gets some phone calls during that time – but by far and away members of our community, because of those strong community relationships they have with Defence, think it is a burden that is important to bear for the Defence people within our community. That goes to work Defence does outside of their normal hours in building those community links. They are an incredibly valuable part of our community.
Defence Housing Australia, for example, with the 2000 properties they share, would be one of our major economic residential players and have a massive say in the shaping of Darwin and the quality of housing built in Darwin. Its minimum standards are very high and it has had a big impact on the property market, as much as anything else. Defence have its fingers in so many pies and influences so much about the Territory.
The Chief Minister mentioned the US Marine rotations, and I think the Marines have, by and large, been welcomed into the Northern Territory. There were some concerns and most of us were aware that a few members of our community were concerned about the US Marines coming to town on rotations. Our side and the other side have worked well with and have a good relationship with the US, and the US Marines are incredibly professional and well respected.
I will say the word ‘valuable’ a lot during this contribution. They have made a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory and have made an effort to mix. I have seen them at the AFL and the rodeo. At the AFL they were very impressed with the high marking. A few of them raised their eyebrows and a few other words were said. At the rodeo they were hilarious. There was a US Marine who said, ‘That’s not a bull’. I think he was from Texas. I think he was disappointed by the size of our bulls, but they had a very good time at the rodeo. I think they might be used to bigger, badder bulls.
I have a brother-in-law who loves the rodeo and rode a few bulls, so I have experienced a few rodeos lately and they are fabulous. He also got me into rodeo on pay TV, and I can see what the Marine was talking about. They have an extraordinary rodeo circuit in America and their bulls are rather large.
The Marines have made a significant effort to become part of our local community and participate in community events. We all would have met with them in a formal setting as well, and they are incredibly professional, respectful and good at what they do. We welcome having the US Marines here.
Darwin has had a long relationship with America over a long period of time. We see that in the attention we received when the American Ambassador and the US President came to Darwin. That is significant; they recognised the importance of Darwin, both historically and as a current strategic spot. As a small jurisdiction in the country it is important we maintain a professional and good working relationship with America, which we do. That has been done quite well by both sides of this House.
The Chief Minister talked about military tourists. As a local member I have experienced this at the World War II museum at East Point, which is an excellent facility organised by the Royal Australian Artillery Association. Many people who go there appreciate it. Often it is because of a familial background or a relation involved in the Bombing of Darwin. Many appreciate or are learning what happened in Darwin at that time. It is a fantastic resource. It was a very important investment for the history of the Territory and the people who visit to learn about the Territory or learn what their family went through during that time.
We have other military sites around the Territory. The member for Nelson has spoken many times about special places in his electorate that were used by the military. One of the good things about the way we approach heritage in the Territory is they still get some active use; they are not just stationary objects or places. We might hear about the member for Nelson’s cricket match during his contribution. It is important that we have this active involvement with our heritage sites as that helps keep them alive.
The Chief Minister spoke about the United States strategic policy and how they are pivoting towards Asia. That will have an impact on the Territory and we have to work with them on how they do that. Through our Asian engagement role we are also well aware of other players in this region: China, Japan, Indonesia and others. We should be aware of the importance of having a good relationship with all of them. Obviously the United States pivoting into this area is welcomed. As a jurisdiction we will work with all. We have carried out some very good Defence operations with other countries. We have been quite careful and mindful of how we manage our relationships, which is something we need to keep doing.
The Chief Minister also talked about unmanned aerial systems. Someone said to me recently that we do not hear as much about illegal fishing anymore. In Darwin we were quite sensitive to the problem of illegal fishing and saw many of the illegal fishers come through Darwin. It has not been covered much in recent times. It piqued my interest. I had not thought about it because we hear so much about our other border problems. I am thinking about getting a briefing on it soon. I would not mind a briefing from the Chief Minister as well about the new board he has put in place, when I can fit it in between port committee engagements and sittings. I will be interested in learning and talking more about and how those unmanned arial systems work.
In the Department of Business – I guess it can move around a little, but out Defence support area in government has had some incredibly confident, professional people working in it. Our public service has a very good relationship with the Defence Forces. We share information and work well together. The Chief Minister picked up on that in his contribution and stated he wants to work on or add to it.
I welcome this idea of a board. I am prepared and interested to learn more about how that will work in the Territory. He mentioned the potential forward staging of US ships in northern Australia, which sounds very interesting. When I was on the Tiwi Islands the other day they mentioned the port there might attract or be appropriate for some naval interest, which I thought was an interesting idea. It is an excellent facility, and I am interested in hearing how that could play in the area. If it is used, that is good. I would like to see how that would work.
I will discuss briefly the Strategic Defence Advisory Board. I am very interested in hearing more. The Chief Minister went into it a bit in his statement, but I am also interested in being briefed on some of the finer details around how that will work. I might even visit South Australia. If we have modelled it on their system – there has been some political argy-bargy in recent times over a few things in South Australia, but they have obviously had a good system for a long time. I am interested to see how it has worked there.
The Chief Minister ended his statement by talking about veterans. We, as an active staging post with active Defence personnel, have some experience with veterans. We also, as somewhere that went through a war, have some citizens who might be considered veterans. We are one of the few places in Australia that has that. I have had the pleasure of working with Legacy recently, and they do incredible work. It is important that we acknowledge and work with our veterans and acknowledge the work they have done for our country. It is good the Northern Territory places them in a special role as well.
I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. He covered a lot of important areas. We have a strong history with Defence Forces and Defence personnel in the Northern Territory over a significant number of years. They have a significant community and cultural impact on us, and in many ways we benefit hugely from Defence. It is not just from the spend, but from military tourism and a range of other things.
The Territory has benefited significantly having Defence people active within our borders. We welcome, support them and thank them.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased because sometimes we forget the Defence industry is one of the biggest industries in the Northern Territory. If you take INPEX away, this is up with the rest of them.
I have Robertson Barracks in my electorate, a major facility in the Top End. To keep everybody happy I will let them know it is in Holtze, which is in Litchfield. It is near Palmerston, not in Palmerston, but it is a really important facility.
Having Defence does a lot for the local economy. You only have to go to Palmerston social outlets and you will find plenty of soldiers there. Plenty of families live in Palmerston and the rural area, and you have all the single fellows living on the barracks who certainly frequent the watering holes, and Kerry Holden for the odd ute. They keep the economy going in their own way. That is good because it means they are spending money in our community.
They have a big influence and participate in many community events. I do a bit of umpiring, and there are woman who work in the Defence Forces who play football. You can sometimes tell by the way they play. Sometimes you can tell by the way they talk to you when they do not agree with your decision, but they are in the community and that is great. Quite a few play cricket. It is difficult for people in Defence to continue playing with a team because they move. They are out on exercises so it is not easy to be a constant part of the community because of the type of job they are in.
There is the Defence hub on Thorngate Road. There are two facilities at the moment, and I have talked to people at the main facility. It is up and running, and plenty of trucks and buses are being maintained there. It is not 100% to do with Defence but is there for Defence vehicles and equipment if they need to be maintained. That Defence hub was put there by the previous government. It sat there for quite a while in the hope that something would happen, but at least it has started to move. It is good that facility is attracting industry to it.
From a local point of view, one of the difficulties a local council has with a Defence facility is that Defence does not pay rates and a lot of Defence traffic uses Campbell and Thorngate Roads; they take a lot of wear and tear. They are not the only vehicles that use it of course. Some extractive mining vehicles and the public use it, but it is an area the Territory government should be talking to Defence – probably in Canberra – about to try to make sure Army use of roads, especially local government roads, is not a burden on the local council. They do not pay rates but they use those roads well and truly.
The US Marines are also an important part of our defence. I welcome the US Marines. They are very much part of the alliance we have, and that is reflected in having them stationed at Robertson Barracks. We sometimes forget the importance of the American Air Force in the defence of Darwin during World War II. The member for Brennan mentioned the other day how I have long had an interest in Strauss airstrip. It is named after a pilot called Captain L Strauss, a US Army Air Force pilot who was shot down in the harbour about six weeks after the bombing of Darwin.
People do not always know the only planes that were flying till September 1942 were the United States Army Air Force planes. We really need to remember that because without them there was no defence except for ground defence. Sometimes it is worth going to places like Fenton airstrip and Long airstrip where the Liberators were stationed. That was the United States Air Force and they flew many missions out of here to Timor and places in Indonesia, and many of them died. You would be surprised how many United States Air Force personnel were killed in this area. We should remember them and welcome them for their contribution to the peace of this area.
The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the heritage and I just mentioned two airstrips. One area that has slipped off the radar is the protection of some of our World War II airstrips. Strauss received some protection. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the cricket pitch. Unfortunately we have been unable to have a cricket game on that pitch for a while because while the troops were in Afghanistan there was difficulty trying to organise that. Hopefully we will get that match together.
We also have Livingstone, Hughes, Sattler and further down we have McDonald, Long and Fenton. There are airstrips near Katherine. We should make an effort to preserve them. We are one of the few places in Australia where there was action during World War II and we still have the heritage to prove it. Some of the places you will not see because they are further out bush. If I told people that Strauss took off from an airstrip about 2 km south of Adelaide River they would say they have not seen an airstrip there. There is not an airstrip there as such. It was a dirt airstrip that was used as an emergency airstrip – they had not built bitumen airstrips up this far north – and that is where they took off from. There are other places out bush – Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, many places in the Northern Territory which have World War II heritage. We should do our best to maintain those sites and keep them for future generations.
Defence has put a lot of money into housing through the Defence Housing Association. All of those things help the economy. They spread work through the economy – the builders and all the other people you need to develop those suburbs.
That is why I say Defence, and I am mostly talking about the Army but you can throw in the Navy and the Air Force, is a big industry. I put that in inverted commas because it is not a normal industry, but it is very much part of the Northern Territory.
In Katherine we have Tindal, Bradshaw, Delamere, Kangaroo Flat, Mount Bundy. All those places need maintaining and looking after, and they create jobs.
While we sometimes look at the Defence Force purely as people marching up and down the street, as we did last Saturday, which was a great welcome back to all those soldiers and a fantastic sight, we also recognise it is not just the Defence part of the work that helps the economy. Those troops and families living in the Northern Territory help the economy as well.
The construction sites, the US Marines, the new single quarters that were built at Robertson Barracks, all those things help the economy of the Northern Territory.
It was great to see the new road, the new entrance to the Robertson Barracks, at last opened on McMillans Road. I was almost ready to ask a question in parliament about why that road had not yet been opened because it was looking good for a long time but the gates were shut.
My understanding is it might have had something to do with getting approvals from various departments. It is good, and hopefully it will take some of the traffic in the Knuckey Lagoon area. For a long time I received many phone calls about too much army traffic in the Brandt and Farrar Roads area of Knuckey Lagoon.
Hopefully this will allow people to leave the barracks from the west side and go to Darwin or the northern suburbs without having to go through the more residential parts of Knuckey Lagoon. Another advantage is that you can bring longer vehicles in. At present if you go up Thorngate Road the gates are very close to the entrance and if you get a large number of vehicles you get a bottleneck on Thorngate Road. This other entrance will be a great improvement for traffic flow in and out of the barracks. Local companies built that road and it is all part of helping the economy with local jobs.
There is plenty more in this statement. I agree with the member for Fannie Bay, having a Minister for Veterans Support is important. It gives the present veterans, and there are quite a few of them in the Northern Territory, and new veterans retiring out of the Defence Force who want to stay here, assurance that the government has some focus on those people. It is also a good way to recognise what those people have done. I congratulate the government for making the decision to have a minister for Veterans.
The other interesting point was the Strategic Defence Advisory Board the government has set up, which I think was in today’s paper. It will help with strategic Defence liaison and will deal with economic development and major projects. That will be good. Many of these issues are based with the Commonwealth rather than the Northern Territory. That is sometimes not easy to deal with, but the government is moving in the right direction by trying to attract as much work as possible.
The previous government tried as well, that is why it set up the Defence hub. It is good that the government continues with that, and this advisory board may be the way to attract more work for locals, because the government will have to work hard in this area. When INPEX finishes or starts to slow down its workload, we will need to have other jobs available for people.
I thank the minister for making this important statement. Not only should we be grateful for our Defence Forces defending our country and our freedom, but also the economic and social input they have into our society in Darwin.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement on Defence delivered by the Chief Minister. Australia’s Defence Forces have an integral role in the Northern Territory’s past, present and future. Territory men and women have fought to defend Australia and our way of life at home and in conflicts overseas. With over 6000 Defence Force personnel employed in the Northern Territory, they and their families make an important contribution to our economy, our community and of course our security.
As the local member for Katherine, I am proud to support our local RAAF Base at Tindal, which is very much a part of the Katherine community. In particular, I am proud to support the personnel and their families who contribute so much to the fabric of our town. Defence personnel and their families make up almost a quarter of Katherine’s population. They have stood by the town through good times and bad. Flood relief, Defence aid to the civil community and sharing the base’s sporting facilities are just some of the important contributions they make to Katherine.
So it is incredibly pleasing that RAAF Base Tindal has been chosen as one of the bases where the new F-35A Lightning IIs will be based. The new aircraft will provide for Australia’s future air combat and strike needs, and will replace the ageing Hornets. The first F-35A aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018, and the first squadron will be operational in 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023. Capable of supersonic flight whilst retaining stealth, the F-35A has extraordinary acceleration, agility and manoeuvrability.
As the Chief Minister said in his statement, the infrastructure needed to accommodate and support the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter at RAAF Base Tindal is valued at $474m, almost $0.5bn. This project will, with a high degree of certainty, bring a lot of opportunity in the form of jobs and employment to the Katherine region. Already, the managing contractor, Lend Lease, has begun the process of community consultation, and, importantly, has entered into discussions with local businesses about opportunities, capacity building and approvals. As the local member in Katherine, I encourage Lend Lease and its chosen contractors and subcontractors to go local and do their level best to include local Katherine businesses and contractors in as much of the work as possible.
The JSF project at Tindal is not the only one to benefit from the Katherine community. New housing is also slated for Tindal in the coming months. It is my hope that some of this new housing will go towards supporting an increase in personnel numbers at the RAAF Base. RAAF Base Tindal is a key contributor to the Northern Territory economy. It is certainly a key contributor to the Katherine economy, and with careful management and commitment to shopping locally it is conceivable that a good deal of this investment by the Department of Defence will land in the pockets of local Katherine businesses.
When I was a police officer based in Alice Springs during the 1990s, I was very proud to have been a member of Centre Squadron NORFORCE for five years reaching the lofty rank – I say that with tongue in cheek – of Lance Corporal. This squadron operates from the South Australian border northwards, including the main regional centres of Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, the Barkly Tablelands and north to include Robinson River and Borroloola. As members are aware, NORFORCE is an infantry regiment of the Australian Army Reserve and is used for surveillance and reconnaissance of the remote areas of northern Australia. This was an incredible opportunity which allowed me to learn from my Aboriginal soldier colleagues and give back to the community in some small way.
Our Defence Forces, including our own NORFORCE, are held in high regard by all Territorians. Each year there are growing numbers of Australians turning up to remember important historical events that commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of our serving Defence Forces. Last Sunday the Katherine community came together to mark the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Katherine, shining a light on the Territory’s important military history.
Not many people are aware that up to 91 Japanese bombs rained down on the town and surrounds on 22 March 1942. It is hard to fathom today the fear that must have been felt by Katherine residents as those bombs were dropped. Local man, Dodger Kodjalwal, was killed during the air raid. It is thought that the 42-year-old was crouching behind a rock at the old airfield when he died. Very few people realise the Japanese air raids went as far south as Katherine. The bombs left a trail of destruction across the community, with some of the damage still visible at the old aerodrome site today.
I am pleased to report that work is already under way on planning the 75Th anniversary of the Bombing of Katherine in 2017. I was pleased to take a lead role in making those preparations, as I did for the 70th in Katherine. Katherine has a rich history of Defence which dates back to the headquarters of the 2/First North Australian Observer Unit, or NAOU, of World War II being located in the town. Interestingly, the NAOU was the precursor to the unit we now know as NORFORCE and Katherine was the base, or staging area, for this unit. Today the tradition of Katherine hosting important military forces continues with Royal Australian Air Force base Tindal fully operational, along with the Army’s North-West Mobile Force or NORFORCE, which also has a detachment at the base.
The County Liberals government is proud of its strong commitment to the Defence community, and we need to do everything we can to recognise the contributions made by our Defence personnel to ensure they are properly recognised. It was wonderful to see our troops welcomed home, but we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Many of those personnel returning from Operation Slipper are currently or were based at RAAF Base Tindal. I am honoured to represent them as my constituents, and I am proud of the work they do to keep our country and way of life safe.
As a government we place a high priority on recognising the contribution our Defence Force makes to the community. I am pleased and proud to support the Chief Minister’s statement on Defence and the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Pastoral Land Board Northern Territory Annual Report 2013-14.
The Northern Territory Pastoral Land Board, chaired by Mr Richard Galton, ensures the health, economic viability and sustainability of our pastoral lands. I acknowledge Mr Galton, who is in the gallery this afternoon listening to this tabling statement. I extend a warm welcome to you, Mr Galton.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in 2012, increased and sustained funding and resources have ensured the Pastoral Land Board has been able to perform its duties in a proper and timely manner. This board is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of the condition and status of land under pastoral tenure in accordance with the Pastoral Land Act.
Information and advice regarding land condition and management helps ensure our pastoral resources are managed and developed sustainably. In order to perform these important functions the board relies on technical support and advice from my Department of Land Resource Management, which is the custodian and driver of rangeland monitoring programs assessing land condition.
In 2013 this government provided an extra $400 000 to my Department of Land Resource Management for the re-invigoration of the rangeland monitoring program. An extra $100 000 in funding was provided to the Pastoral Lands Board to allow additional face-to-face meetings and to undertake lease inspections and property visits. Funding for the rangeland monitoring program also provides field support for the Pastoral Lands Board to undertake field assessment and reporting for subdivisions, conversions to perpetuity, remedial and voluntary management plan inspections and pastoral lease compliance inspections.
Since this board was established in 1992, it has accomplished considerable achievements in monitoring the condition and use of pastoral land in the Northern Territory. The Pastoral Lands Board held its 100th meeting in Alice Springs in September last year.
This annual report also provides an overview of the general land condition of pastoral districts where monitoring has taken place. It also provides specific land condition issues faced by pastoralists, such as erosion, feral animals, weeds and bush fires. It outlines the role of the board, the applications the board has assessed and the current value of the Northern Territory cattle industry.
As I mentioned earlier, this government has provided significant additional funding to the Pastoral Lands Board, including $500 000 to the rangeland monitoring program in 2013. This funding has seen significant progress being made to improve the monitoring and reporting of the pastoral estate, which comprises 45% of the Territory’s land mass.
During 2013-14 reporting season, rangeland monitoring officers from my department assessed 260 sites on 36 properties, across seven of the 11 pastoral districts. Of the 36 properties visited, 22 were assessed as overall in good condition, seven were assessed as in fair condition, one was assessed as in fair to poor condition, and five were assessed as in poor condition. The properties assessed as in poor condition are all located in the southern region where below-average seasonal conditions have been experienced. This fact was recognised by the Country Liberals government when we provided seasonal hardship rent waivers for pastoralists in the Plenty, southern and northern Alice Springs pastoral districts in 2014.
For the first time the Pastoral Lands Board’s annual report includes remote sensing vegetation monitoring. This satellite-based assessment component of the integrated monitoring program provides objective information on land cover and land cover change, and is a valuable addition to the report. Remote sensing vegetation monitoring stems from a collaborative research program between my Department of Land Resource Management and the Queensland Department of Science Information Technology, Innovation, and the Arts.
The Northern Territory Pastoral Lands Board is also responsible for approving non-pastoral use permits. In this reporting period non-pastoral use permits were approved for tourist activities at Curtin Springs and Narwietooma Stations in Central Australia. The board also approved a clearing permit for an irrigated agriculture crop to cultivate poppies on Tipperary Station, which is another non-pastoral use enterprise.
In the reporting period the Pastoral Lands Board visited Scott Creek Station in the Katherine pastoral district, Wongalara Station in the Roper pastoral district and Henbury Station in the southern Alice Springs district.
I take this opportunity to commend pastoralist Steven Craig of Mistake Creek Station for his ongoing commitment to the board. Steven has attended 52 of the 100 meetings of the Pastoral Lands Board since its inception.
I also thank Mr Tom Stockwell for his commitment to the Pastoral Lands Board. Tom has taken on the role of President of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and, as such, has resigned as a member of the Pastoral Lands Board. Tom was first appointed to the PLB in 2005. In addition to being a member of the Pastoral Lands Board, Tom has held office as the Chairman of the NT Weed Advisory Committee and was the Cattle Council of Australia representative on the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association Executive Committee.
Since this government came to power in 2012, many things have changed. One of these is the significant change we made in the way we approach our pastoral estate and the support we provide the Pastoral Land Board and our rangeland monitoring unit. I am very proud to be part of a government that is taking its obligations in this regard very seriously.
The Pastoral Lands Board does an important job. Its monitoring program makes sure the government has a full and clear understanding of the condition of our pastoral estates at any given movement. It is important we do this because we need to understand and be confident that the pastoral property lessees are doing the right thing by the property. They are caretakers of land that is owned by the Northern Territory government.
The work being undertaken by the PLB is helping to inform us about the condition of the pastoral estate, which is 45% of the Territory’s land mass. The work it does is critical to allow us to assess the condition of the land now and what it might look like in years to come.
I thank Mr Galton as the chair of the PLB, along with all the other members of the Pastoral Lands Board, who have put in a lot of hours over the past 12 months. Their work is appreciated by the government and I hope they can maintain their enthusiasm for the job as we move forward through this term of government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, Rosebery Middle School opened in January 2011, representing a landmark investment in education in the Palmerston region. The school provides a rigorous middle school education program for students in Years 7, 8 and 9, with a strong focus on information and communications technology, enriched curriculum, performing arts and vocational education and training in school pathways.
The student population of 549 comprises 30% identifying as Indigenous, 10% with Australian Defence Force background and a growing cohort of English as an Additional Language or Dialect students. The school has an established pathways unit which includes the Autism Spectrum Disorder Unit and provides alternate pathways for students requiring additional support. This team has developed a reputation for high-quality service and inclusive learning pathways. The feedback from parents, service providers and students is overwhelmingly positive.
RMS also hosts the Arafura Kids in Town Engaged in School - KiTES - for Indigenous students from remote communities who are in town, and students who have been disengaged from the education pathway for an extended period of time.
The program provides a strong focus on literacy, numeracy and keeping students engaged in learning. I was very proud to support them at the end of year function last year, where they celebrated the learning successes they achieved during the year.
Overall attendance rates range between 85% and 90%. The school ensures maximum attendance by implementing the RMS attendance policy, which is signed each year by a parent or carer and by the student on enrolment. The policy includes a range of positive strategies, such as highlighting year level and class attendance rates at each assembly, 100% attendance raffles, each class displaying attendance as part of their data walls, and at the end of each semester rewarding high attenders of over 98%.
There are also other schools that do this. I remember being at Woodroffe Primary School, where a student achieved 500 consecutive days of attending school. I thought, ‘My God, that kid never gets sick’. I do not think I have achieved that many working days in a row for anything in my life, except politics where you cannot have sick days.
The Clontarf Academy is at the school, along with the Palmerston Girls Academy and the Smith Family to create incentives to encourage regular school attendance by Indigenous students.
The performing arts creative industries are a significant school focus dedicated to providing visual arts, design, technology, music, dance and drama. Year 9 students have the opportunity to complete a nationally accredited vocational education and training certificate in music production. Completion rates average 75% annually. Music lessons are also provided through a partnership with the NT Music School. This is also displayed every year in a school play, which includes fantastic vibrant, full of colour movement and light.
Year 7 has an ACE program - attitude, commitment and excellence. This class is introduced in Term 2 for students of high performance, attendance and dedication to learning.
Year 8 has a sports academy class which is introduced in Semester 2 for highly-accomplished athletes with high attendance and commitment to learning. They have strong connections to local artists like Janie Andrews and Jasmin Jan resulting in an RMS mosaic pole being installed at the Territory Wildlife Park. They are working with Gary Lang and Artback NT to establish an Artists in Schools program focusing on contemporary dance.
I recall seeing a fantastic painting of the member for Brennan, which looked like him. It was amazing because often at schools paintings by kids do not look anything like the person. This one did look like Hon Peter Chandler. One day I will take a photo of it and ensure I remind him of it frequently.
Year 9 has a fashion art design course, leading to participation in the 2015 Apex Australia Teenage Fashion Awards. There are also whole-of-school programs in health, restorative practice, school-wide positive behaviour and wellbeing scope and sequence.
The school is doing many wonderful things and it has high expectations and high growth in working with the primary schools in the area. It also creates pathways between the primary school and senior college kids in Palmerston, and it is working on a joint governance board across all three schools. This will set common themes and threads across all schools in the Palmerston area and create a circumstance for kids to transition between those schools effectively.
I note the school council for this year: The school council Chair is Ms Nicky Natar and the members are Ms Marina Talbot and Ms Julie Studeman. Principal Lorraine Evans does a wonderful job. The Elected Teacher Representatives are Natalie Banks and Beryl Brugmans and the Treasurer and Business Manager is Samantha Sowry.
I was honoured to recently meet the house captains when we made the middle school’s presentations of the military units. They were as follows: for Marnba, Tulaha Jeffery; for Menida, Finlay Dale; for Wamba, Jozef Brown and for Balli, Jacon Lampton. The house vice captains were: for Marnba, Tyson Woodbury; for Menida, Hayley McAdam; for Wamba, Kyra Garner; and for Balli, Reshma Matta.
It is my pleasure to speak about these students. I wish them the best of luck and I hope they use this leadership experience to grow and develop their leadership skills over the coming year.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, International Women’s Day was created by the United Nations to recognise women’s rights and international peace. The day celebrates economic, political and social achievements of women, and acknowledges the urge to end discrimination against women and increase the support for women’s full and equal participation in society.
International Women’s Day was established in 1910 in Germany by the leader of the Social Democratic Party for women, Clara Zetkin. Zetkin, an activist and advocate for women’s rights, discussed the idea of International Women’s Day during an international conference for working women in Copenhagen. On 19 March the following year was when the first ever International Women’s Day was held across Europe, with the largest street demonstration attracting a crowd of 30 000. Two years later the day was transferred to 8 March and has since been celebrated on that day.
International Women’s Day has become a time to reflect on progress, to call for change and to celebrate the courage and determination of the women who have changed history. International Women’s Day is an occasion to review how far women have come in their struggle for equality, peace and development and it is an opportunity to unite, network and mobilise for meaningful change.
This year we reflect on the progress made since 1995, when the Fourth World Conference on Women adopted the Beijing platform for action, the most progressive blueprint ever for producing the advancement of women’s rights. This year we renew our commitment to achieve greater gender equality and we encourage people to join us on International Women’s Day to make a commitment to a brighter future for women and girls.
From 1908 the Women’s Social and Political Union in Great Britain adopted the colour scheme of purple, white and green to symbolise the plight of suffragettes. Purple symbolised justice and dignity, two values strongly associated with women’s equality. The three colours were used for banners, flags, rosettes and badges to show solidarity.
It was wonderful to share International Women’s Day in the Territory. In Alice Springs there were a number of events, including the former Governor-General, Dame Quentin Bryce, attending the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame for a community forum afternoon.
Many events were held in Darwin. I was privileged to attend the Charles Darwin University Northern Institute morning tea with some inspirational Indigenous women’s research speakers. I then attended the International Women’s Day march on the Saturday morning in the Darwin CBD and the following event at Parliament House, which I thank Madam Speaker for, it was an excellent event. I received positive feedback from people who attended that event. The kid’s corner was extremely positive and popular.
Last week the events continued with the International Women’s Day NT Women Lawyers Association lunch, with a panel discussion hosted by Darwin ABC journalist Eleni Roussos. Panel members were Auditor-General Julie Crisp, White Ribbon Ambassador and sports commentator Charlie King, and Magistrate Elizabeth Morris.
I want to talk about an organisation which Madam Speaker is very passionate about. The NT Working Women’s Centre was officially opened on 3 November 1994 by Hon Warren Snowdon. It was funded by the federal department of Industrial Relations through the equal pay unit. The centre was funded to provide information to women on issues such as pay and working conditions, enterprise bargaining, occupational health and safety, education, training, discrimination, work and family, unfair dismissal and superannuation. The centre’s services were targeted at women who were Indigenous, non-union members who worked in award-free areas, and also women who were re-entering the workforce. The centre also took a proactive role through outreach and community education, which is important and valuable.
In the NT, the Trades and Labour Council successfully tendered to establish the NT Women’s Centre and it was incorporated in November of 1994. The women’s committee of the NT Trades and Labour Council was the driving force behind the successful submission and was supported by Denise Spinks. During the centre’s early days it was run by a small group of very dedicated women. Pam Morgan was coordinating, Shivaun Inglis was the NESB field officer, Robyn Rioli was the ATSI field officer and the two administrative assistants were Lea Ponseca and Wanda Weber.
The interim management committee in 1994 was made up of Trish Crossin, Chris Caught from the YWCA, Caitlin Perry from Ruby Gaea House, Desiree Hathaway from the Ethnic Communities Council and Danella Beer from the Aboriginal Women’s Resource Centre. Invited observers to the interim committee of management included Jo Parish from the Office of Women’s Affairs, Beryl Mulder from the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Alex Saundry from the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sharon Woon from the department of Industrial Relations and Pamela Griffiths from the NT Anti-Discrimination Commission.
The NT government has funded the NT Working Women’s Centre since 2006 through the department of Employment, Education and Training and funding has been continuous since 2006. The Commonwealth government has provided continuous funding from 1994 and we saw the second Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre open an office in Alice Springs on the eve of International Women’s Day in March 2013. It was officially opened by Alison Anderson and Trish Crossin and was a positive move for the women of the centre.
Today the centre has established itself as an important contributor to issues relating to industrial relations in the Northern Territory, and nationally through submission writing, public speaking, client work and community education. The centre has broadened its scope and its reach over the 20-year history. Currently it assists women with a huge range of issues, but consistently for many years the main issues women seek assistance with are in relation to pay and conditions, termination of employment, workplace bullying and discrimination. In 2013-14 the centre had a total of 3167 contacts with women and delivered 24 community education centres. A total of 29% of the education participants were from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and 21% were CALD. A total of 22% of case work clients were Indigenous women and 50% of all assistance was with women who reside in regional, rural and remote locations.
As of March 2015, the centre staff include: Anna Davis and Rachael Uebergang as co-coordinators; Lianne Blanch as administration and finance officer; Anastasia Coroneo as senior industrial liaison officer; and Nadja Reiter as industrial liaison officer. They are also joined by Melly Lewis, Regina Munn, Claire Pirrett, Anne Herbert and Amy Winter who are all industrial liaison officers with the centre. The current Chair of the management committee for the NT Working Women’s Centre is Emily Webster. Security and Public Officer Golden Noble-Harris, Treasurer Fateneh Misaghi, and Nadine Williams, Jude Harrison and Eloise Page are all on the committee.
Those at the NT Working Women’s Centre have asked me to pass on their acknowledgement and significant gains that have been made for working women since the centre’s doors opened in the Territory in 1994. Most significantly, all employees in the NT are now covered by minimum conditions of the National Employment Standards and federal minimum wage. All employees who meet the 12-month qualifying period have the right to unpaid parental leave, and many have an entitlement to paid parental leave. Women who are subjected to domestic violence or are in the care of a person who is subjected to domestic violence may request flexible working conditions.
Many issues remain for working women in the Northern Territory which require further attention and reform. Namely, women continue to be subjected to sexual harassment and assault at work by their colleagues. Women are treated adversely and sometimes terminated from their jobs because they are a victim of domestic violence. Women are paid 18% less than men and will retire with significantly less superannuation. Women perform the majority of unpaid care and work and are disproportionately impacted by the demands of balancing their jobs and caring responsibilities. There is a chronic shortage in the Northern Territory of quality, affordable childcare.
The NT Working Women’s Centre has celebrated its 20th anniversary in the Territory with a number of events, including a film night at the Museum and Art Gallery of the NT on 6 March. It also had a 20th anniversary celebration here at Parliament House hosted by Madam Speaker.
I sincerely congratulate the NT Working Women’s Centre on these milestones and their continued efforts in supporting Territory women. I am very proud to be one of 11 women in this parliament, and especially proud to be one of five Labor women in this Caucus of eight. Like all women, my life is often a juggling act while raising two young children, and I am grateful for the support and acceptance of our community in allowing me to take on this role as a woman and a mother.
As we celebrate these achievements in the House, we remember the struggle of women who are not so fortunate and we must continue to work together for all Territory women. I also acknowledge here in the House tonight Rachael from the NT Working Women’s Centre who is accompanied by her young daughters, Lucy and Hannah. Hopefully Lucy and Hannah will not have to overcome the struggles I have just talked about, because we will have done the hard work here in the Chamber.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I remember a pioneer of the Northern Territory’s pastoral industry, Mr Cec Watts, who passed away recently. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet Cec, but I am told by former CLP Primary Industry minister, Mick Palmer, that Mr Watts’ contribution to the Northern Territory cattle industry was enormous.
Cec was born in Sydney on 28 October 1926. He left school at the age of 15 to work in the Narrabri district on a property that ran sheep and cattle. In June 1942 Cec decided it was time to stand on his own two feet and at age 15 he placed a slightly misleading advertisement in the local newspaper’s situations wanted section. The advert read:
According to Cec, some experience was gathered during a two-week holiday spent on a relative’s farm in the Gunnedah district roaming around with his cousin, Don, chasing rabbits and foxes and fishing. His milking skills were pretty limited, but he understood the principle of the process. He could ride a horse, more or less, having learnt on old Toby, an ex-racing trotter. As Cec said:
He received half a dozen replies and selected the offer from a property at Narrabri; however, his failings were soon unmasked. He found the going tough for a while, but as he was not too slow on the uptake, after a month he became useful. His milking speed improved, as did his riding.
After four years on a property called Wairou, Cec decided to move north to work with cattle. In a book by Jeff Hill called Horsebells and Hobblechains, Cec said:
From where he worked, that is. He then said it:
He moved to the Northern Territory after winning a position on Coniston Station near Alice Springs, which was then owned Mr Randall Stafford. After a short stint at Coniston, Cec moved on and worked at the road house on Banka Banka Station about 100 km north of Tenant Creek. When he heard that the Vestey company - the owners of several stations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia - were hiring, Cec hitched a lift further north. Cec was offered a job at Limbunya Station, a large station in the western Victoria River district. He left Darwin with Mr Jack Quirk, who was the company’s pastoral inspector at the time, controlling around 20 stations then owned by Vestey Group.
On arrival at Limbunya, Cec was immediately reassigned to work at Nicholson Station in the Kimberley. Shortly after arriving at Nicholson, Cec was bet 10 bob that he would not last in the job longer than six months. He went on to spend 20 years on stations in the Northern Territory and in the Kimberley, including:
He initially ran stock camps and eventually managing several of these stations. Cec said he never managed to collect on that bet.
Cec was not promoted to the position of manager within Vestey’s until he married Dawn. At that time it was policy that all managers had to be married men. In 1965 Cec was appointed Pastoral Inspector for Vestey’s Territory and Kimberley group of stations and lived in Darwin for 17 years while holding that position. In 1981 Cec became General Manager of Vestey’s Australian pastoral operation based in Rockhampton where he retired in 1986. Cec said he would not have changed a thing about his life and adventures in the north.
I quote from the book Horsebells and Hobblechains:
A cremation ceremony was held in Rockhampton on 26 February 2015 for Mr Cec Watts. I also acknowledge Jeff Hill for writing the book Horsebells and Hobblechains, which contains the stories of 28 outback cattlemen capturing the huge contribution they made to Northern Australia’s cattle industry. Thank you also to former CLP member - and former Speaker of the House - Roger Steele, who lent me his copy of Horsebells and Hobblechains.
Last month I had the honour of opening the Katherine office of the Cancer Council Northern Territory. This wonderful group provides many support services to those affected by cancer. This includes those battling this dreadful disease and their family and friends who are also affected. The Cancer Council has worked hard to open an office in Katherine, with many fundraising and sponsorship efforts ensuring the office can operate for 25 hours a week. The Cancer Council Northern Territory office provides support to Katherine residents and for the many Territorians who live in remote areas and use Katherine as a hub.
The Country Liberals government was proud to assist by providing office space within the Katherine government centre for the Cancer Council’s use. This government knows how important it is to support cancer patients, which is why we also helped establish chemotherapy services at the Katherine District Hospital. I expect to be part of the opening ceremony for the new cancer chairs next month. We have also established a short-term support position at the Katherine District Hospital to help develop local networks and links to provide additional support for cancer patients and their loved ones.
The World’s Greatest Shave is a magnificent cause in support of cancer research. This annual event is embraced by the whole community, with hair getting shaved right across Australia in pubs and clubs, at shopping centres and in schools. If you do not want to lose your locks you can colour your hair or buy the merchandise, all in the name of fundraising for research and to provide additional cancer support services. It takes a brave and gutsy person to shave their head, even for something as important as the fight against cancer.
One person who I am proud to know is Katherine resident Allirra Braun. For such a young person, Allirra has already notched up a great many achievements. She competed in the 42.2 km New York City Marathon as part of a 10-person Indigenous marathon project team in November last year. She braved incredibly strong winds and freezing temperatures to complete the marathon in four hours, 21 minutes and 12 seconds - well deserving of the hot chocolate she indulged in afterwards.
Prior to the New York City Marathon, Allirra completed a 10 km run in Canberra, a half marathon on the Gold Coast, the Sydney City2Surf and a 30 km trial race in Alice Springs.
The best part of her incredible story is that a year before the New York City Marathon, Allirra was - in her own words - overweight and not able to run 100 m. Sadly, the passing of her grandmother who was battling diabetes was the inspiration she needed to lose 32 kg to get fit. She joined Robert De Costella’s Indigenous Marathon Project in late 2013 and qualified for the Indigenous running group four months later.
Allirra has now participated in the World’s Greatest Shave, which specifically raises money for the Leukaemia Foundation, a very worthwhile cause. Allirra has raised thousands of dollars, which placed her at number three on the NT leader board prior to her shave. She raised this money by holding meat raffles, through personal donations, money jars placed at Katherine businesses and from homemade muffin sales.
This is a brave thing for a young woman to do and I applaud her courage. I was honoured to donate money to her fundraising efforts. Well done, Allirra, you are a magnificent role model in Katherine.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak about my recent trip out bush, especially to the communities recently affected by Cyclone Lam. I flew in and the road driving to Gapuwiyak was terrible, as it always is after the Wet Season. I hope the responsible minister will drive down that road and look at it because every time I go there I come back missing a number plate, which is not funny to NT Fleet. It causes a headache every time. The road is always terrible and needs some improvements.
Flying to Ramingining was the most touching, as there were few trees in sight. Almost every second tree was gone and that really hurt. Being the local member for the area, visiting one of your communities and looking at the devastation, despair and hurt in people’s eyes, you can see it. To the Yolngu people the cyclone has not really affected their lives. It affected everybody else who is not from there, but not them. It is just another episode. That is the strong thing about my people. I am so proud to be their local member at the end of the day.
The team work from day one - they picked it all up. Even before Balanda people and contractors were there they were picking up the fallen trees and doing the heavy lifting. At devastating times like this they come together. I have not heard one person, except the member for Nhulunbuy, applaud the community for their efforts. Look at the ALPA team in Ramingining, Milingimbi and Gapuwiyak. Gapuwiyak was probably not as affected as Ramingining and Milingimbi. The local team in the community has come together and put in the effort. The men - even blokes as young as 16 - worked hard every day to clean up their community, and that is a lot. It is okay to go out there and have a photo taken with them, but at the end of the day you appreciate and see that they had to go through a lot.
Where I lived for almost all my life in my community, the only devastation we ever get is being flooded out of Katherine and the bridge collapsing every now and then. But that does not happen very often, so we are pretty lucky. Beswick, on the other hand, is under water again and I do not think the local member knows about it. Will a flood plan be created for the region? It has happened almost every second year; Beswick goes under water. People in the bottom camp area have now moved up to a new sub. No one is there to help them. It is the community and those who are employed and live there. Other than that no one is there to help them move all their belongings up to the new sub – nothing. That happens every year. Where is the support for the people on the ground?
There is a lady in Milingimbi whom I have known for some time who runs the art centre there. She is a beautiful woman and does a lot for Milingimbi. She is a very nice lady and was always opening her doors if we had nowhere to stay, which was very generous of her. The enthusiasm in the community and the pride they have to fix the problem, pick up the trees, help each other out, share the food and go hunting for the rest of the family – there is a great effort from everyone in Milingimbi and in Ramingining.
They told me the government has visited the area and what they have been promised. It is peanuts, as always and they are not impressed. I thank the Education minister for taking the time to go to Ramingining School. They need at least four new classrooms, a canteen and toilets. That school needs to be upgraded. The devastation caused there is terrible. There is no shade for the kids to sit in during recess and lunch; they all have to sit under the buildings. They now have to use the library to sit down, and we all know the population of Ramingining is pretty big.
Mr Chandler: They were beautiful trees.
Ms LEE: Yes, they were very beautiful trees, but there is nothing left. I have put it on my Facebook page if anyone wants to donate trees to Ramingining and Milingimbi, it would be appreciated.
Mr Higgins: They will not be as big.
Ms LEE: From little things big things grow, I am sure we have all heard that saying - that is what they teach. The kids would enjoy that and it would give them something to do. When they are old enough and when their kids have kids, they can say, ‘That is from when Cyclone Lam came through and I planted that tree’. It will be inspirational to talk about the history. They will remember that moment for the rest of their lives.
Then the second hit was by Cyclone Nathan, and after four weeks the houses are still leaking. The biggest concern of some of the locals was another cyclone coming and water running through their house. It was so bad they had to fill bags with rice or whatever they had in the house and put them against the door, because that is how much the water was smacking into the house, through the doors, the windows and louvres, you name it. It was terrifying. What they used might have been the only food they had, but they did what they had to do so their kids could have a good night’s sleep.
On Elcho Island and in Milingimbi the water starting running onto the floor inside and they could not sleep the whole night, which is terrifying. The government needs to look at this and consider it in the future.
There is hardly any investment in these communities. The health centres are far behind. Warruwi does not have a cyclone shelter. Does the member for Arafura realise the federal government has cut youth centre funding in Maningrida? They are on Facebook, crying out to have the funding reinstated, but is anyone listening to them? The saddest part about being elected into parliament is when you cannot represent the people who put you there.
I will speak up for the Maningrida mob and share their posts on my page as well as on my personal Facebook. I will tell them that the member for Arafura said he was not doing simply nothing. But that is exactly what I saw during the whole week; he did not come in during adjournments and say anything good about them. The member for Stuart does not care that Beswick is flooded.
There are also issues with petrol sniffing. The Attorney-General sent a letter to Beswick telling them that Children and Families will take their kids away. Already kids have been taken and your big final decision is to put up signs in the community for people not to take petrol there? Petrol will still get into that community whether you like it or not, but that is the best solution you can come up with. Now it is flooding, do you know where they will all be? They will be in Katherine. Ask the service station mob. It is terrifying during the floods there. These kids run around with their bottles, fill them up with free fuel and take off again.
The load on the police force is amazing; there is nothing they can do. There are no laws for sniffing petrol. What are we doing about that? These kids are killing themselves by the minute. They kill 10 000 brain cells every time they sniff, which they will never regenerate. It is not like marijuana or ice, it is not like anything. This is a different sort of sniffing altogether. As we all know, ice is getting out there in Katherine. It is a big issue. I have seen a lot of people I grew up with who are now on that stuff, which is sad. There is nothing I can do about it. I wish I had longer to talk about all the issues in the bush, especially in Katherine, but I will leave it for now.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I outline some of the small assistance that was given to Galiwinku, Ramingining and Milingimbi in the wake of Cyclones Lam and Nathan
I point out that the honourable member for Arafura took the time to come to me and show a great interest in the government’s effort to help these communities. His concern was genuine and heartfelt. It may seem trivial to some, but the need for sport and recreation activities in these communities has been highlighted by many people in the region. With much destroyed, the kids need something to amuse and occupy themselves.
In conjunction with the East Arnhem coordinator from the Department of the Chief Minister and the East Arnhem Regional Council, the Department of Sport and Recreation has provided assistance with sport and recreation activities. At this stage, officers from the department and other sports organisations have been sent to the affected communities. Activities are available for all community members, from youth to the elderly, and consist of AFL scratch matches, AFL sessions at schools, basketball games and other physical activities. Community events have been held, including discos, barbecues, movie nights and community fun days.
The council also sought assistance from the department in the form of a grant for damaged sport and recreation equipment. I am pleased to report that together with the member for Arafura we have handed over a grant for $10 000 to replace some of the equipment in the three communities. The council will use the grant for kids’ sports kits with various balls and other equipment, gaming consoles and audio visual equipment from all three communities.
The council said the purchase of these resources would help them restore some normality to their residence, even though it may be a small part. I thank the member for Arafura for his interest and support, and send my best wishes to those communities on their way to recovery.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member for Daly had to say about efforts to keep kids occupied in some of those communities. I want to put on the record that at the oval in Galiwinku in late 2011 - more likely 2012 - a special purpose grant funded the construction of football club room ablutions for the people of Galiwinku. To this day, they remain locked, unused and have not been opened because of issues with connecting the facility to appropriate sewerage works. Perhaps the Sport minister would like to move forward with that. It is unbelievable that in two-and-a-half years of government, that facility remains unused. I am sure Don Winimba, who is the president of the football club and a liaison officer with East Arnhem Regional Council, would have chewed your ear if he had reached you.
Mr Chandler: We will have a look.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
I was disappointed today to receive confirmation on the back of rumours last week that the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner position at Yirrkala will finish at the end of this financial year. That disappointment, anger and sadness extends across the community and families of Yirrkala as well as other stakeholders dedicated to better outcomes for children, some of whom have contacted me. I have it on good advice that when this news was broken to the staff of Yirrkala School last week, where the service is embedded, quite a few tears were shed.
Six specialist Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner roles were created on the back of the Growing them strong, together report which was the result of the most extensive investigation into the state of child protection in the Territory’s history.
The report was authored by experts such as Children’s Commissioner Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby, and was presented to the government in 2010 at which time an undertaking was made to adopt all recommendations of that report, so many of which have been abandoned under the CLP.
The adoption of those recommendations created the six practitioner roles, which have made a positive difference in the communities and the lives of children and families where they have operated. Under the CLP those six practitioners have now shrunk to four. Practitioners have departed and under this government have not been replaced.
I stand to be corrected, but I understand those vacancies are most recently in Papunya and Elliott. If so I am sure the member for Namatjira and my colleague, the member for Barkly, will have something to say about that.
Yirrkala is losing its Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner because a greater need has been identified on the Tiwi Islands. I am pleased the needs of children and families on the Tiwi Islands have been recognised and they need to be supported, but the right thing to do is recruit a new practitioner, not fill the role at the expense of families and children at Yirrkala. They are seeing good success with this support mechanism in place.
The CLP can come into this House and put the case forward to open the way for increasing their salaries, but they cannot find the funds to fill vital positions in the Department of Children and Families which are pivotal in turning kids’ lives around.
I have observed the role of the practitioner at Yirrkala as a public servant expert in children and families working in an integrated capacity with kids and their families - as we know, in the Yolngu Indigenous culture there is often an extended family network - to help and support families raising their kids, assist with problems they might experience and be an important provider of preventative services to keep kids and families out of the child protection system.
The program has been successful in Yirrkala over the last three or so years because community and interagency stakeholders have worked well together. They have collaborated, tailored programs and worked towards solutions which are culturally sensitive and culturally appropriate.
People who understand about working with people in remote communities also know it takes time and patience to build relationships which are mutually respectful and based on trust. What it takes is this specialised practitioner role to lead it and build a successful, sustainable network to improve outcomes for children and families, which can be measured in any number of ways.
Over the Christmas break, often a time when kids will get into trouble during school holidays, Yirrkala had no break-ins or petrol sniffing outbreaks amongst their youth, without a doubt thanks to the dedicated and collaborative efforts of a number of people who work in children and families - from the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited to the East Arnhem Regional Council youth programs - and the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioners, who worked together to keep kids occupied, kept an eye on them and kept them out of trouble.
I doubt we will see the same results in the mid-year school holidays if this position is gone, in the knowledge that there are cuts in my electorate - as with the rest of the Territory - to important youth programs funded under IAS. I found it appalling to hear the member for Stuart today say in Question Time that it is not her job to lobby for reinstated funding, that it was our jobs which is something we do naturally.
I am sure the Minister for Children and Families is on his way down in the lift now, ready to burst into the Chamber and accuse me of all manner of things. When he gets here perhaps he can explain why this position has been terminated …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you cannot reflect on the absence of anyone in the Chamber.
Ms WALKER: I am sorry, I forgot about that. He can explain why it is that this position has been terminated at Yirrkala, because the community is bewildered by it. Perhaps he can also explain how stripping $8m out of the last year’s Children and Families budget is acceptable. Removing preventative programs does not equate to improving children’s lives, but rather shows that the system is going backwards and worsening outcomes for kids. All the more so when the Chief Minister was in here this week, with his epiphany about the state of children at risk and exposed to danger on the back of a tragic and unforgiveable alleged act of physical and sexual violence upon a little girl in Alice Springs.
Next sittings in this parliament will see the 2015-16 budget handed down. Will we see the self-interested, self-promoting, unelected, unpopular Chief Minister with a similar budget to last year for his own department, for $33m worth of spin with no outcomes attached? Will we see much-needed funding restored to the Department of Children and Families in that budget, and resources and staff in place to help kids at risk before they find themselves in the child protection system? The simplistic ambulance at the bottom of the hill approach to the needs of the Territory’s disadvantaged children is the philosophy of the Minister for Children and Families.
In the meantime, on behalf of the people of Yirrkala I call for the Minister for Children and Families to step in and keep the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner role at Yirrkala in place, as it is very much needed.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have heard nothing but doom and gloom from members of the opposition. In fact, that is what we get every sittings. I recall that when we were in opposition they accused us of trashing and driving down the Territory. You are doing the exact same thing. You never want to look at the positives in the Northern Territory.
We have heard the doom and gloom, grand sweeping statements about a crime wave gripping our community. The member for Barkly felt it necessary to bang on about the good people of Palmerston, saying:
I wonder if, before speaking on behalf of the good people of Palmerston …
Mr McCarthy: It was for the good people of Palmerston.
Mr CHANDLER: … whom he does not represent, he might have considered taking the time to investigate what attributed to this spike in property crime in Palmerston during the reporting period. He may have felt inclined to applaud the efforts of the hard-working members of the Northern Territory Police – rather than bang on about the dire circumstances – and their great success in foiling a well-organised crime syndicate which comprised six individuals from interstate, alleged to have committed 100 unlawful entries. He may like to applaud our hard-working police officers for arresting and charging the ringleader of this syndicate, believed to be responsible for over 40 unlawful entries. He may wish to applaud them for arresting and charging the other five members of this syndicate, believed to have collectively been involved in over 60 unlawful entries, and for pressing further charges against this crime syndicate relating to a number of associated property offences, such as stealing and unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
Had you taken the time to read the commander’s message on the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services website where the crime stats are hosted every month - not every six months like the former Labor government - you would have been able to inform yourself before evoking a message of dire circumstance. You would have realised our hard-working police officers deserve a round of applause because not only did they foil a very successful interstate crime syndicate, but they rounded up, arrested and charged a group of five recidivist juvenile property offenders and put them before the courts. This group of youths was charged with approximately 100 offences, a number of which were unlawful entries.
Had you taken the time to look at what the crime trend was impacting on this spike you would have discovered that an adult and youth duo had been actively targeting building sites and industrial premises over this time, and were collectively responsible for over 40 unlawful entries and the theft of $250 000 in stolen property. The arrest of these two prolific offenders has seen a large quantity of stolen goods returned to their lawful owners and, once again, our hard-working police officers deserve applause.
Palmerston police engage in target management strategies, including bail compliance checks. Police have conducted well over 700 bail checks since the start of the year and have detected over 70 breached bail offences, usually dealt with by arrest. Palmerston police have also conducted close to 2500 proactive patrols in identified hot spots since the start of the year and continue to employ a series of disruptive police activities. Had you done your homework, you would know the reasons for this spike and understand the offending outlined above and the excellent arrest results in this regard.
I note you had nothing, zip, nada to say about the fantastic results in your own town of Tennant Creek. Is there nothing to say about Tennant Creek at all? The outstanding results have realised continuing significant decreases in total property offences; they are down by 33% compared to the previous year. House break-ins are down by 36% in Tennant Creek and that should be applauded. Tennant Creek has realised a 60% decrease in assaults is a marvellous result. The member for Barkly should be applauding not only this government, but also Tennant Creek police for the marvellous work they do.
Member for Barkly, you have been scaremongering and misleading the people of Palmerston because you did not have the ticker to applaud the local police in your electorate of Tennant Creek, which is shameful. The results speak for themselves, but in jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory there can be peaks and troughs with our stats. It is a small jurisdiction and sometimes we see spikes in levels of crime. I would be complaining if they were not solved or protecting us and doing their job. In this case there were some amazing efforts by our police and it shows you that a handful of people can make a huge difference to the statistics and make it appear a lot worse than it is.
In opposition we had fun with statistics. I used to love that you could get the same set of statistics to tell two completely different stories. I understand that, but if you understand the context of the statistics, you will see that a few people had made an amazing difference in the statistics in Palmerston. Another amazing result was achieved by our hard-working police officers.
We should look at some of the areas with a huge decrease in crime and other activities, especially around antisocial drinking in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. This is a lesson in statistics; they can be used to create different stories and perceptions.
The police have done a fantastic job, and a few people made a huge difference in Palmerston. It is great to report that the police are on to it and have taken effective action.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister neglected to outline the nature of the adjournment I made about Palmerston, because it talked about alcohol-related assaults, antisocial behaviour and the holistic failure of the TBLs pushing problem drinkers out of the region and into places like Palmerston.
Thank you, minister, for the statistics on property crime solutions. I commend the police and I acknowledged the TBLs at least three times in the adjournment. As you said, in opposition we challenge you. In government you twist and turn the semantics. Not once did you mention alcohol-related assaults or antisocial behaviour in Palmerston and I did not mention it, so my apologies go to the people of Palmerston. A critical assault – a stabbing – then happened, where the two people involved were residents of Tennant Creek. That announcement did not make me feel good.
You can twist and turn, but the adjournment was about a holistic failure of the CLP’s alcohol policy and I presented a very clear alternative for consideration by government, so bring it on, minister. It was great to see you on your feet. I feel good about being an opposition member, because it comes down to the old saying, ‘If you can’t take the heat you should get out of the kitchen’.
I wish to speak about the CLP cut to homebuyers’ assistance which is making it harder for Territorians to buy their first home. The litany of broken promises from the CLP continues. One that is stark in the mind of Territorians is the promise to bring down the cost of living, yet the reality is different. The CLP has raised the cost of living with higher power bills and in the savage cuts to homebuyer assistance.
Just after taking office the CLP axed first home owner programs like HomeStart Extra and My New Home. This saw first home buyer rates plunge almost 40% in the Northern Territory. They followed with removing stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers. Under Labor first home buyers received the stamp duty exemption on the first $540 000 of the value of their home in new and existing homes - a saving of up to $26 730 - and were eligible for an additional grant of $7000 for new or existing homes. On 4 December 2012 the CLP government announced that the stamp duty first home owner concession would no longer be available to first home buyers, costing first home buyers up to $26 730. On 1 January this year, the CLP slashed the first home buyer grants.
The CLP removed the $12 000 first home buyer grant for purchases of existing homes in Darwin, and the $25 000 first home buyer grant for an existing home in regional areas. It is well known that first home buyers can often only afford to buy older homes. Despite this the CLP slashed the scheme, excluding the purchase of older homes. While they argued that the new home purchases stimulate building, this change risks making it harder for young people who cannot afford a new property to enter the market. Many empty nesters sell their old homes to downsize to a new property. These often provide the affordable entry point for first home buyers who cannot afford a new house and do not want to live in a unit.
Under these changes, the CLP has stripped all home buyer assistance for first home buyers that can only afford older properties. Since the CLP was elected, a first home buyer wanting to purchase an existing home in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area has lost up to $33 000 in home buyer assistance from this mean-spirited government. First home buyers wanting to buy an older home in regional areas of the Territory, such as Tennant Creek, have lost up to $51 000 in home buyer assistance with the combined loss of the stamp duty concession and first home buyer grant.
The CLP are making it harder for Territorians to buy homes and stay in the Territory. Since the removal of first home buyer grants for existing properties from 1 January this year, finance commitments for first home buyers dropped by 27% for the month of January.
First home buyers purchasing new properties have also gone backwards under CLP housing policy, losing around $7 000 in homebuyer assistance since the removal of the stamp duty concession. The CLP has broken its promise to cut the cost of living for first home buyers in the Northern Territory.
This is a serious matter which the Territory opposition has brought to this House as the government brings down another budget. This is an example of policy that was scrapped. This is an example of cost savings of about $30m for the government, from memory, but we on this side of the House want to challenge the government and ask them about the bigger impact not only on young families getting into their first home, but on the Territory economy as a whole.
We have seen the reduction in the finance sector, families unable to get into a first home, as well as seeing a punitive policy which is now contributing to the rapid increase in the cost of living. We need balance in this market. There is an opportunity to move back to a realistic policy regarding the homebuyer assistance for older properties. I encourage the Treasurer to reconsider this position from the CLP in the 2015-16 budget and beyond, especially recognising people in regional areas. We know about the land release programs in the Top End. I was involved in those programs, working with the department and experts to master plan the suburbs rolling out under the CLP government’s jurisdiction.
There is also a great need in the regions. We need to assist young families, stimulate the regional economies and get young families into their first homes, as well as experience the add-on effects of stimulating the construction industry, renovations, landscaping and those young families with their local hardware shop purchases for DIY tasks. They will have stories to tell their children about how they got their first start.
I take this opportunity to ask the Treasurer to consider a clear alternative presented by the Territory opposition, in stark contrast to the member for Brennan who terms it all doom and gloom.
I also wish to thank the staff in the Hansard unit, because I came into this place with a great interest in Territory history, and I see the Hansard as an amazing record of what is conducted in this place. A record I will consult for many moons during this privileged position, and long after it. I think those who take the time to assess the Hansard will see that Territory Labor, from 2012, continued to present this government with a challenging opposition, with a clear debate and with alternatives which can be acted upon.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. I want to put my thanks on the record to honourable members in the Chamber today for their understanding with some of the technicalities in the passage of bill Serial 115. This can be tricky for new players and I hope to be more proficient with this come the April sittings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 7 classes from Rosebery Middle School accompanied by Gillian Furniss and Sally Cotton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Purple Day
Purple Day
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have placed on each member’s desk a ribbon for Purple Day. Purple Day is a grassroots effort dedicated to increasing awareness about epilepsy worldwide. On 26 March each year people from around the globe are asked to wear purple and spread the word about epilepsy.
LOCAL COURT BILL
(Serial 120)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to consolidate into one act all the key provisions regarding the establishment and operation of the main lower courts of the Northern Territory. This involves the consolidation of the Local Court and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; resolution of inconsistencies between the jurisdictions, for example in the area of contempt; rationalisation of standard quasi-judicial and non-judicial officers within the lower courts; reflecting current practices and be sufficiently flexible to cater for future changes to practice; modernisation and create consistency in terminology; rationalising provisions regarding sentencing jurisdiction and offences that can be dealt with summarily; and increasing the size of the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court.
The consolidation of the lower courts does not include the Youth Justice Court or the Work Health Court. Additionally, the government is also considering the establishment of a children and family matters court.
The bill has been developed following the release of a draft local court bill in May 2014. The bill was published on the website of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, along with a detailed explanatory document which sought comment on both the bill as a whole and a range of technical and policy issues.
Comments were received from most of the legal professions, legal institutions and from the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate. The department has published on its Internet site a detailed report of the outcomes of the consultation along with its analysis of what changes to the Local Court Bill 2014 might be required. The Local Court Bill 2015 adopts most, but not all, of the outcomes of the consultation.
Last year the government began its judicial reform project with the establishment of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That reform will, over time, provide for administrative appeals and reviews to be transferred from the Local Court to NTCAT.
This bill is the next major step in the process of modernising the courts’ legislation of the Northern Territory. At the end of the process I envisage that we will have the following acts relating to courts: the Local Court Act, the Supreme Court Act – noting that I do not expect any major changes to that – the Criminal Law Procedure Act, which will replace the current procedural provisions of the Criminal Code Act and Justices Act. The Criminal Law Procedure Act will cover procedural issues for the Local Court and may deal with Supreme Court procedure.
Currently the legislation for the lower courts comprises a number of acts. The Local Court Act, enacted in 1989, provides for the establishment of a Local Court which deals with civil matters. The Justices Act, enacted in 1928, deals with criminal matters. The Magistrates Act deals with the appointment and termination of appointments of magistrates. The Records of Depositions Act deals with the keeping of records for all of the courts.
Additionally, jurisdictional issues are dealt with in the Criminal Code Act, the Sentencing Act and the Interpretation Act. Not surprisingly, this legislative mosaic means the structure of how all the acts fit together is difficult to understand. It is replete with terminological differences that have arisen given the span of time over which the legislation has been developed.
The most obvious unnecessary complexity is that we have different courts for civil and criminal matters, despite the fact the same magistrates and general physical facilities are used for civil and criminal matters.
The bill, in clauses 4, 5 and 9, removes this complexity by establishing the Local Court of the Northern Territory and providing for the civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Local Court judges: at the request of the current and former Chief Magistrates, the discussion paper on the Local Court Bill includes an examination of a proposal that the title of ‘magistrates’ be changed to ‘judges’. This proposal was opposed by all commentators other than the Chief Magistrate.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice’s conclusion on the issue in its report of the draft bill reflected that general stakeholder view. However, the government’s view is that the term ‘judge’ is the appropriate terminology to describe the activities of the current magistrates in the Local Court. It reflects current levels of professionalism and responsibility of the judicial officers of the Local Court, and the bill provides for a change of this title.
In brief, the main arguments in favour of the change are:
magistrates operate as judges with a similar level of basic qualifications and the same standards of judicial conduct, competence and ethics. Accordingly, it is appropriate that they be called a judge
the name ‘magistrate’ reflects a public service magistracy of a bygone era, such as blur the perception of the independence of Lower Court judicial officers
the fact that in the Northern Territory magistrates have the functions and powers already exercised by county and district courts elsewhere in Australia
the change will raise the status of the Lower Court judicial officers and thus assist in attracting candidates to the position
In brief, the main arguments against the changes are:
it is not correct that magistrates are perceived as any less independent than Supreme Court judges. Magistrates’ appointments since at least 1980 have, in the Northern Territory, always been based on appointees being legally trained and competent judicial officers
courts are hierarchical, thus it is easier to be understood if the title ‘magistrate’, with all of its historical connotations, is retained in the lower courts
in the past, state, territory and Commonwealth Attorneys-General had agreed they should move on this issue in a uniform manner
the Commonwealth changes from the federal magistracy to Federal Circuit Court judges are not a precedent, because the new Federal Circuit Court judges took on judicial functions formerly performed by the Federal Court or the Family Court
the change of title will lead to pressure, in the longer time, to change other terms and conditions of the lower court judicial officers so they reflect those of Supreme Court judges, the view being that this may occur, regardless of any assurances from the current magistrates that they will not do this
This change in terminology has been made at the Commonwealth level of government, but nowhere else in Australia.
The change has been made in New Zealand, Canada and England. As far as is known no other Australian jurisdiction is likely to make this move in the near future though the issue has been canvassed in the past through former Attorneys-General Ministerial Councils. The Territory is willing to take the lead on this issue.
Other key provisions of the bill are as follows.
Change of judicial officer in the course of proceedings: clause 7 sets out the circumstances in which the court may be constituted by a judicial officer other than a judicial officer who was involved in another part of the proceedings.
This clause addresses problems identified in the Justices Act regarding when a magistrate becomes seized of a matter. It spells out that, as a general rule, until the taking of evidence commences the court need not be constituted by the same judicial officer. However, for guilty pleas a different magistrate from one who heard the plea may impose the penalty. A new judicial officer may take over if the original judicial officer is unable to continue after the taking of evidence has commenced. This may occur because of facts such as death, vacation of office or unreasonable delays due to illness or related causes. The clause will also apply to circumstances where a local court judge has accepted a guilty plea before hearing and adjourned proceedings on sentencing submissions.
Court of record: clause 5(1) provides that the court is a court of record. In relation to the exercise of civil jurisdiction it is a continuation of the current position where section 4 of the Local Court Act establishes the Local Court as a court of record. There is no equivalent provision in the Justices Act so the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, being a creature of statute, is not a court of record. The other current courts of record in the Northern Territory are the Supreme Court, the Youth Justice Court and the Work Health Court.
Characterisation as a court of record gives a court certain inherent powers, such as the power to punish contempt. This subclause establishes equal status on the exercise of the court’s civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Appointments: the bill deals with the appointment, powers and functions of judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial officers. The provisions of the Magistrates Act are, by and large, also incorporated into Part 5 of the bill. The Magistrates Act is being repealed by this bill.
Appointment of local court judges: Part 5 incorporates the current provisions of the Magistrates Act for the appointment of Local Court judges, with the exception that the criteria for eligibility have been changed to conform to the criteria in other Australian jurisdictions, and the provisions regarding the appointment of acting judges have been simplified and streamlined.
Role of Chief Judge of the Local Court: clauses 20 to 22 seek to clarify the position of the Chief Judge as the head of the Local Court and ensure that the holder of that office has the requisite powers to ensure the efficient administration of the court’s business.
Role of justices of the peace: the legislation maintains the current role of justices of the peace. Under current law, in practice it is up to the Chief Magistrate to decide whether or not to allocate matters to justices of the peace. In recent times Chief Magistrates have ceased allocating criminal work to justices of the peace.
In relation to criminal proceedings, the current provisions in the Justices Act regarding the judicial powers of justices of the peace are complex but do not reflect current practice. The bill, in clause 6(4), provides that the Local Court may be comprised of one or more justices of the peace for the purposes to be prescribed in the regulations. These will be the only circumstances where justices of the peace can function as the Local Court. It is proposed that regulations replicate the current role of justices of the peace. The regulations will provide that the Chief Judge may allocate any matter, other than those matters referred to in clause 6(5), to a justice of the peace.
Independence of the court: clause 8 provides a statutory statement on the independence of the judicial officers of the Local Court. This replicates a similar provision in the current Local Court Act. We are retaining it as a statutory recognition of the independence of lower courts in circumstances where there is no constitutional or formal separation of powers at the state or territory level in Australia.
General jurisdiction: the jurisdiction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is currently to be found by a general reading of a number of provisions in the Justices Act along with section 3 of the Criminal Code Act and section 38E of the Interpretation Act.
The purpose of clause 18 is also to consolidate in one provision the criminal jurisdiction of the court and, together with the proposed amendment to section 3 of the Criminal Code Act, to standardise, simplify and modernise the way in which offences are classified.
Increasing the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court: the bill provides, in clause 12, that the civil jurisdiction limit is $250 000. This is an increase from the current limit of $100 000. After the jurisdictional limit was reviewed in 1998, the limit became the largest for all of Australia’s Magistrates Courts. Since that time the limit for the court most similar to the NT Local Court, namely the ACT Magistrates Court, has been increased to $0.25m.
The limits in other Australian jurisdictions range from $50 000 in Tasmania; $75 000 in Western Australia; $100 000 in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia; and $150 000 in Queensland. The difference between the territories and the states is that most states have a district or county court jurisdiction of up to $0.75m.
Looked at in another way the NT Supreme Court has exclusive civil jurisdiction starting at $101 000, whereas the Supreme Courts of the states have exclusive civil jurisdiction which usually start at a much higher figure than $101 000.
The real value of $100 000 as set in 1998 has decreased. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that the Northern Territory average weekly ordinary time earnings from May 1998 to May 2014 increased by 91.8%, so that $100 000 of earnings in 1998 was the equivalent of $191 825 in 2014. If the increase in CPI for Darwin between December 1998 and December 2014 (56.6%) is used, the value would be $156 566. To bring the value up to date and then stay ahead of the inevitable ongoing inflation for some years to come, it is proposed that the limit be set to $250 000.
Clauses 12 and 13 are based on section 14(1) and (7) of the Local Court Act. They deal with how the jurisdictional limit works. For example, the parties can agree to the court dealing with a matter even if the jurisdictional limit set under clause 12 is exceeded. They replicate the civil jurisdiction currently enjoyed by the Local Court.
Appeals: it is proposed that the appeals provisions be retained as part of the Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act and the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. As explained later these acts will, at least for the short term, be renamed versions of the current Local Court Act and the Justices Act as they will be following the repeal of those parts of them that will be covered by the Local Courts Act 2015.
The bill provides for divisions of the court to deal with different types of proceedings. These divisions are likely to have different procedural rules, which can be made under clause 48.
The most basic distinction is separate civil and criminal divisions as provided for in the bill. Other legislation may require, or make implicit, that a separate division should exist. An example is the Care and Protection of Children Act, section 88, which has a quite separate procedural regime for dealing with child protection matters. The bill provides power for the Rules or another act to establish divisions. This would provide the flexibility for the court, for example, to establish a division to deal with a particular problem like drug or alcohol abuse.
Court management issues: the bill re-enacts current provisions of the Magistrates Act dealing with the appointment by the Administrator of judicial officers on a full-time or part-time basis. It provides that there is to be a Chief Judge and for such Deputy Chief Judges and judges as determined by the minister. The bill also re-enacts current provisions permitting judges to carry out a function conferred by other acts or functions conferred on a JP or any registrar, including a judicial registrar. For judges the core requirements for appointment are that the person be a lawyer of at least five years and be under 70 years of age. Salary, allowances and benefits will continue to be set out by the Remuneration Tribunal under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act. There is also a no-detriment clause in section 55(2) and an appropriation clause in clause 55(3).
The bill retains the current provisions of the Magistrates Act concerning the circumstances in which the magistrate vacates office. That is, the period of office ends when he or she reaches 70 years of age, resigns or the appointment is terminated under clause 57. The termination provisions in clause 57 are modelled on section 40 of the Supreme Court Act. As for that act, it does not address the procedure that should be adopted for the Administrator to exercise his or her powers under this provision.
Chief Judge’s power to direct judges: the Chief Judge is given the power to give directions regarding matters such as the place of work of other magistrates, and matters incidental to the performance of judicial duties.
It is obviously possible for a Chief Judge to overstep the mark regarding the giving of directions. That is, the existence of any kind of administrative power in one judicial office over his or her peers obviously opens up the prospect of abuse of the power and unhappy judicial peers. However, the object of the justice system is not necessarily happy judicial officers. The overriding duty of the Chief Judge in respect of the administrative role is ensuring that justice is dispensed fairly throughout the whole of the Northern Territory. For this reason, clause 22(2)(a), dealing with the performance of duties, is a critical power that the Chief Judge must possess.
The clause, like its predecessor, does not diminish judicial independence as the Chief Magistrate cannot direct how a judicial officer will perform his or her duties. Subclause 22(3) makes this clear.
Hours of work: clause 23 deals with the discretions that the Chief Judge can exercise regarding part-time work hours of judges. If a judge is appointed on a full-time basis, that judge and the Chief Judge may agree that the judge may work part-time. Similarly, if a judge is appointed on a part-time basis an agreement can be reached regarding a lesser number of hours.
However, if a judge is appointed on a part-time basis, the Chief Judge has no power to agree to that judge being remunerated other than on a part-time basis.
The bill retains, in clause 24, the current provisions regarding where a court may sit. As a general rule the court may sit at places and in buildings approved by the minister. As part of the Chief Judge’s responsibilities for the administration of the court, he or she is to decide when and at which approved places and buildings the court is to sit.
Clause 36 provides that as a general rule the court is to be open to the public. It reinforces the undesirability of secret trials and the presumption that court proceedings should be open and that justice should be seen to be done. There is currently power under section 61(2) of the Justices Act and section 28 of the Local Court Act for the court to order witnesses to leave the courtroom until called to give evidence, and this power is retained, sensibly, in the bill.
Under the current acts there is no general power to close either the Local Court or the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Clause 37 provides this power. The general rule will still be that the proceedings take place in open court unless there is an express statutory requirement that they do not. The new power places the court on the same basis as the Supreme Court, where the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would allow for the making of such an order.
Frivolous documents: there is currently no express power in either the Justices Act or the Local Court Act to enable administrative staff in the court registries to refuse to accept lodgement of a document on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court process. The purpose of this provision is to prevent wasting resources. It is based on a similar provision in section 17 of the Western Australian Magistrates Court Act. The exercise of the power by a registrar is reviewable by a judge so anyone aggrieved by a registrar’s refusal can apply to a judge for leave to lodge the document.
Exclusions from the courtroom: in a very extreme case, the defendant in criminal proceedings may need to be removed from court through constant and repeated misbehaviour, and the trial continued in that person’s absence. The point is that otherwise a defendant could make it impossible for a trial to take place. Similarly, in a very extreme case, a lawyer could, by their misbehaviour, so disrupt the proceedings as to prevent them from coming to a proper conclusion.
Section 361(2) of the Criminal Code Act provides that an accused person may, in Supreme Court proceedings, be removed and the trial proceed in the defendant’s absence if the accused person has conducted themselves so as to render the continuation of the proceedings in his or her presence impracticable. This section is now replicated for the Local Court as clause 38 of the bill
Singing of orders: clause 41(2) resolves current uncertainty about the power to cancel process, as there is no expressed statutory provision to do so in the Justices Act. Process may, for example, need to be cancelled when it has been issued in error or when a particular summons or warrant is no longer required.
Entry for the purposes of inspection: there is currently no express power for the court to order entry to make an inspection. Entry might be needed, for example, to inspect the scene of an accident or view exhibits that are too big to be brought to the court. The bill puts beyond doubt that there is a power for making such an order.
Representatives: clause 44 reflects section 29 of the Justices Act. It provides that the general position is that a party must either appear for themselves or be represented by a legal practitioner. It does not prevent another person appearing for a party if the rules or another act so permits. For example, section 101 of the Care and Protection of Children Act allows for a legal practitioner or, ‘any other person’ to represent a party in proceedings in the Local Court’s family matters jurisdiction.
Rules and practice directions: Division 5 of Part 4 replicates the current power of the Chief Magistrate to practice directions or rules of court under section 21 of the Local Court Act and section 201A of the Justices Act.
In the current legislation there is considerable overlap between the subject matter of practice directions and rules, and it is not clear when one should be used instead of the other. Current practice is that criminal practice is regulated by practice directions, and civil practice by a combination of the extensive Local Court Rules supplemented by practice directions.
The distinction between rules, which are disallowable by parliament under section 63 of the Interpretation Act, and practice directions, which are not, is blurred as it is the Chief Magistrate alone who has the power to make both practice directions and rules. In the Supreme Court the power to make practice directions is vested in the Chief Justice (section 72 of the Supreme Court Act applies) but rules must be made by at least a majority of the judges (section 86 of the Supreme Court Act), which reflects that the rules are ‘rules of the court’. The Chief Justice can make directions for matters that are not covered by the act, regulations or rules (section 72).
Elsewhere in the other Australian lower courts, jurisdiction to make rules is not vested in the Chief Magistrate alone. New South Wales and Tasmania provide for a Rules Committee and the other jurisdictions for a minimum number of magistrates. Clause 48 adopts a similar approach by providing that the rules are made by the Chief Judge and at least four other judges. The expectation is that the Local Court judges will consult with stakeholders in the making of rules. As with all other subordinate legislation the rules are subject to the disallowance provisions contained in the Interpretation Act.
Practice directions: clause 49 re-enacts the power in section 21 of the Local Court Act and section 201A of the Justices Act. Practice directions are made by the Chief Judge and operate subject to both any rules made under clause 48 and the other provisions of the act.
Contempt: clear express contempt provisions are integral in legislation establishing a court of inferior jurisdiction. Unlike the Supreme Court, lower courts have no inherent power to punish contempt unless it is in ‘the face of the court’, for example, behaviour that occurs in the court. Without statutory power, such courts cannot punish as a contempt failure to comply with an order or undertaking to the court or failure to comply with a summons.
The new provisions are largely based on sections 33 and 34 of the Local Court Act. It is also made clear that a failure to comply with a court order is contempt, as is a failure to comply with an undertaking such as a promise in the court by a lawyer to do something.
The maximum penalty for contempt has been reviewed and increased. Currently it is $20 under the Justices Act and one month imprisonment, or 15 penalty units, which is $2235, under the Local Court Act. It is considered that the current penalties under both acts are insufficient and a new maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or 50 penalty units is proposed. This is the same maximum penalty as in section 86 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The power to punish for contempt is confined to judges only.
Clause 45 sets out all the ways in which a contempt of court can be committed, whether it is in the face of the court or not. It covers the existing situations under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act, and also includes a failure to comply with an order, subclause 3, and a failure to comply with an undertaking, subclause 4.
Raising the age of acting Local Court judges: currently a person cannot be appointed as an acting magistrate if he or she is 70 years of age or over that age. This is the same age for permanent appointments. Elsewhere in Australia it is generally accepted that it is often the case that there are many senior lawyers aged over 70 who are perfectly capable of performing judicial duties, particularly on a part-time basis. For example, under the Supreme Court Act there is no age limitation for acting Supreme Court judges. The options for reform are either to remove the limitation or to pick a new maximum age. The latter option was provided for in the department’s issues paper and this has received general support with the maximum age being 75 years.
Acting Chief Judge: clause 59 replaces section 9 of the Magistrates Act, and the drafting is based on Schedule 1, clause 8 of the Magistrates Court Act Western Australia. The current section 9 is not clear about the circumstances where an acting Chief Magistrate should be appointed. The new clause makes it clear that, as a general rule, the most senior Deputy Chief Judge acts in the position of the Chief Judge. The natural devolution to the first appointed Deputy Chief Judge obviates the need for an appointment by the Administrator for what could be a relatively short period of time.
The power of the Administrator to make the appointment of acting Chief Judge is retained. However, there may be circumstances where such an appointment is preferable to devolution to a Deputy Chief Magistrate. For example, if the office of Chief Magistrate becomes vacant it may be expedient to appoint a magistrate who does not want to apply for the permanent position so as to create a more level playing field for other applicants.
Acting local court judges: the Magistrates Act provides for three different types of acting magistrate, each with different methods of appointment. Section 9 provides for acting magistrates, section 9A for relieving magistrates, and section 14 for special magistrates, which applies to JPs appointed as a magistrate. Although titles differ, as do methods and terms of appointment, each of the other Australian jurisdictions has only one type of acting magistrate.
Division creates a single type of acting Local Court judge. The purpose of the provisions in this division is to enable additional Local Court judges to be appointed on a short, fixed-term basis to cope with particular circumstances, such as a temporary increase in workload or temporary shortage of judges, for example, where a judge is sick, on leave or involved in a lengthy hearing. The provisions also provide for acting judges to be appointed on a sessional basis. This will enable the Chief Judge to call on them on an as needs basis.
Clause 60 is based on sections 9 and 9A of the Magistrates Act. To allow for appointments that may need to be made quickly, the minister is empowered to appoint an acting judge for a term of up to three months. For a longer term, up to 12 months, the appointment must be made by the Administrator.
Clause 60(2)(b) is designed to ensure that acting appointments can be made on a sessional basis. Clause 60(4) is designed to make it clear that acting appointments can be extended, that is, so that clause 60(3) is not read as imposing a time limit for cumulative appointments.
In other jurisdictions a person who has retired as a magistrate because of the age restriction may be appointed as an acting magistrate for a period, commonly two years, following the statutory age of retirement. Retired magistrates provide a good source for acting appointments. This was the case in the NT before the statutory age for retirement was raised from 65 to 70 years. In considering the issue of whether a person aged over 70 is suitable to act as a judge, there seems to be no particular need for the person to have previously been appointed as an NT judge. Clause 60(3) provides that the maximum age for an acting judge is 75 years.
Records of the court: requirements as to the keeping of court records and access to such records or part of them, or to exhibits by parties and non-parties, are currently piecemeal and fragmented. Part 4, Division 2, provides a coherent statutory framework regarding what records need to be kept, and entitlements and applications for access to various parts of the records and to exhibits. The provisions regarding access are cast in general terms to allow for flexibility. Further detail as to the operation of these provisions can be made by practice direction under clause 49, or rules under clause 48.
It is intended that, consequent to the enactment of this Division, the Records of Depositions Act will be amended by removing all provisions related to the mechanics of keeping records.
Section 12(1) of the current Local Court Act provides that a registrar shall cause a record to be kept of all orders of the court and of such other matters as are directed by this act or the rules to be recorded. The Justices Act provides even less. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction is technically not a court of record at all, and the record keeping obligations seem confined to a requirement under sections 70 and 71 that a minute or memorandum be made of a finding of guilt or the dismissal of a complaint respectively. There is a power also, although no obligation, for the court to draw up an order of dismissal and give the defendant a certificate. Nothing in the Justices Act states who is responsible for keeping these records. In practice, criminal and civil registries of the courts keep case files.
Clause 25 is cast wider than being confined to the keeping of case files as there may be other records that may be considered proper to be kept. Clause 25 places the responsibility on the principal registrar for the keeping of the court records in all the registries around the Territory, both civil and criminal.
One of the aims of the bill is to rationalise the various non-judicial offices and the creation of the position of principal registrar is part of that rationalisation.
The requirements of the contents of the case files apply both to files in the criminal and civil registries. The non-exhaustive list of the required contents has been made following consultation with registry staff as to what is actually kept on the file. These contents more than cover the existing requirements under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act.
Currently section 12(3) of the Local Court Act entitles any person, unless the court orders otherwise, to inspect court orders on the payment of a fee. The fee is prescribed in the Local Court Regulations. Parties may, without charge, inspect records regarding their proceedings (section 12(4) of the Local Court Act). Section 12 of the Justices Act allows interested parties to inspect and receive copies of complaints and orders of guilt on the payment of a fee prescribed in the Justices Regulations. Access to other court records and exhibits by parties and non-parties is otherwise regulated by the Chief Magistrate’s practice directions.
Clause 29 maintains the current policy position that distinguishes between parties and non-parties regarding access to court records and materials on court files. Parties are entitled to have access to the information and documents on a court file listed in clause 29(a) to (h), with the exception of an audio or audiovisual recording of any part of a proceeding. For access to such recordings they must seek leave of the court. This reflects current practice and facilitates the efficient operation of the court’s registry so that arrangements can be made for listening/viewing or obtaining copies of such material. Although parties will be entitled to inspect and copy most of the contents of the court file, regulations may prescribe fees to do so (see clause 32), as is the current position under the Justices Regulations, the Local Court Regulations and the Record of Depositions Act.
Under clause 29(2) non-parties will require leave of the court to have access to any record other than judgments and orders. Subclause 29(3) provides that the court may grant access on any conditions it thinks fit. It is anticipated the guidelines for the exercise of this discretion will be included in practice directions, as currently, or in rules. As with access by parties, regulations under section 30 may prescribe fees for access.
Reflecting the current law under section 12(3) of the Local Court Act and section 72 of the Justices Act, access to judgments and orders is available equally to parties and non-parties unless the court makes an order under subclause 30(2), in a specific case, restricting such access.
Exhibits are not part of the case file or the records of the court. Accordingly, a separate provision regarding access to them has been included in the bill. However, clause 31 mirrors clause 29, distinguishing in the same way between parties and non-parties.
As with access to case files, it is anticipated the guidelines for the exercise of this discretion will be included in practice directions, as currently, or in rules. Regulations under clause 32 may prescribe fees for access.
In respect of fee waivers the Interpretation Act, section 65C, implies into all regulation-making powers concerning fees a power to also provide for waiver or refund of fees. For this reason the bill contains no explicit provisions dealing with waivers and refunds.
Clause 33 provides that it is the duty of the principal registrar to provide for copies of things that can be accessed in accordance with sections 27 to 32. This clause acknowledges that other legislation may limit access to court records or exhibits or to the publication of documents or other things. For example, there is a general power in section 57 of the Evidence Act to prohibit publication of evidence in the interests of public decency, or names of parties or witnesses in the interests of administration of justice, and there are certain prohibitions regarding the publication of matters from the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
Complaints against magistrates: this bill contains no provisions dealing with the process for making complaints about Local Court judges or for the terminations. The legislative provisions are largely the same as those applying to Supreme Court judges.
Judicial review: section 35 of the Local Court Act will be repealed and not re-enacted. This provision prohibits the Supreme Court from judicial review of decisions of the Local Court (civil jurisdiction). There is no similar prohibition regarding review for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Consolidation of the criminal and civil jurisdictions requires consistency, and the preferable policy position is to extend the power of review to the civil jurisdiction rather than remove it regarding exercise of the criminal jurisdiction, which makes perfect sense.
Completion of pending proceedings: clause 58 facilitates the completion of proceedings by a judge even if their appointment has been terminated or office vacated. For example, if a judge turns 70 in the course of a summary hearing, he or she would be able to continue to hear and determine the proceedings, including making judgment and imposing a sentence, if applicable. It is based on section 20A of the Magistrates Act. It does not apply if termination occurs under clause 57(2) and (3).
Acting judges: clause 62, dealing with the conditions and appointment of acting judges, reflects the existing provisions of the Magistrates Act. If the minister makes an appointment then he or she determines the conditions of appointment. If the Administrator makes the appointment then he or she determines the conditions of the appointment.
Clause 63 deals with vacation of office. It reflects existing provisions in the Magistrates Act and is similar to clause 56. It provides that an acting judge’s appointment ceases at the end of their term of appointment on reaching the statutory age of retirement of 75 years, on resignation on a termination by the relevant appointer (Administrator or minister).
Clause 66 deals with the prohibition of other work. It is based on section 11 of the Magistrates Act. It is a standard provision in equivalent legislation throughout Australia, although the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction where the minister can consent to a magistrate engaging in other paid employment. The ability for a magistrate to continue to hold office in another territory or to hold office in the armed services is proposed to be removed as being obsolete and out of date.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek a 10-minute extension of time for the Attorney-General.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members and the Chief Minister for their indulgence. I only have about 10 pages to go.
Part 6 provides for establishing the criteria for eligibility of appointment as a judicial registrar under clause 69; establishing the position of a principal registrar, clause 71; and rolling up the multiplicity of non-judicial officers under the Local Court Act and the Justices Act, for example, registrar, deputy registrar, acting registrar, the clerk of the court, a clerk of the court, into the office of the registrar (clauses 71 to 72).
The current position of judicial registrar was created subsequent to the enactment of the Local Court Act. The criteria for appointment have not been provided for by statute. Current practice is that judicial registrars must be legal practitioners as they exercise judicial functions in the Local Court, including hearing and determining matters in the small claims jurisdiction. They are public servants and they are appointed by the minister. In all respects their eligibility and appointment are similar to the office of the deputy coroner under the Coroners Act.
The power of judicial registrars to exercise judicial functions is left under the current law to be provided for in Rule 4.01 of the Local Court Rules and Rule 1.09 of the Small Claims Rules. As a matter of policy it is preferable that decisions about the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction should be made by parliament or the Administrator acting on the advice of executive council rather than being determined by the court itself.
Further provisions regarding the appointment, powers and functions are contained in clauses 69 to 70 of the bill. Protection from personal liability of judicial registrars would be covered by the Courts and Administrative Tribunals (Immunities) Act of 2008.
Clause 69 sets out that the functions of a judicial registrar include the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Local Court as provided in clause 6, that is, dealing with other civil matters, except for hearing and determining claims and hearing appeals, and performing the functions provided for in the rules of court or in the Local Court Act or any other act.
Clause 71 provides for public servants to be assigned by the chief executive officer of the department administering the Local Court Act to the positions of principal registrar and registrars of the court. The position of principal registrar is new. The Justices Act provides for a clerk of the court, although throughout the act it is unclear whether there is only one clerk or a number.
In practice there are currently two positions of principal registrar in the Local Court, one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs, but there is currently no statutory basis for these positions.
In the interests of clarifying responsibilities, providing for uniformity of practices and mitigating any north/south divide, it is proposed that there be only one principal registrar. One of the responsibilities of that person will be the keeping of court records.
Clause 72 provides that the functions of the registrars are: to exercise the powers delegated to them under rules of the court; to perform administrative functions conferred upon them by rules of court or by any legislation; to perform other functions conferred by the act or any other act; and to perform administrative functions as directed by the Chief Judge.
Clause 74 is based on sections 9(2), 11 and 21(3) of the Local Court Act, section 201A(3) of the Justices Act, and section 28 of the Western Australian Magistrates Court Act.
It provides that the rules of the court may delegate to registrars some of the court’s jurisdiction. The rules of court cannot delegate the power to hear or determine civil claims, but this operates subject to other legislation. Nor can the rules delegate the power to conduct a preliminary examination, that is, committals, or to hear and determine a charge for an offence, nor can they delegate the power to punish for contempt.
Clause 75 provides that a magistrate can hear appeals from decisions of registrars.
Clause 76 provides that the Chief Judge may appoint bailiffs for the court. A police officer may also perform all of the functions of a bailiff of the court. This clause is based on clause 10A of the Local Court Act.
It can be noted that the Sheriff Act provides for the appointments by the Attorney-General of bailiffs for the purposes of the Supreme Court Act. The Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act also provides for the licensing of bailiffs.
Transitional provisions: the bill also contains transitional provisions in Part 8. These are designed to ensure the smooth transition from the existing Local Court and Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the new Local Court. For example, all proceedings already commenced will continue uninterrupted, judgments and orders made and process issued will remain valid, and all existing appointments, both judicial and other court officers, will continue. Clause 85 is intended to save the effect of various administrative actions, for example, swearing in of officers, done under the repealed acts so that they remain effective for the purposes of the new legislation. This, of course, will lead to consequential amendments.
Consequential amendments: there will be extensive consequential amendments to a large range of legislation to reflect new terminology and the creation of the new Local Court.
Up to 153 acts, rules, regulations and by-laws will be amended. They include:
amendment to section 3 of the Criminal Code Act so that all offences are classified as summary or indictable
amendment to section 122 of the Sentencing Act so that the default fines penalty is 500 penalty units for breach of an indictable offence dealt with in the Local Court under sections 120, 121A, or 131A of the Sentencing Act
amendment to sections 186, 188(2), 188A(2)(a) and (b) and 189A(2) of the Criminal Code Act and section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so that the default summary penalty is the one contained in section 122 of the Sentencing Act
amendment to section 121A of the Justices Act by adding to the list of offences that can be dealt with summarily, an offence under section 213(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code Act; namely, burglary of a dwelling house at night time. This offence carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment
Consideration will also be given to other offences that may be similar to section 231 of the Criminal Code Act.
As part of the process of implementing this act:
the Local Court Act will be amended so that its jurisdictional provisions are removed, that is, they will be in this act. The only provisions that will remain in the old Local Court Act will be those dealing with civil procedure. The intention is that the Local Court Act will be renamed the Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act
Other proposed consequential amendments would be as follows:
all references to ‘crimes’ will be replaced by references to ‘offences’ with, as a general rule, the size of the maximum penalty determining whether an offence is an indictable offence or a summary offence
Offences classified as crimes that might be reclassified as summary offences are found in the Biological Control Act, the Criminal Code Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act.
Generic references to the word ‘crime’ that might have meant ‘offence’ are found in the Australasia Railway (Third Party Access) Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Coroners Act, the Criminal Code Act, Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act, the Gaming Machine Act, the Police Administration Act, the Prostitution Regulation Act, the Sentencing Act, the Utilities Commission Act, the Veterinarians Act, the Veterinarians Regulations, the Youth Justice Act and the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act.
This means now there will need to be an extensive consequential bill to make amendments to many other statutes and legislative instruments in the Northern Territory’s statute book. This bill will be developed over six months with the aim that it will be introduced into parliament in the October 2015 sittings so that the new Local Court Act can commence operation in early 2016. Between now and 2016 bills will continue to use current terminology regarding magistrates or the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 119)
(Serial 119)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend several acts and regulations within the justice legislation portfolio, including the Anti-Discrimination Act, the Fences Act, the Information Act, the Residential Tenancies Act and the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
Parts 2 and 3 of the bill amend the Anti-Discrimination Act and Anti-Discrimination Regulations to reform the complaint process to provide a quicker process for parties to enable the process to operate more efficiently with reduced resources.
The Anti-Discrimination Act promotes equality of opportunity in the Northern Territory by protecting persons from unfair discrimination in certain areas of activity, and from sexual harassment and associated objectionable conduct and to provide remedies for persons who have been discriminated against.
One of the functions of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner under the Anti-Discrimination Act is to carry out investigations and hearings into complaints made under the act and to endeavour to effect conciliation.
Complaints are made to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner regarding prohibited conduct which is defined as meaning:
(a) discrimination, other than discrimination exempted from the application of the Anti-Discrimination Act, or
(b) sexual harassment, or
(c) victimisation, or
(d) discriminatory advertising, or
(e) seeking unnecessary information, or
(f) failure to accommodate a special need, or
(g) aiding a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Part 6 of the Anti-Discrimination Act sets out the procedure for the resolution of complaints. In order for a complaint to be ultimately substantiated it must pass through three possibly four stages: acceptance, investigation, conciliation (possibly), and hearing.
A long-running review of the Anti-Discrimination Act identified a need to improve time lines for complaint handling. The amendments in this bill respond to that need and are intended to make the process of resolving anti-discrimination complaints quicker and fairer. The bill therefore amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to replace the investigation stage in Part 6, Division 2 with an evaluation for hearing stage by clause 24 of the bill.
Currently, on accepting a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act the commissioner must carry out an investigation and, on completing an investigation, the commissioner must determine whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding to conciliation or a hearing. If it is determined that there is no prima facie case the complaint is dismissed, but if the commissioner is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegation of prohibited conduct in the complaint, the complaint proceeds to conciliation or, if the commissioner believes it cannot be resolved by conciliation, to a hearing.
The requirement for a prima facie test has proven to be too low a test and is not always an effective way of screening to determine whether matters have reasonable grounds to proceed. The test is also complex and is not always understood by the parties.
Clause 24 therefore replaces the investigation stage following acceptance of a complaint, with a process of evaluation to establish if a complaint should proceed to a hearing. The new test during evaluation considers such things as whether the matter has a reasonable prospect of success. The new evaluation stage includes powers of inquiry to decide if a complaint should be referred to hearing in totality or on particular grounds. Such powers of inquiry are available where necessary (they will not be required in every case) and include a power to issue a notice to produce documents to a person and to require witness statements or that a party provide a statement or information on oath. While the powers will assist the commissioner in better evaluating complaints, they will also reduce delay and assist in the quality of evidence in cases where there are self-represented parties.
Clause 11 extends the limitation period to making a complaint from six to 12 months. Section 65 of the Anti-Discrimination Act currently provides for a six-month time limit on which to make a complaint, although the commissioner has discretion to allow the extended period of time for receiving a complaint beyond the six-month time limit.
The commissioner receives a large number of complaints outside the six-month statutory limit and the number is increasing. The current process for determining whether to exercise the discretion to extend takes approximately six months. This compounds the delay for parties if the complaint is accepted.
In a majority of cases matters that are outside the six months but fall within 12 months are accepted, but only after considerable delay because of the processes of determining whether to extend the time limit. Therefore, clause 11 amends section 65 and provides a 12-month limitation period which will enable complaints which otherwise would have required consideration for extension to be handled as complaints immediately, and potentially resolve matters sooner. All other jurisdictions in Australia provide at least a 12-month limitation period and the amendment will bring the NT in line with these jurisdictions.
Clause 13, through the new section 66B, allows the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to require a respondent, during the acceptance stage, to provide a written response to issues raised in the complaint. When a complaint is made to the commissioner, it is currently only able to be assessed on the complainant’s version of events. The provision was intended to enable a complaint to be assessed without the respondent being informed and is considered an important protection for complainants.
However, the amendment in clause 13 enables the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to seek a response from a respondent to assist in determining whether to accept a complaint. In many instances where a complaint is eventually sent to the respondent, their response makes it clear that the matter is not a complaint that the commissioner should continue with. For example, it may become apparent from the respondent that a complaint about being refused accommodation because of gender is in relation to the respondent renting out a room in their own home. This type of discrimination is exempted under section 40 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. This amendment is intended to provide more flexibility around the process so the commissioner is able to respond to the very different complaints received, and dismiss complaints which are baseless, exempt, or otherwise not able to be continued with under the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Clause 24 in the new section 84 enables the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to issue a notice in writing to a party to compel the production of documents or information during an evaluation. Currently, in accepting a complaint the commissioner is limited to the information and documents voluntarily provided by the complainant and freedom of information applications. Providing the commissioner with the power to compel the production of documents and information will assist the commissioner in assessing complaints by improving the quality of relevant material. It also brings the power of the commissioner in line with other discrimination jurisdictions.
Clause 13 in new section 66E further provides the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner with power to take no further action on a complaint. The commissioner at times has complaints that need to be discontinued, but the commissioner has no power to end the matter. In these circumstances the commissioner may be reliant on a party to withdraw their complaint under section 71, or for the complaint to lapse under section 72 (lack of interest), neither of which may be possible or wanted by the parties. Often the matters need to be ended due to no fault of the complainant, for example, if the respondent is a body corporate which no longer exists. The result of this is that the complaint remains as an open matter listed with the commissioner, though it cannot progress.
Clause 19 repeals and inserts new section 79 to allow the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to direct a person to participate in conciliation. Conciliations conducted under the Anti-Discrimination Act are protected, that is, no evidence can be used in relation to a complaint outside of the conciliation. It is anticipated that earlier conciliations will assist with the resolution of complaints.
Clause 24, by new section 86, refers the jurisdiction to the hearings under the Anti-Discrimination Act to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, known as NTCAT, by providing that hearings will be referred from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to NTCAT following evaluation that there is a reasonable prospect of success at a hearing.
Clause 40 provides for transitional amendments following commencement of the amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act.
The bill also amends the Anti-Discrimination Act to apply to the principles of criminal responsibility set out in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
Part 5 of the bill amends the Information Act to include information created under the Anti-Discrimination Act as exempt under section 44 of the Information Act, because it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. The exemption will apply generally to information collected or provided as part of the formal complaint process, which includes conciliations, and to other information or advice provided to or by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner that would reasonably be expected to be confidential, such as personal confidential inquiries from the public. It will not apply to other functions of the commissioner, such as her education or research functions, or to operational matters of the commission.
Currently the commissioner relies on the tribunal exemption for bodies, other than a court, established by or under an act that has judicial or quasi-judicial functions. However, the exemption is no longer appropriate given that the hearing function is being transferred to NTCAT. This new section 49D is anticipated to assist in resolution of complaints by conciliation as it prevents the release, as a result of freedom of information application, of any material provided in confidence by a party.
I will now turn to other aspects of the bill. As you will be aware, NTCAT commenced operating on 6 October 2014. NTCAT is designed to be a one-stop shop for reviewing a wide range of administrative decisions and resolving certain civil disputes. The NTCAT can be given both original (that is, administrative decisions that can be made in the first instance) and review jurisdiction. Where NTCAT is given original jurisdiction decisions will usually be made by one general member of NTCAT. Review decisions will be generally considered by a legal member or panel of members.
The jurisdiction of NTCAT will expand over time with new jurisdictions gradually being conferred by legislation and phased into its business. Currently NTCAT has a limited jurisdiction, including lands, planning and mining tribunal matters and licensing matters. Relevant residential tenancy matters are currently being heard by NTCAT members as delegates of the Commissioner of Tenancies. The full transition of residential tenancy matters to NTCAT is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2015.
NTCAT represents a major step in improving access to justice for all Territorians. However, as with all major reforms it is necessary to continually evaluate and monitor the implementation of the reforms to ensure, particularly in the early stages, that they are operating as effectively as possible. Accordingly, Part 6 of the bill makes a number of amendments to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act to improve the operation of the act, amendments that have been identified during NTCAT’s first six months of operation.
Clause 53 omits section 84, which currently provides the enforcement of NTCAT orders, and replaces it with a more comprehensive enforcement regime.
Section 84 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act currently reflects a policy position that prosecution is the main tool for encouraging compliance with NTCAT orders. Section 84 therefore creates an offence for failing to comply with an order of NTCAT, punishable by up to 100 penalty units or imprisonment for six months.
Although the threat of arrest and possible imprisonment under section 84 is anticipated to be an effective enforcement tool for most people, concern has been raised as to whether it will adequately address all situations. For example, imprisonment will not necessarily assist a person to receive money owed to them under a compensation order or to give effect to the termination of a lease. In those cases, for example, a warrant of seizure and sale or a warrant of possession that can be enforced by a court bailiff may be more appropriate. While section 84(1) allows for costs orders to be enforceable in an appropriate court as a debt, the definition of ‘costs orders’ applies only to orders relating to the costs of proceedings, not to monetary orders for compensation or non-monetary orders requiring a person to do or refrain from doing an action.
It is therefore proposed to enhance the current enforcement powers to create a full suite of appropriate enforcement tools. New section 84 is being added to allow for monetary orders to be registrable and enforceable as an order of the court of competent jurisdiction. Monetary orders under new section 84 includes all compensation orders and costs orders as well. The current jurisdictional limit of the Local Court is $100 000. This means that any monetary order below that amount is registrable and enforceable as an order of the Local Court. Any order of NTCAT relating to an amount in excess of $100 000 is registrable and enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.
New section 84A creates a separate provision relating to the enforcement of non-monetary orders. This section clarifies that, generally, non-monetary orders of NTCAT are all to be enforceable as orders of the Local Court. However, it is likely that there may be circumstances where a non-monetary order of NTCAT would more appropriately be enforced by the Supreme Court, for example, where the order is likely to involve complex matters or relate to a large asset.
In those cases the relevant act conferring jurisdiction on NTCAT could specifically override new section 84A so that such orders are enforced as Supreme Court orders. This is possible due to section 5 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, which specifically provides that if there is an inconsistency between the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act and the relevant act then the relevant act prevails. Section 5 also provides that a relevant act may modify the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act in relation to an exercise of jurisdiction conferred by that relevant act.
To ensure then that the full suite of enforcement tools is available in relation to all orders of NTCAT, it is proposed to make these amendments retrospective so that any order made by NTCAT since its inception on 6 October 2014 is enforceable under the new enforcement provisions.
It should be noted that the current offence provision in section 84 is preserved at new section 84B. This still will allow for the prosecution of a person if they do not comply with an order of NTCAT.
It is also proposed to amend section 140 and insert new section 140A of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. Firstly, it is proposed to insert the new section 140A to clarify the parties to a review of original decisions made by NTCAT. New section 140A provides that NTCAT is not a party to a proceeding for a review of a decision of NTCAT in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Section 140 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act allows for a person to appeal against a decision made by NTCAT in its original jurisdiction. Section 127(1)(c) provides that the decision-maker is a party to the proceeding. While it makes sense that the decision-maker is a party in matters where NTCAT is reviewing the original decision of another decision-maker, it is not appropriate for NTCAT to be a party in matters where it would be reviewing its own decision.
Section 140 is also being amended to insert new subsection 1A to allow for the regulations to exclude specific decisions of NTCAT from being reviewed by NTCAT. This regulation-making power is intended to be used only in limited and appropriate circumstances. For example, regulations could exclude original decisions of NTCAT where it is anticipated that original decisions may involve complex matters and be likely to require an original hearing by more than one member, including a legal member. Importantly, it should be noted that any regulation excluding a decision from the appeal right under section 140 does not affect the ultimate existing right to appeal a decision of NTCAT to the Supreme Court under section 140 on a question of law.
Accordingly, Part 7 of the bill proposes to make amendments to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Regulations to prescribe under new section 140(1A) certain suitable original decisions of NTCAT under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
The Health Practitioners Act is being amended by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) Act 2014, the relevant aspect of which is anticipated to commence in mid-2015. These amendments replace the Health Professional Review Tribunal with NTCAT for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. New Part 3 of the Health Practitioners Act sets out processes and procedures of NTCAT consistent with the national law, including requiring constitution by a panel of three when determining matters under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. However, section 22 of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act limits NTCAT in the sense that, for any matter, the maximum number of members that can constitute NTCAT is three.
Therefore, in the case of reviews under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law where NTCAT has an original decision referred to it under section 196 or 197 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, this would result in the situation where there would be duplication, that is, two full hearings before a panel of three. This introduces a new appeal right that does not currently exist and is not what was intended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. This is the type of unintended and inefficient circumstance where it would be appropriate to exclude the original decision of NTCAT from an internal review by NTCAT under section 140.
Part 4 of the bill makes minor technical amendments to the Fences Act. The Fences Act was recently amended by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) Act to confer the current jurisdiction of the Local Court under the Fences Act to NTCAT. However, a small number of references to ‘court’ in sections 5(2), 8(2) and 15(6) of the Fences Act were inadvertently missed during the drafting process and were not converted to references to NTCAT. Part 4 of the bill corrects these references.
__________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School accompanied by Wendy Bishop and Sharna Crockett. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I can see that they are as thrilled as I am to be dealing with this highly important piece of legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure they will pay close attention, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Their excitement is noted.
Finally, Part 8 of the bill amends sections 122 and 170 of the Residential Tenancies Act in minor respects, similar to the amendments to the Fences Act. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments)(No 2) Act of 2014 will amend the Residential Tenancies Act to confer the current jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Tenancies on NTCAT. However, a small number of references to the commissioner in section 122 were inadvertently missed during the drafting. These references are being corrected and replaced with references to NTCAT.
The amendments proposed in this bill will significantly improve the complaint process under the Anti-Discrimination Act and the effectiveness of NTCAT.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CO-OPERATIVES (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 114)
(Serial 114)
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I stand here on behalf of the Business minister, the member for Sanderson, who is away with a debilitating injury. I put on record my disgust at members opposite who could not see fit to give the member for Sanderson a pair. Government tries to work with opposition in making sure when members are disabled or the like they can get a pair, but it seems the opposition is more interested in playing silly political games than it is about working together to make sure this place functions well.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to adopt a new national uniform template legislation for the regulation of cooperatives in all states and territories, as provided for in the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement.
The main purpose of this bill is to enable the uniform cooperatives national law and the national regulations to be applied in the Northern Territory. The law is set out in the appendix to the bill. The law will apply to the non-banking cooperatives, which are also known as general cooperatives. The banking cooperatives, sometimes called financial cooperatives, such as credit unions, building societies and friendly societies, are regulated under separate legislation administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
Cooperatives are mutual organisations and they continue to be a significant part of the Australian and world economies. There are approximately 1700 registered cooperatives in Australia. About three-quarters of cooperatives are established as not for profit, in that they have rules that prevent them from distributing any surplus to their members. These cooperatives may provide crucial services to their members, such as health and medical care, job searching, training, housing or childcare.
Cooperatives are known for their distinctive member-owned, member-controlled and member-used focus. They provide an organisational structure for individuals and small businesses by which they can acquire goods and services in economies that increasingly are dominated by large corporate organisations. The Northern Territory currently has four cooperatives.
Cooperatives are also important in rural communities where they enable those communities to retain and develop services that have been eroded by the withdrawal of other corporate businesses which seek to maximise profits for investors and so relocate elsewhere for bigger profits.
Investor-oriented firms, member-oriented cooperatives and other types of organisations all have a role to play in providing services in a modern and balanced economy. Governments continue to have a role in providing a legislative framework to assist with the operation of cooperatives and other forms of organisations.
The Northern Territory, as part of the Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement, continues to promote the principles of cooperatives through implementation of cooperatives national law. This legislation will continue to enable the formation, registration and operation of cooperatives, promotion of cooperative principles and protection of the interests of cooperatives, their members and the public in the operations and activities of cooperatives.
The cooperatives national law introduces a number of reforms. Importantly it will ensure consistency of laws across all jurisdictions. This will be achieved by jurisdictions either directly applying the uniform template cooperatives national law, or making their own legislation consistent with that law. All jurisdictions will use their best endeavours to administer the cooperatives national law uniformly in line with the agreement.
This improvement in the consistency and administration of cooperatives laws will provide greater certainty to all parties with rights, duties and powers in relation to cooperatives, and assist in lowering costs and red tape through cross-border operations. Automatic mutual recognition of cooperatives by other jurisdictions, once they are registered in one jurisdiction, will facilitate cooperatives conducting operations across state and territory borders. Currently a cooperative needs to apply separately to each jurisdiction in which it wishes to operate.
If a trading cooperative wishes to operate in all states and territories it would pay an average of about $1700 in registration and compliance fees to do so, as well as having to lodge reports annually to those jurisdictions. By comparison the corresponding fee for a company registered under the Corporations Act is about $450. Under the cooperatives national law, costs will be lowered and paperwork requirements simplified, which is similar to a company requirement in this context.
Simplification of the financial reporting and auditing requirements for small cooperatives, by using a risk assessment-based system, will reduce costs and red tape for those cooperatives. Responsibilities and duties for directors and officers of a cooperative have been updated and made consistent with those requirements applying to directors and officers under the Corporations Act. This will mean that directors and officers in similar circumstances in a cooperative will be treated similarly to those in a company. Director liability for corporate fault under the cooperatives national law has been revised according to the Council of Australian Government’s director liability reform.
As a result, blanket liability provisions have been removed and directors face liability where there is a clear link between the director’s responsibility and action or inaction and the contravention of the law.
More flexibility for a cooperative to raise funds from both members and the public has been created by the introduction of the option to use cooperative capital units by cooperatives in all jurisdictions.
To save reinventing the wheel, cooperatives laws have for some time referenced the Corporations Act where appropriate, for example, in dealing with disclosure of information for fundraising from the public, insolvency, liquidation and winding-up situations. The referencing of the Corporations Act has been updated and made consistent across all jurisdictions.
The introduction of enforceable undertakings is a cost-effective method of facilitating compliance with the law. For example, the registrar may accept a written undertaking from a cooperative to take action to prevent contravention of the law. This can be reinforced with a court order, applied for by the registrar, provided there is agreement from the cooperative.
The adoption bill and the law have been approved by all states and territories via the Council of Australian Government’s consumer affairs forum out-of-session process. With these milestones having been met, it is now timely for the bill and law to be considered by this Chamber in keeping with the terms of the agreement.
The Australian Uniform Co-operative Laws Agreement requires states and territories to secure the passage and proclamation of their laws by 18 May 2015. I commend the implementation and ongoing uniform administration of this national template cooperatives legislation for the benefit of all in the cooperatives sector and for the future development of business in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
Continued from 18 February 2015.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of my Labor team in response to this legislation, which I find shameful. I think most people in the public domain would be shocked that the government is opening a pathway to get big fat pay rises for politicians while it expects public servants to cop a 3% pay increase, which is less than CPI.
Unbelievable! Absolutely appalling! I guess you are hoping the greed will be infectious and this will slip through without notice. We do not share your greed, Chief Minister, and we condemn you for even trying this sleight of hand to bring in this legislation so you can say, ‘This isn’t a pay rise. This is just setting up an independent process where politicians are not deciding what politicians pay is.’ You would not want to be held accountable would you, Chief Minister, for any consequences of this? The consequences are writ large if you refer to the Remuneration Tribunal decisions of 2012, 2013 and 2014. But this is what we have come to expect from this Chief Minister
Following the recent leadership coup, the ongoing dysfunction and personal acrimony within the CLP, the Chief Minister promised in this Assembly that:
- The government I lead will be 110% focused on Territorians …
The bill before the House is living proof that the Chief Minister and the CLP are focused 110% on themselves, not on the Territory community. The inevitable consequence of this bill is that the salaries of Assembly members will increase to levels in excess of increases for public service employees under enterprise agreements, and those available to workers in the private sector.
The primary focus of this bill is to break the nexus between the quantum of salary increases for MLAs and the public service. You are repealing the legislation that caps us at public service pay increase rates. Is this fair or equitable? In the most recent Northern Territory public service EBA, salary increases were capped at 3% per annum for four years, effective from October 2013. In stark contrast, since 2009 Labor took the view that salary increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly should be linked to the general wage limits of the Territory public sector. Today, you break that.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Larrakeyah Primary School accompanied by Ms Claire Rowat, Mrs Tanya Harvey and Mr Bradley King. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms LAWRIE: The Labor position which remains today is based on fairness, equity and the reasonable expectations of the Territory’s hard-working public sector and the wider community that salary increases for politicians will not outstrip those available to public servants. This remains our position. We will oppose this legislation.
We have before us the Chief Minister’s proposal to cap Assembly members’ base salary at 80% of the salary available to federal parliamentarians. That opens the door for salaries to be increased. So much for a 110% focus on Territorians. You sit here exposed.
Members opposite might ask themselves how Territorians might react to a scenario under which it is now possible, if this legislation passes, for politicians to get higher salary increases than those available to public sector employees. Remember, this Chief Minister is so out of touch that last year he thought the cost of living in Darwin shaped up well compared to other parts of our nation. This is the view of a Chief Minister who has burdened Territory families and businesses with savage cost-of-living increases not only in Darwin, but across our regional and remote towns, and across our remote communities.
The Chief Minister is saying with his legislation today, effectively, that politicians should have the option of substantial salary increases, but everyone else can fend for themselves and he will enforce a 3% wage restraint policy on our public servants.
In a statement to this Assembly in the February sittings, the Chief Minister said:
- We want to remove the members’ conflict of interest we have in this Chamber in the determinations.
Is the Chief Minister seriously suggesting that in determining the quantum of salary increases offered to public servants, his government would be influenced by the link between public sector remuneration and salary increases determined for members of this parliament? Would he abandon wage constraint in the public sector to ramp up salary increases for members of this Assembly? Even by the appalling standards demonstrated by this government, such an approach would be utterly irresponsible. If that is your position, say so unequivocally today.
We in Labor retain the view that it would be more equitable and relevant to link wage movements of members of this House with those in our Territory public sector, rather than federal politicians.
I guess the Chief Minister thinks we have all forgotten the significant pay increases federal politicians received a few years ago based on a remuneration decision that included rolling certain condition into the salary package. Our federal parliamentarians, since we have had a direct link between public service pay rate increases and politician pay rate increases, have had significant pay increases. That is the sneaky bit we are meant to not notice in linking us, once again, to the federal parliamentary salary – the 80% nexus link returning. It is a disgrace. It does not go unnoticed and you are being called out for your behaviour.
I do not accept the view that there is any conflict of interest involved in us ultimately having a decision to accept or reject pay rates. We are elected to serve the public. Government sets the policies, including the wage policies, for our public servants. We have a duty and an obligation to stay in step with that. It is part of our responsibility as elected members of parliament. It is something you are trying to tear up today so you can pretend, with an RTD determination with an independent body, that you have nothing to do but to accept the pay rate increase you will get.
Shame on you, Chief Minister! You will be exposed for this. The public are not fools. They are fed up with you treating them like fools and with contempt. Shame on you!
Is the $288 565 you are already paid not enough for you? You want more, and you want to set up a system where you can pretend you have no choice but to accept that pay increase – divest yourself of responsibility to open the path. The responsibility sits here today with you, with the legislation that has your name on it, Chief Minister.
Is it not enough for the ministers of your Cabinet to earn $219 000, the same that I earn? That is enough. I am happy to accept any pay increase public servants get. If it is 3%, then it is 3% for me too. Your motivation is to cut adrift to an independent RTD so you can open the pathway for more funding for pollies. Really? When Territorians are doing it so tough under your government, where they do not even have job certainty and had to put up with the fact that you sold TIO without a mandate.
Successive tribunals have undertaken their work with professionalism, impartiality and integrity. We do not need to cut them adrift. I have the utmost respect for our tribunal. John Flynn is a fantastic and outstanding Territorian. He has served us with distinction and will continue to serve us with distinction. This is not about the professionalism and integrity of John Flynn; this is about the accountability of the government of the day and the parliamentarians who sit in this parliament and put their name to and seek to pass legislation that opens the avenue for politicians’ pay rises above and beyond public servants’ pay rises. Shame on you, Chief Minister!
I pick up on the chortle from the member for Fong Lim. You find this a laughing matter. You will not be laughing when members of the public hold you to account.
Mr Tollner: When you have stopped your puerile comments you will hear what I have to say.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms LAWRIE: Little wonder, member for Fong Lim, that you are one of those who will lose their seat in the coming election.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, direct your comments to the Chair please.
Ms LAWRIE: If a tribunal makes recommendations concerning remuneration of members of this Assembly which we believe exceed reasonable community expectations, this parliament currently has the right to not accept them, and we believe we need to reserve that right. We need to be held accountable and responsible for what we accept. We need to stay in step with public service pay increases, not break the nexus.
Mr Tollner: Hand back your pension.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner: If that is what you truly believe, hand back your pension.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection because I knew this would be the line of attack on me personally, and perhaps the Independent member for Nelson. The member for Fong Lim is saying, ‘Hand back you pension’, because it is an issue in this parliament, as it is in other parliaments, that there are some members of parliament who are under the old Legislative Assembly members’ superannuation scheme because we were elected when the pension existed. There is me, the member for Karama, and the member for Nelson.
Mr Tollner: Donate it to charity.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: They sit there chortling. Are all the previous CLP members of parliament handing back their pensions? Has anyone handed back their pension? Are you going to hand over your pension?
Mr Giles: I don’t have a pension.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes you do, you still pay superannuation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Ms LAWRIE: This is how low and puerile the members of government are.
Mr Giles: You can’t have an open debate – hand back your pension.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Stop being so disingenuous.
Madam SPEAKER: Government members, I ask you to cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: The chaos and dysfunction continues, does it not?
Mr Tollner: Hand back your pension.
___________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Fong Lim
Suspension of Member
Member for Fong Lim
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to stop interjecting. Pursuant to Standing Order 240A, leave the Chamber for one hour.
___________________
Ms LAWRIE: The issue of remuneration for members has become so much more difficult under the Giles government. You have to ask yourself why, and it leads back to the chaos, the dysfunction and the incompetence of this government that has damaged our reputation both locally and nationally.
If the Chief Minister was the chair of a private company, the board, by now, would have sacked him. His own board tried to but he refused to resign. If the Chief Minister was a public servant he would at the very least be on performance management or would have been terminated for ongoing failure. The service to the public and contribution to society of members of this Assembly should be recognised, not diminished by an arrogant Chief Minister and his incompetent government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to tell us she will hand back her pension.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down, member for Katherine. It is not a point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: By all means keep up the personal attack because it makes you look appalling.
The service to the public and contribution to society of members of this Assembly should be recognised and not diminished by an arrogant Chief Minister and his incompetent government. Members opposite need to think very carefully about what their constituents will think about the implications of this bill. Are you focused 110% on Territorians or are you focused 110% on yourselves.
If the CLP government demands wage restraint from our public servants, it must be prepared to set an example when it comes to salary increases for members of this Assembly. Not to do so will further erode the little credibility, if any, the government has with Territorians.
On the basis of fairness and equity, the direct link between salary increases from members and public servants should be retained. The government may wish to spin that I am making up that there would be pay rises to politicians as a result of this legislation. I refer you to page 5 of 28 of the Northern Territory of Australia Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2012.
The tribunal refers us to the legislation that you are seeking to appeal with this bill today. It is the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act which linked our percentage of pay increases to Northern Territory public servants. This is what you are breaking and removing if you pass this legislation today. I quote from Determination No 1 of 2012:
- This removes the capacity for independent assessment of Member remuneration levels and has had the effect of de-valuing the base remuneration of Members and office holders, a factor which will continue to be exacerbated in the future.
In case you were not aware of that, I refer you then to the Report on the Entitlement of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013, page 6 of 29. The tribunal again refers to legislation that ties our percentage increases to those of public servants, which will be removed if this legislation passes today. I quote the tribunal again:
- This removes the capacity for independent assessment of Member remuneration levels and has had the effect of de-valuing the base remuneration of Members and office holders, a factor which will continue to be exacerbated in the future.
Just in case you missed that, I refer you to the latest report, Northern Territory of Australia Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlement of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2014, page 6. Again, the tribunal says:
- The Tribunal notes that there has not been any change to the above legislation in relation to Members and Office Holders remuneration. The Tribunal reiterates its comments in this respect made in Reports on the Entitlements of Assembly Members in Determination Nos 1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013.
In the tribunal’s own words, office holders and members’ remuneration has been devalued. What does that mean, members? Will you come clean in your responses? Will you admit the truth? I know that goes against the grain, but will you admit that the view is that our remuneration has slipped behind those of other jurisdictions and this legislation before us opens up the path for pollies’ pay rises, in excess of the 3% our public servants are forced to live with. Shame on you.
You see it fit to enforce a 3% pay wage restraint on public servants at a time of escalating cost of living under the CLP government, therefore making the ability to afford to live here ever so diminished. You cannot. Families are packing up and leaving, yet you shamelessly come into parliament with legislation you think you will just slip through. ‘We can bully and threaten the Leader of the Opposition because she is sitting on a parliamentary super scheme that only she and the member for Nelson are on’.
I will not be bullied and we will not be silent. We will oppose this shameless behaviour by this shameless CLP government today. You will be held to account for it. Maybe you think because you are already headed for a slaughter you will fatten up your pay packets on the way out. Maybe that is the logic behind it, ‘Quick, let us get a cash grab on the way out’. What a disgrace!
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are probably upset because you will not be around long enough to get the benefits.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Katherine. He said, ‘You are probably upset because you will not be around long enough’. You are disgraceful! I will be here longer than you, mate.
I will call a spade a spade. This is shameless greed by the CLP members who want to fatten their pay packets at the very same time they are exerting wage restraint on our public servants and capping them to 3%, which is below CPI, and escalating the cost of living so families are struggling to pay their most basic bills. Shame on you!
The pretence that this will not open up pay rises is rubbish if you read the RTD views contained in three consecutive Remuneration Tribunal Determinations. John Flynn is a great man. As I said to him, ‘Bless you, Flynnie, for thinking we deserve to be paid more’. The problem is no one else does because they see the behaviour of this dysfunctional, chaotic CLP government which embarrassed them nationally and internationally.
Another big problem is why should we be paid more in percentage terms than the people we are elected to serve? Why should we get more than 3% if that is what the public servants get? It is fair and equitable to tie our remuneration increases to those percentages that we deem reasonable increases for our public servants.
We will oppose this. You can bully and threaten me all you like, and I will oppose and call you out.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
(Serial 115)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments and have some valid reasons for that.
When I travel around my electorate many people make the point that politicians are not paid a salary that is appropriate to the work they do. I always say to them that any salary paid to people should be independently assessed. Under these changes there will be an independent body doing that.
I hear a lot of hypocrisy in here when people talk about the determination of politicians’ salary. There are very few people here who have ever been self-employed and know the true value of work. I was self-employed for 16 years and I know the value of a hard day’s work and what people should be paid in return for it.
Public servants’ salaries are not determined by an independent body but by people who are being paid a salary. I would like to see our Remuneration Tribunal be independent people who are not on the public purse and have a true understanding of how these things work.
I get really upset when the Opposition Leader says how wonderful she is because she will keep her salary tied to the public service, yet she will leave this House and be on superannuation paid by everyone in the Northern Territory until the day she dies. She and one other member in this House are the only two who fall into that category.
If she really feels what we are doing is incorrect why not give up her super? Why does she not put herself on the same footing as everyone else in this House? I think everything should be the same. I am disgusted that years ago people in this House decided they would set two standards, one for them and one for everyone who follows. This House should look at making everyone the same.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we could get into a discussion about the issue the member for Daly raised and ask why Mr Howard and the Labor man made those changes, but we are here to discuss the amendments before us today.
I do not accept that these changes to the act are about wage increases. They may allow a wage increase, but this act is about how those wage increases should be determined. After all, the Remuneration Tribunal determines not only wages but a range of other matters in relation to members of this parliament.
This issue will always cause controversy and debate. Perhaps I should read the preface from a report of the Parliamentary Salaries and Allowance Tribunal inquiring into basic salary allowances and benefits provided to members of the Tasmanian parliament. It says:
- In terms of public perception, there is never a good time to review the salary and benefits for members of parliament.
We are aware from media coverage that the government is facing a challenging budgetary position and is urging restraint on all sectors of government activity.
Against this background, the easy way through would be to adopt the government wages policy, a position urged by a number of organisations that made submissions to this review, including the then state government.
We have chosen an alternative course, as to do otherwise would serve to perpetuate an inequity and unfairness, and simply delay public cynicism and rancour to another day.
We have endeavoured to identify arrangements that will end this public disquiet once and for all, and ensure that into the future, salaries for MPs will be adjusted in line with wage movements for the wider community, which includes the public sector.
To achieve this position we must, however, establish an appropriate base and that is not possible by the application of the government wage policy (2% salary increase).
I will read the final bit:
- The salary, allowance and benefits regime for members of the Tasmanian Parliament must, above all else, be determined in the context of the Tasmanian workforce and have regard to community expectations.
We believe we have achieved this balance.
That is part of the reason I have brought on some amendments which I can discuss now and later; I will be going to committee stage.
I expect a tribunal to be looking at what is a fair wage for a member of parliament, the economic conditions of parliament at the present time, or of the Northern Territory economy, and the community expectations?
It is not fixed based on one position. My personal view is it is not an appropriate time for wage increases. I am not saying we do not deserve more, but government has said time and time again that we have a budget deficit which was caused by the Labor Party, therefore we cannot do certain things. If you really believe that is the case, we have to bear some of that burden as well.
I leave that up to the tribunal to look at. Let us not forget, regardless of what a tribunal says this parliament does not have to accept its recommendations. Some states do, but in this case the government can say we do not accept that. We leave a tribunal to look at what changes there should be.
I have been doing as much research as I can. I used the document here, called Parliamentary Remuneration Entitlements, by Cathy Madden and Deirdre McKeown of the Politics and Public Administration Section for the Parliament of Australia. It is a couple of years old, but it gives you the idea that in most states a tribunal is how wages of members of parliament and other statutory people are determined.
The ACT has a tribunal, and the Remuneration Tribunal announced that it would review members’ salaries, allowances and other entitlements in 2013. You can get a copy of that from the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. The list of determinations is on the website and it gives you the reasons why they believe that should be the pay for members of parliament in the ACT. It also works out the relationship between the basic salary and that of people with an office within the parliament.
Western Australia has a tribunal; I will come back to that in a little while. New South Wales has a Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. I do not believe the ACT necessarily has a nexus with Commonwealth salaries. They do work out the Chief Minister’s salary and that of others based on a percentage of the basic salary. In the case of the ACT a Chief Minister’s salary is 110% of the basic salary, so there is a formula to decide that.
In New South Wales they have broken the nexus between the basic salary of a federal MP to ensure New South Wales members’ salaries align with public sector wages, and they made a determination in 2013, and I imagine there has been one since then. The Premier’s salary is based on 95% of the basic salary.
In the Northern Territory we have a tribunal, but we have taken away the power of the tribunal to make a decision on members of parliament’s salaries. We do not have a direct connection between the basic salary and the Chief Minister’s salary.
In Queensland they tried to have a 41.9% increase when Campbell Newman was Premier, which was howled down, and probably rightfully so. That caused them to introduce and establish an independent remuneration tribunal to determine the future remuneration and allowances, for MPs to break the nexus between federal and state MPs. That was interesting. Their connection between the base salary and the Premier’s was:
- Additional salary increases by same percentage as percentage increases in basic salary.
I think that is how the NT does it, and there is a piece of legislation which is the formula we use. Is that the fair way to go, or is the system New South Wales and other states have the fairer system?
South Australia has the Parliamentary Remuneration (Basic Salary) Amendment Act and they do something different. They set the basic salary at $42 000 under the federal government’s wage. They calculate the Premier’s salary at 100% of the basic salary.
Tasmania had a report done and its basic salary, allowances and benefits are based on that. It has also broken the nexus between the basic salary of federal MPs.
Victoria has the Parliamentary and Public Administration Legislation Amendment Act. It does not have, as far as I can see, a tribunal. It uses that act which sets out the basic salary. In July 2013 that was $140 973. It sets an increase for the next year. This is interesting, their salaries:
- … will be adjusted by the relevant index published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Victorian adult average weekly ordinary time earnings.
They moved to a different perspective. Their Premier has 100% of the basic salary.
Western Australia has the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal, which determines parliamentary salaries and allowances. It has been carrying out a wide-ranging review. The Premier of Western Australia has a salary based on 132% of basic salary.
I mentioned that the Victorian government uses AWOTE, which means adult average weekly ordinary time earnings. The Tasmanian report refers to the Victorian position. I will quote from a section in the report, 4.13.18, which mentioned that AWOTE neatly achieved two objectives:
… it provided a reasonable formula for movements linked to the economy of the State and it obviated the need for Parliament to consider future adjustments to the salary.
There are other ways of looking at what a parliamentarian should get which are mentioned in this document. You can look at average weekly earnings, AWE, a wage price index, WPI, and AWOTE.
I also note that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree that the public might be a little cynical about the government arguing or debating with the public service what the CPI would be. That is what I think the opposition is supporting. In some cases people are saying if the government is setting itself up to get an increase in its salary based on the CPI, do we have a conflict of interest if it technically is taking part in the debate about what the CPI level should be or how much the wages of the public servants on which we base our own salary should be raised?
The report under 4.14.5 said:
- As a first step, we observe that there was universal support from those who made submissions for the notion that MPs should not in any way be seen to be setting their own salaries.
In another report I read something similar. I take from that is we need to have a system which reflects more than just an economic formula; it must take into account other things, as I said before.
I will give you some interesting statistics from Western Australia’s report. This is point 6 of the Remuneration of Members of the Western Australian Parliament document. I do not have a date, but Table 1 on page 4 is headed, ‘Changes in salaries of Members of Parliament and selected Public Offices in Western Australia 2001-2013’. I will use some of it. For a Western Australian member of parliament backbencher, in 2001 the salary was $100 000 and the 2013 salary was $148 638. That is an increase in salary of 48.64%. For a federal member of parliament backbencher, in 2001 the salary was $95 600 and in 2013 it was $195 130. That is an increase in salary of 104.11%.
For a Public Servant Class 1 in Western Australia the salary in 2001 was $96 297 and the 2013 salary was $158 811. That is an increase of 64.92%. For a senior sergeant of police at the top increment, excluding overtime, the 2001 salary was $63 955 and the salary in 2013 was $112 247. That is an increase of 75.51%.
For a departmental head the top salary determined by the tribunal in 2001 was $232 343. In 2013 it was $429 409, an increase of 84.81%. A Public School Principal Level 6 in 2001 had a salary of $85 776 and in 2013 the salary was $156 729. That is an increase of 82.72%. For a magistrate in Western Australia the 2001 salary was $156 938 and in 2013 it was $313 848, an increase of 99.98%. The tribunal said.
- Table 1 demonstrates that in a little over a decade, the percentage increases in salary awarded to Members of Parliament have been considerably less than the salary increases awarded to Federal Members of Parliament and a broad range of public officer holders. By comparison, if a Western Australian Member of Parliament had their 2001 salary increased by the WA Wage Price Index (WPI) over the same period, the current salary would be $163 142.
I am not necessarily arguing that case, but it highlights there are inequities. Of course, the position titles I read out are generally not subject to public commentary; they are not political people. We are happy for those professions to receive that wage, but as members of parliament we can say we do not do it just for the money, we do it because we believe we can contribute to the Northern Territory. Some of what we do is because we have a conscience about trying to help people in the Northern Territory. That is not necessarily an argument for an increase. These are some of the facts a tribunal would look at.
I am not here to be, ‘Goody goody gum drops’. I am not unhappy with my wage. My wage is a lot higher than other people I meet, so I am not here to discuss whether I am worth more than anyone else. However, we have a new three-person tribunal and, unfortunately, one of those members has passed away. I understand where Mr Flynn was coming from when he was on the tribunal. He was doing it for what he believed to be the right reason. He thinks we should be paid a lot more. At the moment that would be madness. The general feel of people in the community is they have no time for this place so this would be a most inappropriate time. In the Tasmanian report I read about community expectations, and they are probably below zero.
When the government debates this it needs to enforce the fact it is not about a wage increase but the process for members of parliament’s salaries to be determined.
I have tried to look at as many possible scenarios as I can. Something came over my desk today at lunchtime. It was sent to me by the Chief Minister, and my good secretary scanned it for me; it is the Mercer report and it makes for some interesting reading.
I do not agree with it. I am not a great fan of this nexus between our wages and the Commonwealth, not because that is not a convenient way to have a formula but because we should be paid according to who we are and what we do.
I should read the introduction to this report. I do not know how many people have a copy, but mine turned up today. I asked the Chief Minister last week if I could get a copy. It says, ‘The Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister has sought Mercer’s assistance to identify an appropriate formula for setting basic salary for NT Members of the Legislative Assembly, NT MLA. This will form a proportionate relationship with the basic salary for a member of the Australian House of Representatives, an MHR. This formula is evidence-based and determined as a less by percentage amount to be used at the upper end of the appropriate salary range for Northern Territory MLAs.
‘This is a proposed formula which will allow for the resulting dollar change to change over time in accordance with the adjustments made to MHR salaries.’
My problem with that is it seems to be what the Northern Territory government was asking Mercer to look at. In my amendments today I am saying that is too narrow. You want a tribunal that is free to look at this issue, independent of us, and to take all other considerations in the matter into account –to look at reports in other states, community expectations, and the economy of the Northern Territory and find out what formula would suit us. It may be that the formula changes from time to time. I am not sure it has to be totally rigid, but this is a failing of the Mercer report because when you come to the end, the recommendation is, ‘that the Northern Territory MLA basic salary equals federal MHR salary, minus 20%’.
From my understanding, except for South Australia, all states got rid of the nexus between the federal government and the Territory government. Some people might say if you have that nexus you will never risk a tribunal putting up a percentage increase in the salary which is above the members of parliament in Canberra.
That is one factor the tribunal needs to have in the back of its mind all the time when it looks at what should be an appropriate wage, and that is where community expectation comes into it.
The Mercer report, from what I have read, is far too narrow; it should have been a lot broader. It is interesting when you read the Tasmanian one – Tasmanian politicians are probably paid the least. They did get a committee allowance, but that has now been scrapped. Tasmanian basic salary in 2013 was $118 466; the Northern Territory’s was $138 000, so we earn $20 000 more. Tasmania has a reasonable economy, but it has struggled over the years also. Perhaps that is reflected in what they are paid.
Politicians in Canberra possibly do more work in some ways, because they take over local government functions as well as normal state functions. One could say they should get paid more because they are doing the work of two forms of government.
It is interesting to see that this debate can easily move to the point of view that we are after a big wage increase. I am not thinking of a wage increase. I am taking this legislation which says there is a process – and some people might say the present process is okay; others might say it is not. I looked at the other states and saw that most states have a tribunal which determines those salaries. It is not necessarily set in concrete, although as everybody knows when the global economic crisis happened most states and territories cut back on those increases. You will see that if you read the reports.
I should give people some ideas if we did go ahead with some of the changes. For instance, the basic salary in the Commonwealth is $195 130. I had trouble getting some of these figures, but I think I am right. The present basic salary – and that would be for 2014 – is $147 416. If you took the 80% of the Commonwealth basic salary that would bump us up to $156 104, which would be an increase of $8688. I do not think people would accept that at the moment, to be honest with you. If we had the 3% EBA increase that would bring it up by $4422.48.
What concerns me at the moment is people should know what would happen if you went in a certain direction. But they are the issues I expect a tribunal to be looking at. I again emphasise that if you take those three items of reasonable wages, community expectations and budget considerations, unfortunately we are at the bottom of the pile with community expectations at the moment.
The federal government has frozen its wages for very good reason. It argues the case that they have some major deficits to overcome. Maybe it has quietened in the last year or so, but how many times did I see my good friend, the member for Sanderson, holding up those little …
Ms Fyles: No, we have missed him these sittings.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. He has them under the desk, those laminated …
Ms Walker: Props.
Mr WOOD: Yes, props – those graphs.
Mr Giles: It is called Labor’s pyramid of debt.
Mr WOOD: That is right. You are exactly right; I have heard it many times.
If a government is fair dinkum that we have debt, then we tighten our belts as well. Maybe we cut out some of the perks. If we are asking people to tighten their belts then we have to tighten our belts too. Again, that is the tribunal’s job, to see the state of the Territory at that stage.
I will try to summarise it. We can destroy this debate if we say this has just been put forward to give us a wage increase. The Mercer report, from what I have read, has not gone deep enough. It has just created a simple formula. It has judged on what we do as members of parliament compared to what members of parliament do in Canberra, which is fair enough, and has come up with a formula which it was asked to come up with – as you see when you read the introduction – that is based on a nexus with the Commonwealth. I do not think that is broad enough or sufficient. That is one of the reasons I have given for proposing this amendment which we will debate in committee stage.
By giving the tribunal a less prescriptive formula for it to work on you have a lot better chance of coming up with something that is reasonable. Again, the tribunal is independent and the government does not have to accept the tribunal’s recommendations. That will be the political side of whatever happens. The tribunal will not be involved in the political side, it will be involved in coming up with a determination that needs to be fair for members of parliament. We work and are entitled to some increases in our wage. As you saw from the figures I gave, in comparison with various people in the Western Australian public service, the increases have not kept up with some of those people.
That is the tricky balance the tribunal will have to work its way through. I would rather leave it to the tribunal to come up with what it determines; we do not have to accept the recommendation if we think it is over the top or inappropriate.
I will continue this debate when we get to the committee stage.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this is a good opportunity to comment on a few things raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning.
I found the comments delivered by the Leader of the Opposition to be disingenuous and puerile. The Opposition Leader was arguing from a self-interest point of view. The Opposition Leader is the only person on the Labor side who has access to the parliamentary pension, and not one member on this side has access to one.
I think the line the Opposition Leader has used with her colleagues is, ‘Sit there, shut up, oppose this, we will act like the government is doing this for its own greedy purposes. They will do it anyhow so any benefits will fall to you guys, but it is important we are seen to be winning a political argument.’ I find that highly disingenuous and a disgusting argument.
The Opposition Leader wants her pay scale tied to the public service because she knows whilst the public service is getting these incredible deals – the 3% pay increase, the most generous pay increase given to public servants anywhere in the country – she knows her superannuation fund is maximised. It grows exponentially every time there is a pay increase. The Opposition Leader almost solely stands to benefit the most, and I find it appalling that the Opposition Leader is arguing to cut the pay of ministers and members of this parliament, and people on her own side, while she knows when she leaves this place she will be on a pension of around $170 000 per year. She does not have to wait until she turns 60, like the rest us who were born in the era the Opposition Leader was born. The day she leaves she starts picking up a pension of $170 000 a year and, whilst it is linked to the public service, she knows full well she is in line for pay increases which increase the rate of that pension.
It is completely disingenuous of the Opposition Leader. If we were to follow her advice she would be sacrificing her own parliamentary team. New members would see their wages and entitlements slashed, whilst the Leader of the Opposition walks away with $170 000 a year indexed for the rest of her life. If she cared about her parliamentary team and this institution she would be keen to see this remuneration disengaged from the public service because there is a clear conflict of interest with politicians setting their own pay scales through the increases they deliver to the public service which needs to be removed. Sending it to an independent tribunal removes that conflict of interest and allows a tribunal to take into account the unique circumstances that politicians occupy in the world of industrial relations and human resource management.
As all members in this place know, there is no sick leave, annual leave or long service leave entitlement. All of these things naturally occur in any other job. If I work for a private sector employer or the public service and am injured at work, I can take time off due to injury. I can take annual leave and have long service leave paid to me. I get annual leave loading if I am working in the public service or the private sector. Those things do not apply, as members opposite know, in the political world. For those reasons it is important that we have a tribunal in place that can take into account the unique circumstances of politicians, especially in the Northern Territory.
This stinks of cheapjack political opportunism at its most base level. Knowing full well that the system we have is broken, the Opposition Leader decides, ‘We will let Adam Giles and his government take all of the pain on this because they have the numbers. If they have a bit of ticker they will force this thing through. You guys behind me will get all the benefits, but you will not take any of the political pain. We can cause all the political pain in the world to the government and we bear none’.
For the Opposition Leader, almost the last remaining person in this place on a parliamentary pension, to come in here knowing she will get $170 000 a year for the rest of her life from the day she leaves this place, whilst everybody else misses out - what appalling stuff. If she was half genuine and reasonable, she would come into this place saying, ‘I will put myself at the same level as every other member in this parliament and hand back my parliamentary pension. If that is not possible I will donate it to a charity and support a worthwhile organisation. I do not need the $170 000 a year indexed for the rest of my life.’ I would find that an admirable decision. To sit in here and argue anything otherwise is an incredibly appalling way to conduct yourself. I think people will see through it.
This is not an idea I have come up with recently. I was a part of the federal government when Mark Latham made the call saying when he was elected we would see the end of the parliamentary superannuation scheme. I sat in the parliamentary party meeting when that decision was taken by the Howard government. I argued exactly the same things then as I am now. It is fine that members of parliament chose to do away with the parliamentary pension for future members of parliament, but they should also have the decency and strength of character to say, ‘I do not want mine’.
The reality is that all of those people around Australia who made the decision to turf the parliamentary pension never turfed their own, not only John Howard and Mark Latham, but state leaders around the country. Clare Martin, Paul Henderson and all the others who were around when that decision was made, whilst they drove that decision through their parliaments, were more than happy to take the pensions they argued so ferociously against on the floors of places like this.
I find rather disgusting, base and pathetic that the Labor Party members – and I am interested to see how many of them say the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition is quite deserving of $170 000 a year for the rest of her life, bearing in mind she was the one who left the Territory staring down the barrel of a $5.5bn …
Ms Walker: Oh, rubbish.
Mr TOLLNER: … debt and racked up a $1.2bn budget deficit. She is the reason …
Ms Walker: Oh rubbish, you have it in for her, haven’t you?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr TOLLNER: … we have had to have belt-tightening budgets and that the Northern Territory was facing a budget crisis.
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: To be rewarded like that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, order!
Mr TOLLNER: … I find absolutely appalling.
____________________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Nhulunbuy
Suspension of Member
Member for Nhulunbuy
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, it is best for this Chamber that you leave for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Ms Walker: With pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
____________________________
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Reflecting on the Chair.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am seeking clarification. Are you allowed to refer to someone leaving the Chamber?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly am. I suggest you take your seat or I will have no hesitation in asking you to remove yourself from the Chamber.
Mr Vowles: I was seeking clarification, that is all.
_________________________
Suspension of Member
Member Named and Suspended –
Member for Johnston
Suspension of Member
Member Named and Suspended –
Member for Johnston
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please remove yourself from the Chamber for one hour ...
Mr Vowles: I was seeking …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I will not ask you again!
Mr Vowles: Under what standing order are you making me leave?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not ask you again. Remove yourself …
Mr Vowles: Under what standing order are you asking me to leave?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Reflecting on the Chair. I ask that the member to be named.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I name the member for Johnston and I ask the Leader of Government Business to embark on the appropriate course of action.
Mr Vowles: I have advice that I am allowed to ask under what standing order.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston is still talking.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Sit down.
Mr Vowles: I do not know whether I am supposed to leave or stay. I do not know what I am doing.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 239, I move that the member be suspended from this House for 24 hours.
Motion agreed to.
_______________________
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for bringing order back into this place.
I will not speak for much longer, but as I was saying, I was disgusted with the Leader of the Opposition’s comments this morning. They were puerile, disingenuous and all about her shoring up here future with no regard for Territorians and members of this parliament, particularly her colleagues.
I find it appalling that the Opposition Leader can get away with that nonsense. I thought her colleagues would have pulled her up on an issue like this. Clearly they lack the ticker, are convinced government will be the ones who wear the pain on this, and they will come through it unblemished. Most Territorians see through what is going on; the member for Karama is the only one who will benefit whilst this conflict of interest remains between politicians and public service pay scales.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very shallow level of debate which is totally and solely focused on personal attack. That is what happens when the government has no cards to play. It was a personal attack from the start.
Government members have been screaming across this Chamber. They do not like what they hear so they attack the person. That is all they have. That needs to be put on the public record. Territorians need to know that in this debate all the government had was to attack one member of parliament.
I did not get into this job for money. I do not see money as my goal in this job. I spent 30 years as a public servant, and I got into this job to work for the community, take my work to another level and represent the people I had shared my life and raised my family with and grown a very holistic – I do not want to get philosophical. I should not look for philosophical words. I have a great affinity with the Territory. It is the best thing that ever happened to me and my family, and I chose to jump through the hoops to get into this job to make a difference and represent the people I have lived, worked with and shared blood sweat and tears with for over 30 years.
If we want to get to the bottom of this, speak of us as the Territory opposition and do not try to attack one of us personally. The Leader of the Opposition, as is convention in this House, spoke first to deliver the government the Territory opposition’s position in this debate – very simple. She was immediately attacked on a personal level – superannuation policy, pension, whatever.
Member for Fong Lim, a two-word answer, so what? I did not come into this place to compete with anybody financially; I came to work for the Northern Territory. I had been a public servant for 30 years, so it makes good sense to me as a politician, now very much ridiculed within the community – someone who saw my life in the Barkly change considerably once I put a political hat on when suddenly people I had related to for 30 years did not treat me the same anymore. They did not treat my family the same anymore. I do not worry about those things; we move forward. Being a public servant for 30 years I saw Labor’s benchmark to stand solid with public servants in the Northern Territory as a good, realistic and pragmatic one.
In the most recent NTPS EBA, salary increases were capped at 3% per annum for four years effective from October 2013. Since 2009, Labor has taken the view that salary increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly should be linked to the general wage limits of the Territory public sector. Our position is based on fairness, equity and the reasonable expectations of the Territory’s hard-working public sector and the wider community that salary increases for politicians will not outstrip those available to public servants. This remains our position. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said amongst the aggressive attacks from the other side.
The Leader of the Opposition really unearthed the venom from those opposite when it was explained that this mechanism can be used to attract considerable financial advantage. That was a fair point in the debate. Looking at the record of this government, getting rid of the Government Printing Office, selling off Darwin buses, the forced sale of TIO without a mandate from the Territory community, the most recent Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill being fused with the firefighters rehabilitation for a political point-scoring opportunity and media releases trying to convince the public that Labor was bad and did not stand up for firefighters, are the most recent examples of your political games.
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, unearthed that raw nerve again by asking all members in this House, ‘Did you read the bottom line? Do you see the fine print?’ We all represent a constituency of around 7000 people. This really is an individual debate and it unearthed that raw nerve and immediately drew the venomous vitriol and attack of the CLP we are so used to seeing in this House when they are on the back foot with nothing else to contribute.
The member for Fong Lim, who I admire – I like people I learn from – could sell snake oil in Cincinnati. This is an important point to raise. Is it clear? Is it honest? Is the CLP telling the whole story? They want to use the word ‘disingenuous’ in this debate. The member for Nelson made a good point about fiscal restraint, and the Territory opposition’s point of aligning our salaries with public sector increases is a pragmatic way to show solidarity and fiscal restraint, in my opinion and that of the opposition, and of the Independent who spoke in this debate.
That seems to be a sensible way to do business, particularly in the current climate where we have been reduced to a laughing stock. I did not get into politics to have others drag me down to be a laughing stock within the community I represent, the Northern Territory, the Australian community and now the international arena.
Ladies and gentlemen on the other side, I am afraid you can take full credit for dragging us down in our credibility as politicians. You want to embark on this legislation that provides a mechanism to put us into the public arena as what the negative element of the community perceives us as: hogs with our snouts in the trough.
You want to go down that road, and anybody who stands up and says, ‘Let’s get a more balanced debate; let’s look at fiscal restraint, a clear wage index, and at working together through this’, you attack personally.
Nobody in this debate has talked about the disallowance of the RTD. I read it with much enthusiasm, and I look forward to the RTD being passed in this House because for me as the member for Barkly it created a significant increase in electorate allowance where I could support the community.
I took great delight in listening to the member for Daly, the Minister for Sports and Recreation, talk about the under-15 junior rugby league carnival selecting an NT representative side in Palmerston tomorrow. I started a junior rugby league development project in Tennant Creek and ran it over eight years. We competed in under-12 and under-15, and the Barkly was there. Our benchmark each year was to have a Northern Territory representative picked. We went from nobody to having four reps picked in 2005, and the following year we had a player picked in the combined Australian states and territories.
They were great memories, and I celebrated that Dorothy Dixer. If I had an increase in the electorate allowance I could do more for those kids. There was no mention of Barkly in the minister’s Dorothy Dixer because Barkly will not be there tomorrow, due to the cost-of-living impacts.
We are trying to raise money for a couple of AFL reps in a community who have an opportunity in an international tour, but everybody is tightening their belts. They do not have disposable income, and our kids miss out because it is an expensive exercise to bring them to Darwin to compete for their fair share. In this debate nobody wants to talk about fiscal restraint and elected community members showing leadership.
The Chief Minister might be interested in this opportunity to show leadership. If you lead here and the mechanism is exposed that this is purely a cash grab, it will not go so well for you. If you stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians and continue the benchmark, that would be a mark of real leadership.
The disallowance of the RTD also related to jobs in the Barkly. I was to be able to employ a 0.25 FTE electorate officer. That was a job I was focusing on the gulf country; it was for a person who would be active in the community, who took an interest in how this system works and who could possibly be the next member for Barkly. That was scrapped, as was the increase in the electorate allowance, which would have paid dividends into regional and remote areas. That was all thrown out the door.
I will not support this motion. I want to go back to what was proposed by the RTD that is not broken. The RTD I came to know in this House when I became a member of parliament is not broken. It is a very sophisticated, well-oiled machine that kept pace with what we were doing and what we needed. When the government completely ignored the latest RTD and made its decision to disallow it, I asked what the problem was. The debate in the community was, ‘Oh is it the accountability debate? They did not like to have to report quarterly on electorate accounts.’ I said that could not possibly be it, but that is in people’s minds; they do not trust us. I went to great lengths to explain that I already run a Mind Your Own Business program. I submit it to the Australian Taxation Office annually and they examine it. There are no problems with that; politicians are upfront and honest.
I cannot believe we have walked away from a very good, pragmatic RTD that was already in this place, and suddenly we have this mechanism that could be exposed. As I said, with all these examples of sales of assets like TIO, the pure politics being played where you are trying to jam out in the media today about the Labor Party deserting our firefighters, do you think they really buy that? Do you think their families buy that? We have been fighting you guys for two years over firefighters. Members on this side have put in their time and energy, and have not asked for more money. They have asked for a fair deal for firefighters.
As we have said consistently and will continue to tell the community, if we are privileged to be elected as a Northern Territory government we will amend that legislation from yesterday for Territory workers and firefighters. We have a plan, a policy, all we need to do is get enough votes to get us back in. We are on the come-back.
Mr Deputy Speaker will not like me holding this up, but that is the story at the moment. I have already challenged the Chief Minister. He can get some points here; he can see the polls start to shift. As I keep saying, I study people closely, and our Chief Minister is the quintessential politician. He can play that game as a very aggressive opposition member and very aggressive Chief Minister. He does not mind wielding the firearm to get the whole show back under control and put the fear of God into the others. He is a politician who can stand and deliver. Unfortunately, Chief Minister, the Territory is not buying that. Leadership could be agreeing with the member for Nelson and looking at amendments; it could be going back to the RTD, which I found very satisfactory, but obviously members of the government did not. We need to get down to tin tacks. There is an opportunity.
Chief Minister, what I learn from you is how to throw mud. I have lived in the bush for a long time. Member for Daly, I have not been a mango farmer but I I worked in a chain factory when I was 16. I fudged my age. I was operating a gantry crane producing industrial chains in Padstow when I was 16. I am sure all members in this House can share their life experiences. That is what it is about. It is not about whether I have been a successful entrepreneur or businessman, it is about our life experiences, how we share them and to get – what is it, member for Port Darwin, achieving the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory? Absolutely! We should not be distracted with personal financial gain, we get a fair shake. We can benchmark ourselves with Territory people and their families in tough times.
I could have possibly got some kids to Palmerston tomorrow to represent in rugby league as I did for eight years. What a pity, but we will continue on.
Chief Minister, you can get some serious acknowledgements here in the polls. I will use a few of your strategies; I will throw a bit of mud. I still remember the $100 000 charter flight for a photo shoot with the Prime Minister, and the community remembers it too. That was a bad decision, but let us move on. It really hurt when you told me to get my own charter flight home for the Borella Ride. I have heard all the great stories about that event. The town stood rock solid and everybody consoled me with, ‘You should have been there, but we understand why you couldn’t be’.
They are a few stories around aviation and charter flights, linked to fiscal restraint. There is an opportunity.
I stood in this debate to reiterate the Territory opposition’s position. We have a clear alternative and, frankly, the Leader of the Opposition had to unearth that raw nerve because we no longer trust what you say. There are so many examples where what you say is not necessarily what you do. The member for Fong Lim, twisting the argument and making personal attacks was probably the lowest contribution to debate I have ever seen him produce. He is way better than that. He is a big hitter on that side. I always told our members, ‘This guy had six years in the federal parliament. Do not underestimate him.’ I studied him in opposition. I study him now. I study him as the Treasurer. He is a big hitter, but today he had nothing except personal vitriol and attack. So I said, ‘So what?’
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Fong Lim and Nelson for their contributions. I am sad that what we feared would occur in this debate did occur. Aside from the member for Nelson, it became a slinging match about salaries and incomes, and that is not what it is about. It is about removing a conflict of interest that is present in the way wages are determined.
Currently there is a link between politicians’ salaries and the public service in the Northern Territory, which is a challenge because as a Cabinet we determine the wage policy for public servants across all EBAs. Last year we negotiated through Cabinet that the policy would be 3%, but fundamentally that means we are negotiating our own salary increase because we are tied to the public service. That left a bad taste in my mouth, and it was the same with my Cabinet colleagues.
Should we have gone for a 1% increase in an EBA we would have only had 1% or 2% or 3%. Fundamentally it is incorrect, and whenever you talk about politicians’ salaries, everyone says we are paid too much. I understand that argument, and it is a sensitive topic to talk about. It would have been good to have a debate on ideas and philosophical views rather than a screaming match which degenerated into who gets paid what. That is exactly what it came to, and the personal attacks by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Barkly I found offensive.
In regard to some of the points made by the member for Nelson, it refutes some of the salary questions put up, and I will clarify one of those points for him. I do not have a calculator in front of me, Gerry, but I know a couple of these things.
In regard to the proposed legislation and the capping of 80% that was a recommendation of the Mercer Report, you spoke about what the increase in a backbencher’s salary would be to an 80% level if that was taken up. Off the top of my head I think you said about $6000, and you said that is a big jump. I understand that; however, if it was a 3% increase this year and a 3% increase next year, which is currently proposed in the EBA, the salary increase would be more than that. Keeping it at the current frame with that conflict of interest philosophical approach I have just mentioned actually increases the salary further than that, to clarify for you.
We have proposed to take it completely out of the hands of politicians and have the Remuneration Tribunal do that, which was one of the recommendations of the last Remuneration Tribunal Determination which came before this place.
I will go back to the debate, or the screaming, of the Leader of the Opposition where she tried to allude that this is all about pay rises. In fact, this is a pay cut in what is forecast to come with the 3% increase.
I will talk about the conflict of interest, keeping in the back of the mind that a month ago Labor said they would support this and understood the reasons for it, and now they have said no. There is an additional conflict of interest. The member for Fong Lim raised that additional conflict of interest, which is the benefit the Leader of the Opposition will receive post her retirement. She will be on $170 000 a year for the rest of her life, indexed. The linking to the public service and the 3% means she will actually get more, and if we decouple it she will have less in her pension. She has managed to convince seven people on her side to stick with opposing this so she gets a bigger pension.
When you talk about being frugal and managing budgets responsibly – the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer, reflected on the high levels of debt and deficit we received, and the need to be wise with managing our money – put that into the context that it was the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, who got us in that position and is now holding the Northern Territory government to ransom for $170 000 per annum for the rest of her life. She was calling for wage freezes. If you want to go down this path instead of having a serious debate, hand back the $170 000 golden handshake you will receive when you retire. You will be the only person in Labor who gets that. That is why you are so opposed to this. If your colleagues knew just how much you are ripping them off they would not be supporting you. You are ripping off Territorians.
Member for Nelson, I understand you have some amendments to clause 3A in regard to removing the 80% cap and leaving it up to the remuneration tribunal. We are happy to accept your recommendations. It allows for the removal of a ceiling, but that is based on your thoughts. Originally we were not going to put the ceiling into the bill, but if you want to remove or change clause 3A we are happy to take that on board. I understand the cap would have seen a guaranteed reduction in salary as opposed to the enormous increases Labor put in by coupling it to EBAs in the public service, but we will accept that.
The debate on this shows how bad Labor is. They go straight to the gutter in their debate. It is not about current salary, it is about independence in salary setting for politicians in the Northern Territory, as there is in a range of areas. It is only right that we have nothing to do with the setting of our salaries or benefits, and that the independent tribunal moves in that way.
In regard to the change from Mr Flynn being the sole person on the tribunal to there now being three people, unfortunately the former Auditor-General of the Northern Territory was to be on the tribunal. His passing has left a vacancy. We have identified another person and that will be announced in the next couple of days. I signed off on that earlier today, so that will be made public very soon.
I commend the bill and your amendments, and I hope we have a sensible debate throughout the committee process.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, I move that proposed clause 3(a) be omitted and a new 3(a) be inserted which states:
- Tribunals power in relation to salaries:
- (1) The Tribunal must, on the Administrator’s request, inquire into and determine the following:
(a) the amount of basic salary;
(b) the amount of additional salary of office and the offices in respect of which additional salary of office is to be paid;
(c) the basis on which the amounts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) have been or should be determined.
- (a) an inquiry for a specified time; or
(b) inquiries for specified intervals.
I have asked that the clause in the existing proposed amendments to the bill be deleted because I feel that if you were to have an independent tribunal, it should be independent, and to some extent you are getting prescriptive and telling it what to do.
I am not saying the matters you have in that bill are irrelevant, I am just saying that if we want this body to be independent, it needs to be given freedom to look at any aspects before it makes a decision.
I know the debate is difficult. I know that any time you talk about a politician’s wages it is a no-win situation, but we have to deal with it. We are entitled to be paid a reasonable wage, just like anybody who wants to work in another job. They expect to be paid for the work they do and the qualifications required. We also have a job to do.
I know there is a belief that we should be connected to the public service wage increases, and I understand that – that is part of what a tribunal could look at – but we are not the same as public servants. We work for the people, but we are not the same.
We have a different job. It is a job that puts us in front of a television camera and public meetings. It puts us out there as someone the public can write letters to and abuse. It can have some good sides to it; going to my local garden club is great; going to the school and giving out awards is fantastic. It has its up sides and its down sides.
It is not an easy job. It usually involves a lot of stresses and strains, especially on your family. Sometimes in this job, especially a few years ago, I do not think I saw my wife. I would come home at 11 pm or 12 pm and get up at 5.30 am; she would be asleep. Probably for a whole week I would only say hello and she would be well and truly asleep. So we are servants of the people, but in a different way.
They are some of the things an independent tribunal should take into account. We are not just public servants even though we do similar work. We have a special role, which we have to swear an oath to in this parliament. We should do our best in the time we are here. The tribunal’s deliberations and recommendations should take that into account, as well as the other things I have mentioned: the economy and community expectations.
That is the reason we should not lock them into something that is too prescriptive. I understand, Chief Minister, that by setting a cap you make sure the tribunal does not go above it, but I trust the tribunal. The tribunal will read the debate we have had in parliament today and reflect on some of the issues raised.
I note you said that if we had two 3% increases it would be higher than if we went down the path you mentioned of 20% from the existing federal government pay rise ...
Ms Lawrie: What about office holders?
Mr WOOD: Proposed section 3A(1)(b) deals with office holders. That is another area that needs some discussion. I have looked at our figures, which you can get off one of our websites. There is a list of office holders and the history of the office holders’ wages in the Northern Territory over about the last 10 years. I am not sure whether there has always been a connection.
We have the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act that sets out some formulas for connecting basic salaries to office holders’ salaries. That is an area the tribunal needs to look at because in some states the basic salary is connected to the office holders’ salaries. In the case of a Chief Minister it could be 100%, and in some cases 132%. You see a formula in that. Ours is that if you put up the basic salary by 3%, you put up the Chief Minister’s salary by 3%. That 3% of the basic and the 3% of the Chief Minister’s salary would be two vastly different amounts of money because you are working from a bigger base. I do not know whether that is a good idea. I do not know whether the 100% of the basic salary, or 132% in some cases, achieves the same thing. That is what the tribunal should be looking at it.
From the point of view of transparency, people need to understand why certain office holders receive that amount of money. That is all part of the tribunal’s role. That is why I have in here ‘the basis on which these amounts have been determined’. There is a document which you can get off the website which deals with the wages. For instance, the Chief Minister’s wage in 2007 was $114 000. It was frozen for one year in 2008. Now in 2015 it is $141 000. It lists the Leader of the Opposition, the chairpersons of Public Accounts Committees and a range of positions, and you can see what the wage increases were.
The wage increase is not the core issue of this; it is about allowing an independent tribunal to, in an open and transparent way, come up with how they think our members of parliament should be paid and explaining how they arrived at that resolution. What was the reasoning behind what they did? That needs to be done and the best way is not to get too prescriptive but to give responsibility to the tribunal to come up with something. Not everybody will be happy, but at least you know why they arrived at that decision.
Proposed section 3A(2) is a request under subsection (1) for an inquiry for a specified time or inquiries for specified intervals. Part of the reason for that inquiry is we will probably have to work out whether to set something for the full term – four years – or review it annually. Part of the reason it is there is to give some flexibility to the tribunal to review it when necessary.
It does not change the idea of an independent tribunal – we are dealing with proposed section 3A, the tribunal’s powers in relation to salaries. The powers are there, we are just removing the section which says, ‘the tribunal must take into account the following’. I know there is a section relating to any other matter the tribunal considers relevant, but it is better not to have that and allow the tribunal the freedom to assess everything without being prescriptive. That is the reason for the change.
Mr GILES: I support it. The basic principle behind this is philosophical in that politicians should not have anything to do with pay, and removing the link to public servants is in keeping with that philosophical principle. Whenever we are negotiating EBAs we have a conflict of interest. By going to the tribunal, (1) it supports the recommendations by the tribunal in their determination and, (2) it takes it completely out of our hands.
The 80% cap was identified in the Mercer report and something we took from it. To be frank, accepting these amendments follows that same philosophical line of having nothing to do with it and leaving it completely to the tribunal, which of course reports back to parliament with a six-day disallowance period. We will be supporting that amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: You will change this clause? You are removing the 80% cap? Can you respond?
Mr GILES: I responded before you spoke. The member for Nelson raised a very good point, that having an 80% cap still holds the shackles of the tribunal. Mr Flynn has made quite clear on several occasions that he believes, from an independent point of view, that an independent tribunal should be able to set all components of salaries and workplace conditions for politicians. We had set it at 80% based on the Mercer report, but following the same principle of politicians having nothing to do with it and following those recommendations, we will be supporting that.
The people on the tribunal have a lot of knowledge about this, do a lot of analysis of the conditions of the economy, the job market, salaries and so forth around the country. They have knowledge of how political conditions and wages operate around the country.
Removing politicians from having anything to do with their salaries is really important. We should not have anything to do with it, and that is the fundamental basis behind this legislation.
Next time we go to an NTPS EBA, if it was to remain the same we would be negotiating pay rises for ourselves. I do not stomach that; I do not think it is the right thing to do. We should have an independent. They may suggest more, less or the same. It is out of our hands and that is only fair.
As I said in the second reading speech, whenever you talk about payment for politicians, everyone thinks they are paid too much; we understand that is the public sentiment. We do not want anything to do with the way politicians are paid so we are setting up an independent tribunal.
Mr WOOD: As I said earlier, most states do not have a nexus with the federal government. The legislation was talking about a cap, but it is still a nexus with the federal parliament. The only state that clearly has a nexus is South Australia, which sets a basic salary of $42 000 less than the base salary.
Queensland has moved that way. Tasmania also talked about the act being repealed and broke the nexus with the basic salary of federal MPs. New South Wales had an amendment in 2011 which broke the nexus with the basic salary of federal MPs. I am not sure about the ACT; this does not have a lot of information.
My general feel is that most parliaments are getting away from it, because the other issue you have working with the nexus is that people think every time federal government pay goes up you get an automatic pay rise, and what did you do to deserve that? That is one of the complaints. We might not deserve it. I do not know. That is one of the complaints I have heard from people, they do not think that is a good connection. Some people might say it is an easy way to regulate wages and salaries and it might be the very reason Western Australian salaries are far behind other members of the public service.
The view I have is that when salaries go up in Canberra they look at us too and ask how much they are going up. To some extent that is why the nexus has been broken by many states. It might be for other reasons too, but that is part of the reason. Let us now have that in there. It looks like we are going back to where we were before. Other states are changing so we should as well.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 11 Noes 7
- 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 Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, one question I have at the tail end of listening to this debate is why the Labor Party agreed to this a month ago?
Ms Lawrie: We did not.
Mr ELFERINK: You did. This is the conversation I had with the leader of opposition business. We were left in no doubt a month ago that bringing this bill to the House was something the Labor Party agreed to. Now, all of a sudden, miraculously they do not. Of course what has happened is that …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is new material. This is the third reading. This is out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I have to agree, Leader of the Opposition.
Attorney-General, you know full well about third reading speeches and the parameters surrounding them, so can you please keep it relevant.
Mr ELFERINK: Of course, but during the debate political opportunity was raised by the Treasurer in relation to this issue and the arrangements that were in place prior to this bill coming forward. What has happened today is a clear reflection of political opportunism by the members opposite. I am desperately disappointed that they turned a straightforward thing of decoupling politicians from setting their own wages, either directly or indirectly, into a political opportunity, and that is all we have seen today.
I listened to what the Treasurer had to say in relation to this, and it has been writ large that this opposition sees these sorts of things, like everything else, as an opportunity for political manoeuvring. We should be separated from the decision-making in relation to our wages. I agree with the premise of the bill. I agree with the member for Nelson on these issues. The assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that wages will rise automatically as a result of this cannot be supported by what is in the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an absolute disgrace. You have picked up and wholeheartedly embraced the amendment by the member for Nelson because that is open slather – pay rises as big and fat as your greed wants to see achieved.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That was a highly offensive comment. I am offended by it and I ask you to ask the Opposition Leader to withdraw it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, Treasurer, I know that you have a thick skin and you are very tough, so I find it extraordinary that you would find that offensive, but nevertheless you have raised it. Opposition Leader, would you please withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
This is the CLP giving open slather by removing the existing legislative requirement to give politicians no more than the percentage pay increase that public servants get. They have wholeheartedly, on the floor of parliament, embraced an amendment by the member for Nelson because it gives them open slather; there is no more cap at 80% of the federal pay rates.
They pretend this does not mean a pay rise, yet three consecutive Remuneration Tribunal Determinations state that the remuneration of Northern Territory Legislative Assembly members has been devalued. Yes, this is an open slather pay rise legislative move by the CLP and you should be condemned for it.
In response to the Leader of Government Business, Labor, as a Caucus, decides our position on legislation. Labor, as a Caucus, opposes this legislation. We will continue to oppose this.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had any mettle she would hand her $170 000 a year pension for the rest of her life to charity. I call on her to hand it to charity. Give it to one of the most needy charities in the Northern Territory and help the people who do not earn $170 000 a year. These are crocodile tears and I challenge you to hand your $170 000 pension for life to charity. If you are serious, hand it to charity.
- Ayes 11 Noes 7
- 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 Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Defence and the Northern Territory
Defence and the Northern Territory
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have recently recognised our Afghanistan veterans and their contribution to Operation Slipper over the last 14 years. On the back of recent commemorations to mark the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin, and preparing to commemorate the brave Anzacs who 100 years ago went into battle for a very young nation, I deliver a statement which acknowledges the important contribution that Defence makes to the Northern Territory.
The development of the north and the Defence presence across the Top End have for a long time been intertwined. I will outline the ongoing importance of the Defence presence to the Territory economy and the contribution of Defence members and families to our community. I will also address the opportunities on the horizon arising from the increased US Navy and Air Force activity in the region, and how this may benefit Territorians into the future. Finally, I will outline the strategy and initiatives this government is implementing to capture the opportunities, grow the economy, create jobs and protect the fabulous Territory lifestyle which makes us the envy of all Australians.
The Northern Territory’s relationship with Defence started in 1824 when HMAS Tamar transported Royal Marines, sailors and civilians to establish Fort Dundas on Melville Island.
Today there are over 6000 Defence Force personnel employed in the Northern Territory. Add to this partners and children, and there is an estimated 14 000 Defence members and family in the Northern Territory, about 6% of the Territory population.
The major growth in the Defence presence in the Northern Territory began in 1992 with the Army Presence in the North project. This saw the first brigade relocate to Robertson Barracks near Palmerston which has and will continue to contribute significantly to the Northern Territory economy.
Defence recurrent expenditure in the NT during 2013-14 financial year was $1.5bn, equivalent to 6.9% of the gross state product. The location of Defence facilities, personnel and families in various regions across the Territory generates significant demand for goods and services. RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine, and joint Defence facility, Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, are also key contributors to the economies of these regions.
Every year there are a number of Defence exercises which also contribute to the Territory economy. Exercise Kakadu during 2014 involved 15 nations, eight ships, 26 aircraft and about 1200 personnel to test each nation’s ability to work together in a realistic and unpredictable warfare environment. More than 100 aircraft and about 2300 personnel from seven nations participated in exercise Pitch Black last year. It is estimated that in 2012 Pitch Black contributed $25m to the local economy. This biennial training will occur again in 2016.
In July of this year the Northern Territory will play a major role in exercise Talisman Sabre. Australia, the United States, New Zealand and Japan will participate in the exercise, which aims to improve the combat readiness and interoperability between the forces of each nation.
These exercises, as well as the many others that have taken place each year in the Territory, bring a significant injection into the Territory economy which translates into jobs and business opportunities for local companies.
The large Defence presence in the Northern Territory contributes to our economy in many ways that people do not realise. Defence Housing Australia manages over 2000 properties located in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. DHA is working with the Northern Territory government to provide additional dwellings in Darwin for Defence members, with the excess being made available to the general public. This is a fantastic new initiative. As Defence houses are made available this should have the effect of reducing the pressure on the rental market in Darwin.
Territorians are well aware of the current US Marine rotations. In a couple of months we will see the fourth rotation of its kind, with the US Marines, Marine Rotational Force – Darwin, arriving here in the Territory. This will be very similar in size to the last rotation, and the Marines will be coming from Camp Pendleton in California. The current US Marine rotations are around 1100 personnel and are expected to increase the Territory’s gross state product by about $5.6m this year. This will grow as the size of the rotations also grow towards the planned 2500 over the next few years.
Local business, Sitzler Bros, also benefited by winning an $11m contract for facilities at Robertson Barracks to accommodate the Marines. I toured these excellent facilities and met many of the Marines who were there last year. I received a warm welcome from the Marines, who are very proud of their facilities and their battalion, and are enjoying their short six-month stay in the Territory.
Defence industry expenditure such as this is just another contributor to our economy. In December last year the Defence Joint Logistics complex at Robertson Barracks was officially opened. The $124m project was just one of a number of Defence infrastructure projects in the Northern Territory.
Looking to the future, the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighters at RAAF Base Tindal in 2022 will necessitate a $474m infrastructure project to accommodate and support those new aircraft. The project is expected to provide a range of opportunities for Darwin and Katherine businesses.
I am pleased to report that the federal Defence department has confirmed a five-year, $603m package of construction work in the Territory. In addition to the Joint Strike Fighter infrastructure, this package includes high-voltage power supply upgrades to Shoal Bay Receiving Station worth $6m, flood mitigation works at RAAF Darwin costing approximately $10m, construction of new married quarters at RAAF Darwin worth approximately $53m and major aircraft pavement upgrade works at RAAF Tindal and RAAF Darwin costing in excess of $60m. There are even more projects on the horizon which are pending Defence approval. The future looks bright.
Encouragingly, Defence has acknowledged the need to sequence these very large projects so they minimise the peaks and troughs in local industry capacity.
We see many other opportunities ahead for the Territory. For example, the new MAN fleet of trucks will replace many of the Army’s current Mack and Unimog fleet from 2017. In addition, to the Bushmasters and other light armoured four-wheel drives belonging to Darwin’s 1st Brigade will require Defence industry support throughout their lifespan.
An increase in US Marine rotational presence may add to this demand for services as they pre-position similar heavy vehicles and armoured platforms for training and humanitarian relief. An increase in the presence of Australian Defence Force and US naval activity across the Top End may provide further opportunities for business to compete for naval ship maintenance work.
The second order effect of greater military training activities and ship visits provides opportunities for our tourism industry. With an increase in training activities, Australian, US and other foreign defence service men and women may be able to take advantage of leave before and after their training activities. We want to encourage our military tourists to enjoy the many tourism products on offer, as well as the vibrant pubs, clubs and hotels, while on liberty.
I have already spoken about the large Australian Defence Force presence and the activities which generate economic activity. Further opportunities could make the Northern Territory the nucleus of Australian and foreign Defence Force operations training and exercises in the Asia-Pacific region.
Darwin recently hosted a visit from the Australian Chief of Navy and the US Chief of Naval Operations. The visit, as was widely reported, was part of a joint study with the Australian Defence Force to see what might be feasible for naval cooperation in and around Australia, which might include basing ships.
Darwin’s strategic location makes it ideal for supporting the ADF and increased US Navy presence. Into the future, better maritime infrastructure will be required to support this presence. The Marine Industry Park is being developed adjacent to the East Arm port, which will provide a growing maritime maintenance capability.
A cornerstone to this development is the multiuser barge ramp facility recently announced as a joint venture between Defence and the Northern Territory’s Land Development Corporation. This $18m facility provides a valuable piece of strategic infrastructure to support the ADF’s ability to operate from and exercise around the Northern Territory. Additionally, the multiuser barge ramp facility has a commercial utility to support coastal shipping to remote communities across the Top End.
Smart investments in joint-use infrastructure by Defence will see value for money for the taxpayer by sharing costs with the commercial sector. It also provides opportunities for local businesses to grow, but importantly creates jobs, and services the needs of Territory communities.
As the United States shifts its focus through its foreign policy by staging a pivot to Asia we are likely to see increasing activity in coming years.
With a strong focus on developing the north, the recent resource boom in the area and the significant Defence presence already in the Northern Territory the basing, operation and support of Defence unmanned aerial systems in Darwin or Katherine is an important priority for the Northern Territory.
Darwin is closer to other countries than it is to the nation’s capital, as we all know. It is also closer to many large population bases throughout the strong growing economies of Southeast Asia than any other centre on Australian soil. We have the potential to play a major role as an operating and supporting base into the future for a range of military and border protection capabilities. It is a perfect location to support a variety of unmanned aerial systems which are likely to be used for border protection and exclusive economic zone security.
Protection of Australian offshore fishing, oil and gas interests and the northern Australian offshore Territories of Christmas and Cocos, or Keeling, Islands is essential to Australia’s national interest. As a major LNG and transport hub, the top half of the Northern Territory is a logical place to position assets for the ADF to implement border security requirements. The flight time to the majority of the northwest oil and gas resources is shorter from Darwin and Tindal than from any other major established centre.
Operating and supporting unmanned aerial systems from Tindal or Darwin will provide operational and cost benefits when compared to basing in southern states. It will also create the opportunity to develop a new support industry based around the unmanned aerial systems which may have great utility in other industries such as land, emergency and asset management.
To promote the Territory case for basing and operation of UAVs in the north, the government made a submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Inquiry on the potential use by the Australian Defence Force of unmanned air, maritime and land platforms.
I have spoken at length about the importance of the Defence presence, the Northern Territory government’s plan for Defence and how that impacts our economy and families. There is another side to the Defence presence in the Territory which is of equal importance. I am referring to the people of the Defence Force, their partners and their children. As I have already stated, there are about 14 000 Defence members, partners and children in the Northern Territory. These Defence members and family members attend schools and universities, play in sporting teams, and are members of our school councils and community organisations. Partners of Defence members are an important part of our workforce who bring with them skills and experiences learnt in other locations, and are highly valued by employers.
The Giles government understands the challenges faced by Defence families when they are posted away from their traditional family support networks. While the majority relish and make the most of the unique Territory lifestyle we all enjoy, much of this does not fill the gap left when a family member is deployed overseas or on an extended training exercise. Integrating Defence families into the broader community will help them to settle quickly, as well as establish a strong society, a focus of the government’s Framing the Future strategy.
I spoke earlier about a range of opportunities for Territorians. To capitalise on these opportunities for the Territory I have directed the establishment of a high-level Strategic Defence Advisory Board and the formation of a Northern Territory and Defence Strategy. The board will consist of a number of recently retired senior military officers from Australia, the United States and Indonesia, in addition to a retired Defence public servant.
Membership of the board has been selected to align with the Northern Territory government’s ambitions in the Defence sector and key opportunities we see ahead of us. Membership of the board is for two years only and renewal will be based on the results each member of the board has achieved.
The board will provide high-level advice to government. It will see board members use their strong existing networks and relationships with the ADF, as well as our close allies, to bring to reality the government’s ambitions to grow the Defence sector in the Northern Territory. The board will bring skills and knowledge in relation to Defence protocols, systems and procedures which will assist the government in its negotiations with Defence.
My aim is to integrate Department of Defence future planning with Northern Territory government future planning. The integration, as you can imagine, will bring many benefits, including shared infrastructure, de-conflicting of major projects, and growth in industry capability and capacity. Importantly, it will provide jobs for Territorians, not interstate companies.
The board will be guided by, provide input to, and assist the Northern Territory government with the implementation of a Northern Territory and Defence strategy. The formation of a strategy will focus on how the Northern Territory government can capitalise on these opportunities I have previously mentioned and others that will come into the future.
In bringing together the strategy, key stakeholders have been identified and engaged for their input. Stakeholders, including local businesses, industry associations, the Department of Defence, ADF, Defence prime contractors and the US Marine Corps have all been included in these consultations.
The strategy aims to connect and develop local businesses by partnering closely with industry associations and other stakeholders. The Australian Defence and Industry Association, the Industry Capability Network and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, together with the Department of Business, will all have a vital role in implementing this strategy. Whether it is identifying opportunities, assisting businesses to develop the skills and capability to bid for and win Defence support and maintenance contracts, or helping them to be part of the Defence prime contractor supply chain, everybody has a job to do.
The strategy aims to connect and promote local Defence industry capabilities to the Defence Materiel Organisation so it is well placed to understand what resources it has available in the Northern Territory for future projects. Too often we were overlooked.
The strategy aims to represent the interests of the Northern Territory and safeguard our unique way of life. It is important that the Australian government and the Department of Defence are fully aware of the Northern Territory government’s desire to remain engaged, in fact, to have a seat at the table when conducting future planning. In recent times that cooperative relationship has been working quite well in the conversations I and officers of the Northern Territory government have been involved in.
An example is the proposal currently being investigated for the potential forward staging of US ships in northern Australia in a similar model to the current US Marine rotations. It is imperative that government and Territorians are consulted and that we understand what these plans may mean for local businesses and Territorians across the Top End in particular.
The strategy aims to promote the Territory and its vast open spaces, which can accommodate air, land and maritime training areas. This is not just the existing Defence training areas, but the potential for new training areas to meet the needs of the ADF and our allies, and not just in the Top End, but in all areas of the Northern Territory.
An increased ADF and US presence in our world-class training areas means more opportunities for business. It also means a greater requirement for infrastructure, such as better roads, rail, port and airport facilities. Australian government investment in infrastructure in the Territory is consistent with our program of developing northern Australia and has the potential to attract further private sector investment.
Defence is a priority for the Northern Territory government and I suspect the Northern Territory will again be recognised as strategically important to Defence in the Defence White Paper which is due for release later this year. Accordingly, three NT government ministers have areas related to Defence in their portfolios. As Chief Minister and Minister for Economic Development and Major Projects, I have responsibility for strategic Defence liaison. The Strategic Defence Advisory Board will report to me. I will work with the board as we engage with government and Defence at the highest levels to achieve our vision and benefit for Territorians.
Hon Peter Styles MLA, as Minister for Defence Industries, has a responsibility to ensure our local businesses are Defence-ready. That is very important. Whether it is the maintenance of new Defence equipment, the construction of new infrastructure, the support of visiting Navy vessels, providing tourism services for visiting foreign forces or providing base support services, we want our businesses to be informed, skilled, accredited and capable of taking up that challenge, all in the interest of creating jobs for Territorians.
This brings me to the veterans support program. I am aware that with the number of overseas deployments over the past decade the number of Defence veterans in the Northern Territory has grown. The veterans within our community contain a mix of veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and more recent conflicts, such as Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Iraq, Afghanistan and a vast range of other UN operations around the globe.
Veterans and veteran organisations have spoken to me about this growth and I have listened to what they have to say. As a result, for the first time in the Northern Territory government we now have a Minister for Veterans Support, Peter Chandler. It is clear that while the Northern Territory is strategically important to Defence, Defence is also important to the Territory. Defence and its members and families make an important and highly-valued contribution to our community, our social lifestyle and our economy.
It is also clear that Defence activity and opportunities are increasing in northern Australia, as I have outlined today. The Northern Territory wants to be a part of that growth to capture the opportunities and share those benefits across our community.
The Northern Territory Country Liberals government has a vision. We have a plan and we will partner with stakeholders to capture opportunities, grow the economy, create jobs and preserve our lifestyle.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is a good opportunity to talk about Defence in the Northern Territory and the significant role it plays now, and has played in the Territory over a long period of time.
We have always had a bipartisan attitude to Defence issues in this Chamber. I think in many ways that is a product of the history of the Northern Territory and the experiences we have had, as well as the community and cultural impacts of that. That is why parliament, the City of Darwin and others are able to pull together a fantastic commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin. It has had a profound impact on many of us in the Northern Territory; it has an ongoing impact and we appreciate the valuable work our Defence Force does. We have experienced and appreciate the reality of war. Many Territorians take a very realistic attitude towards the work Defence does, which is why it is more important to be friends. That is why the Northern Territory, of all the jurisdictions in Australia, has an Asian Engagement minister and actively forges relationships with our near neighbours.
We have a very positive strategic role to play in that area and we do that. We work well with the people in Defence in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister opened by acknowledging the work of our Afghanistan veterans and their contribution to Operation Slipper over 14 years, and recently we commemorated the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin. We are also coming up to the 100th anniversary of our Anzacs.
Anzac Day is a very emotional experience, and for those from the Territory going to Gallipoli this year, that will be a very emotional experience. I, and I assume others in this Chamber, have been. It is confronting and emotional to be there. In that spirit – I said before how it is more important to be friends and not enemies – the relationship between Australians and Turks in Gallipoli is extraordinary. It is very close and a bond has been forged between two nations. We in the Territory appreciate that, coming from a place that was bombed during WWII.
We appreciate the Chief Minister bringing this statement forward. We have a significant Defence presence in the Northern Territory and we, as a parliament, want to provide support to them.
It is also important to industry. The Chief Minister, towards the end of his statement, broke down some of the things Defence does in industry and the community, and how we need to work with them professionally and make sure we maximise the spend in the Territory. As a parliament, by and large, our bipartisan attitude to Defence has been based more on the realities of the blood that can be shed. But Defence also has a massive economic impact, and we want to work well with it to leverage that, provide the services it needs locally so it does not need to get them from other places.
We have about 14 000 Defence and families members in the Territory. It is a significant part of the Territory population, and I am sure all of us who were in the Territory in the early 1990s have noticed the significant increase in the number of Defence families and personnel here. It is quite noticeable and very much welcomed. From about 1992 on that increased Defence presence made a massive contribution to Darwin, from a community point of view. There has been some focus on the economic contribution Defence makes, but having those people as part of our sporting clubs, community clubs and school councils makes a valuable contribution to the Territory outside their day hours.
We are a small place and it can be hard to find people willing to be on committees, boards and all those things. It is one of those problems we have in the Territory. Often too few do too much, and since the Defence Force came to town the contribution they make outside of their working hours has been very noticeable and greatly appreciated. That strong community relationship they have holds them in good stead. Exercise Pitch Black, for example, causes some concern in the community with noise – I am sure my electorate office is not the only one that gets some phone calls during that time – but by far and away members of our community, because of those strong community relationships they have with Defence, think it is a burden that is important to bear for the Defence people within our community. That goes to work Defence does outside of their normal hours in building those community links. They are an incredibly valuable part of our community.
Defence Housing Australia, for example, with the 2000 properties they share, would be one of our major economic residential players and have a massive say in the shaping of Darwin and the quality of housing built in Darwin. Its minimum standards are very high and it has had a big impact on the property market, as much as anything else. Defence have its fingers in so many pies and influences so much about the Territory.
The Chief Minister mentioned the US Marine rotations, and I think the Marines have, by and large, been welcomed into the Northern Territory. There were some concerns and most of us were aware that a few members of our community were concerned about the US Marines coming to town on rotations. Our side and the other side have worked well with and have a good relationship with the US, and the US Marines are incredibly professional and well respected.
I will say the word ‘valuable’ a lot during this contribution. They have made a valuable contribution to the Northern Territory and have made an effort to mix. I have seen them at the AFL and the rodeo. At the AFL they were very impressed with the high marking. A few of them raised their eyebrows and a few other words were said. At the rodeo they were hilarious. There was a US Marine who said, ‘That’s not a bull’. I think he was from Texas. I think he was disappointed by the size of our bulls, but they had a very good time at the rodeo. I think they might be used to bigger, badder bulls.
I have a brother-in-law who loves the rodeo and rode a few bulls, so I have experienced a few rodeos lately and they are fabulous. He also got me into rodeo on pay TV, and I can see what the Marine was talking about. They have an extraordinary rodeo circuit in America and their bulls are rather large.
The Marines have made a significant effort to become part of our local community and participate in community events. We all would have met with them in a formal setting as well, and they are incredibly professional, respectful and good at what they do. We welcome having the US Marines here.
Darwin has had a long relationship with America over a long period of time. We see that in the attention we received when the American Ambassador and the US President came to Darwin. That is significant; they recognised the importance of Darwin, both historically and as a current strategic spot. As a small jurisdiction in the country it is important we maintain a professional and good working relationship with America, which we do. That has been done quite well by both sides of this House.
The Chief Minister talked about military tourists. As a local member I have experienced this at the World War II museum at East Point, which is an excellent facility organised by the Royal Australian Artillery Association. Many people who go there appreciate it. Often it is because of a familial background or a relation involved in the Bombing of Darwin. Many appreciate or are learning what happened in Darwin at that time. It is a fantastic resource. It was a very important investment for the history of the Territory and the people who visit to learn about the Territory or learn what their family went through during that time.
We have other military sites around the Territory. The member for Nelson has spoken many times about special places in his electorate that were used by the military. One of the good things about the way we approach heritage in the Territory is they still get some active use; they are not just stationary objects or places. We might hear about the member for Nelson’s cricket match during his contribution. It is important that we have this active involvement with our heritage sites as that helps keep them alive.
The Chief Minister spoke about the United States strategic policy and how they are pivoting towards Asia. That will have an impact on the Territory and we have to work with them on how they do that. Through our Asian engagement role we are also well aware of other players in this region: China, Japan, Indonesia and others. We should be aware of the importance of having a good relationship with all of them. Obviously the United States pivoting into this area is welcomed. As a jurisdiction we will work with all. We have carried out some very good Defence operations with other countries. We have been quite careful and mindful of how we manage our relationships, which is something we need to keep doing.
The Chief Minister also talked about unmanned aerial systems. Someone said to me recently that we do not hear as much about illegal fishing anymore. In Darwin we were quite sensitive to the problem of illegal fishing and saw many of the illegal fishers come through Darwin. It has not been covered much in recent times. It piqued my interest. I had not thought about it because we hear so much about our other border problems. I am thinking about getting a briefing on it soon. I would not mind a briefing from the Chief Minister as well about the new board he has put in place, when I can fit it in between port committee engagements and sittings. I will be interested in learning and talking more about and how those unmanned arial systems work.
In the Department of Business – I guess it can move around a little, but out Defence support area in government has had some incredibly confident, professional people working in it. Our public service has a very good relationship with the Defence Forces. We share information and work well together. The Chief Minister picked up on that in his contribution and stated he wants to work on or add to it.
I welcome this idea of a board. I am prepared and interested to learn more about how that will work in the Territory. He mentioned the potential forward staging of US ships in northern Australia, which sounds very interesting. When I was on the Tiwi Islands the other day they mentioned the port there might attract or be appropriate for some naval interest, which I thought was an interesting idea. It is an excellent facility, and I am interested in hearing how that could play in the area. If it is used, that is good. I would like to see how that would work.
I will discuss briefly the Strategic Defence Advisory Board. I am very interested in hearing more. The Chief Minister went into it a bit in his statement, but I am also interested in being briefed on some of the finer details around how that will work. I might even visit South Australia. If we have modelled it on their system – there has been some political argy-bargy in recent times over a few things in South Australia, but they have obviously had a good system for a long time. I am interested to see how it has worked there.
The Chief Minister ended his statement by talking about veterans. We, as an active staging post with active Defence personnel, have some experience with veterans. We also, as somewhere that went through a war, have some citizens who might be considered veterans. We are one of the few places in Australia that has that. I have had the pleasure of working with Legacy recently, and they do incredible work. It is important that we acknowledge and work with our veterans and acknowledge the work they have done for our country. It is good the Northern Territory places them in a special role as well.
I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. He covered a lot of important areas. We have a strong history with Defence Forces and Defence personnel in the Northern Territory over a significant number of years. They have a significant community and cultural impact on us, and in many ways we benefit hugely from Defence. It is not just from the spend, but from military tourism and a range of other things.
The Territory has benefited significantly having Defence people active within our borders. We welcome, support them and thank them.
I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased because sometimes we forget the Defence industry is one of the biggest industries in the Northern Territory. If you take INPEX away, this is up with the rest of them.
I have Robertson Barracks in my electorate, a major facility in the Top End. To keep everybody happy I will let them know it is in Holtze, which is in Litchfield. It is near Palmerston, not in Palmerston, but it is a really important facility.
Having Defence does a lot for the local economy. You only have to go to Palmerston social outlets and you will find plenty of soldiers there. Plenty of families live in Palmerston and the rural area, and you have all the single fellows living on the barracks who certainly frequent the watering holes, and Kerry Holden for the odd ute. They keep the economy going in their own way. That is good because it means they are spending money in our community.
They have a big influence and participate in many community events. I do a bit of umpiring, and there are woman who work in the Defence Forces who play football. You can sometimes tell by the way they play. Sometimes you can tell by the way they talk to you when they do not agree with your decision, but they are in the community and that is great. Quite a few play cricket. It is difficult for people in Defence to continue playing with a team because they move. They are out on exercises so it is not easy to be a constant part of the community because of the type of job they are in.
There is the Defence hub on Thorngate Road. There are two facilities at the moment, and I have talked to people at the main facility. It is up and running, and plenty of trucks and buses are being maintained there. It is not 100% to do with Defence but is there for Defence vehicles and equipment if they need to be maintained. That Defence hub was put there by the previous government. It sat there for quite a while in the hope that something would happen, but at least it has started to move. It is good that facility is attracting industry to it.
From a local point of view, one of the difficulties a local council has with a Defence facility is that Defence does not pay rates and a lot of Defence traffic uses Campbell and Thorngate Roads; they take a lot of wear and tear. They are not the only vehicles that use it of course. Some extractive mining vehicles and the public use it, but it is an area the Territory government should be talking to Defence – probably in Canberra – about to try to make sure Army use of roads, especially local government roads, is not a burden on the local council. They do not pay rates but they use those roads well and truly.
The US Marines are also an important part of our defence. I welcome the US Marines. They are very much part of the alliance we have, and that is reflected in having them stationed at Robertson Barracks. We sometimes forget the importance of the American Air Force in the defence of Darwin during World War II. The member for Brennan mentioned the other day how I have long had an interest in Strauss airstrip. It is named after a pilot called Captain L Strauss, a US Army Air Force pilot who was shot down in the harbour about six weeks after the bombing of Darwin.
People do not always know the only planes that were flying till September 1942 were the United States Army Air Force planes. We really need to remember that because without them there was no defence except for ground defence. Sometimes it is worth going to places like Fenton airstrip and Long airstrip where the Liberators were stationed. That was the United States Air Force and they flew many missions out of here to Timor and places in Indonesia, and many of them died. You would be surprised how many United States Air Force personnel were killed in this area. We should remember them and welcome them for their contribution to the peace of this area.
The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the heritage and I just mentioned two airstrips. One area that has slipped off the radar is the protection of some of our World War II airstrips. Strauss received some protection. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned the cricket pitch. Unfortunately we have been unable to have a cricket game on that pitch for a while because while the troops were in Afghanistan there was difficulty trying to organise that. Hopefully we will get that match together.
We also have Livingstone, Hughes, Sattler and further down we have McDonald, Long and Fenton. There are airstrips near Katherine. We should make an effort to preserve them. We are one of the few places in Australia where there was action during World War II and we still have the heritage to prove it. Some of the places you will not see because they are further out bush. If I told people that Strauss took off from an airstrip about 2 km south of Adelaide River they would say they have not seen an airstrip there. There is not an airstrip there as such. It was a dirt airstrip that was used as an emergency airstrip – they had not built bitumen airstrips up this far north – and that is where they took off from. There are other places out bush – Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, many places in the Northern Territory which have World War II heritage. We should do our best to maintain those sites and keep them for future generations.
Defence has put a lot of money into housing through the Defence Housing Association. All of those things help the economy. They spread work through the economy – the builders and all the other people you need to develop those suburbs.
That is why I say Defence, and I am mostly talking about the Army but you can throw in the Navy and the Air Force, is a big industry. I put that in inverted commas because it is not a normal industry, but it is very much part of the Northern Territory.
In Katherine we have Tindal, Bradshaw, Delamere, Kangaroo Flat, Mount Bundy. All those places need maintaining and looking after, and they create jobs.
While we sometimes look at the Defence Force purely as people marching up and down the street, as we did last Saturday, which was a great welcome back to all those soldiers and a fantastic sight, we also recognise it is not just the Defence part of the work that helps the economy. Those troops and families living in the Northern Territory help the economy as well.
The construction sites, the US Marines, the new single quarters that were built at Robertson Barracks, all those things help the economy of the Northern Territory.
It was great to see the new road, the new entrance to the Robertson Barracks, at last opened on McMillans Road. I was almost ready to ask a question in parliament about why that road had not yet been opened because it was looking good for a long time but the gates were shut.
My understanding is it might have had something to do with getting approvals from various departments. It is good, and hopefully it will take some of the traffic in the Knuckey Lagoon area. For a long time I received many phone calls about too much army traffic in the Brandt and Farrar Roads area of Knuckey Lagoon.
Hopefully this will allow people to leave the barracks from the west side and go to Darwin or the northern suburbs without having to go through the more residential parts of Knuckey Lagoon. Another advantage is that you can bring longer vehicles in. At present if you go up Thorngate Road the gates are very close to the entrance and if you get a large number of vehicles you get a bottleneck on Thorngate Road. This other entrance will be a great improvement for traffic flow in and out of the barracks. Local companies built that road and it is all part of helping the economy with local jobs.
There is plenty more in this statement. I agree with the member for Fannie Bay, having a Minister for Veterans Support is important. It gives the present veterans, and there are quite a few of them in the Northern Territory, and new veterans retiring out of the Defence Force who want to stay here, assurance that the government has some focus on those people. It is also a good way to recognise what those people have done. I congratulate the government for making the decision to have a minister for Veterans.
The other interesting point was the Strategic Defence Advisory Board the government has set up, which I think was in today’s paper. It will help with strategic Defence liaison and will deal with economic development and major projects. That will be good. Many of these issues are based with the Commonwealth rather than the Northern Territory. That is sometimes not easy to deal with, but the government is moving in the right direction by trying to attract as much work as possible.
The previous government tried as well, that is why it set up the Defence hub. It is good that the government continues with that, and this advisory board may be the way to attract more work for locals, because the government will have to work hard in this area. When INPEX finishes or starts to slow down its workload, we will need to have other jobs available for people.
I thank the minister for making this important statement. Not only should we be grateful for our Defence Forces defending our country and our freedom, but also the economic and social input they have into our society in Darwin.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement on Defence delivered by the Chief Minister. Australia’s Defence Forces have an integral role in the Northern Territory’s past, present and future. Territory men and women have fought to defend Australia and our way of life at home and in conflicts overseas. With over 6000 Defence Force personnel employed in the Northern Territory, they and their families make an important contribution to our economy, our community and of course our security.
As the local member for Katherine, I am proud to support our local RAAF Base at Tindal, which is very much a part of the Katherine community. In particular, I am proud to support the personnel and their families who contribute so much to the fabric of our town. Defence personnel and their families make up almost a quarter of Katherine’s population. They have stood by the town through good times and bad. Flood relief, Defence aid to the civil community and sharing the base’s sporting facilities are just some of the important contributions they make to Katherine.
So it is incredibly pleasing that RAAF Base Tindal has been chosen as one of the bases where the new F-35A Lightning IIs will be based. The new aircraft will provide for Australia’s future air combat and strike needs, and will replace the ageing Hornets. The first F-35A aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018, and the first squadron will be operational in 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023. Capable of supersonic flight whilst retaining stealth, the F-35A has extraordinary acceleration, agility and manoeuvrability.
As the Chief Minister said in his statement, the infrastructure needed to accommodate and support the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter at RAAF Base Tindal is valued at $474m, almost $0.5bn. This project will, with a high degree of certainty, bring a lot of opportunity in the form of jobs and employment to the Katherine region. Already, the managing contractor, Lend Lease, has begun the process of community consultation, and, importantly, has entered into discussions with local businesses about opportunities, capacity building and approvals. As the local member in Katherine, I encourage Lend Lease and its chosen contractors and subcontractors to go local and do their level best to include local Katherine businesses and contractors in as much of the work as possible.
The JSF project at Tindal is not the only one to benefit from the Katherine community. New housing is also slated for Tindal in the coming months. It is my hope that some of this new housing will go towards supporting an increase in personnel numbers at the RAAF Base. RAAF Base Tindal is a key contributor to the Northern Territory economy. It is certainly a key contributor to the Katherine economy, and with careful management and commitment to shopping locally it is conceivable that a good deal of this investment by the Department of Defence will land in the pockets of local Katherine businesses.
When I was a police officer based in Alice Springs during the 1990s, I was very proud to have been a member of Centre Squadron NORFORCE for five years reaching the lofty rank – I say that with tongue in cheek – of Lance Corporal. This squadron operates from the South Australian border northwards, including the main regional centres of Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, the Barkly Tablelands and north to include Robinson River and Borroloola. As members are aware, NORFORCE is an infantry regiment of the Australian Army Reserve and is used for surveillance and reconnaissance of the remote areas of northern Australia. This was an incredible opportunity which allowed me to learn from my Aboriginal soldier colleagues and give back to the community in some small way.
Our Defence Forces, including our own NORFORCE, are held in high regard by all Territorians. Each year there are growing numbers of Australians turning up to remember important historical events that commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of our serving Defence Forces. Last Sunday the Katherine community came together to mark the 73rd anniversary of the Bombing of Katherine, shining a light on the Territory’s important military history.
Not many people are aware that up to 91 Japanese bombs rained down on the town and surrounds on 22 March 1942. It is hard to fathom today the fear that must have been felt by Katherine residents as those bombs were dropped. Local man, Dodger Kodjalwal, was killed during the air raid. It is thought that the 42-year-old was crouching behind a rock at the old airfield when he died. Very few people realise the Japanese air raids went as far south as Katherine. The bombs left a trail of destruction across the community, with some of the damage still visible at the old aerodrome site today.
I am pleased to report that work is already under way on planning the 75Th anniversary of the Bombing of Katherine in 2017. I was pleased to take a lead role in making those preparations, as I did for the 70th in Katherine. Katherine has a rich history of Defence which dates back to the headquarters of the 2/First North Australian Observer Unit, or NAOU, of World War II being located in the town. Interestingly, the NAOU was the precursor to the unit we now know as NORFORCE and Katherine was the base, or staging area, for this unit. Today the tradition of Katherine hosting important military forces continues with Royal Australian Air Force base Tindal fully operational, along with the Army’s North-West Mobile Force or NORFORCE, which also has a detachment at the base.
The County Liberals government is proud of its strong commitment to the Defence community, and we need to do everything we can to recognise the contributions made by our Defence personnel to ensure they are properly recognised. It was wonderful to see our troops welcomed home, but we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Many of those personnel returning from Operation Slipper are currently or were based at RAAF Base Tindal. I am honoured to represent them as my constituents, and I am proud of the work they do to keep our country and way of life safe.
As a government we place a high priority on recognising the contribution our Defence Force makes to the community. I am pleased and proud to support the Chief Minister’s statement on Defence and the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
TABLED PAPER
Pastoral Land Board Annual Report 2013-14
Pastoral Land Board Annual Report 2013-14
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Pastoral Land Board Northern Territory Annual Report 2013-14.
The Northern Territory Pastoral Land Board, chaired by Mr Richard Galton, ensures the health, economic viability and sustainability of our pastoral lands. I acknowledge Mr Galton, who is in the gallery this afternoon listening to this tabling statement. I extend a warm welcome to you, Mr Galton.
Since the Country Liberals came to government in 2012, increased and sustained funding and resources have ensured the Pastoral Land Board has been able to perform its duties in a proper and timely manner. This board is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of the condition and status of land under pastoral tenure in accordance with the Pastoral Land Act.
Information and advice regarding land condition and management helps ensure our pastoral resources are managed and developed sustainably. In order to perform these important functions the board relies on technical support and advice from my Department of Land Resource Management, which is the custodian and driver of rangeland monitoring programs assessing land condition.
In 2013 this government provided an extra $400 000 to my Department of Land Resource Management for the re-invigoration of the rangeland monitoring program. An extra $100 000 in funding was provided to the Pastoral Lands Board to allow additional face-to-face meetings and to undertake lease inspections and property visits. Funding for the rangeland monitoring program also provides field support for the Pastoral Lands Board to undertake field assessment and reporting for subdivisions, conversions to perpetuity, remedial and voluntary management plan inspections and pastoral lease compliance inspections.
Since this board was established in 1992, it has accomplished considerable achievements in monitoring the condition and use of pastoral land in the Northern Territory. The Pastoral Lands Board held its 100th meeting in Alice Springs in September last year.
This annual report also provides an overview of the general land condition of pastoral districts where monitoring has taken place. It also provides specific land condition issues faced by pastoralists, such as erosion, feral animals, weeds and bush fires. It outlines the role of the board, the applications the board has assessed and the current value of the Northern Territory cattle industry.
As I mentioned earlier, this government has provided significant additional funding to the Pastoral Lands Board, including $500 000 to the rangeland monitoring program in 2013. This funding has seen significant progress being made to improve the monitoring and reporting of the pastoral estate, which comprises 45% of the Territory’s land mass.
During 2013-14 reporting season, rangeland monitoring officers from my department assessed 260 sites on 36 properties, across seven of the 11 pastoral districts. Of the 36 properties visited, 22 were assessed as overall in good condition, seven were assessed as in fair condition, one was assessed as in fair to poor condition, and five were assessed as in poor condition. The properties assessed as in poor condition are all located in the southern region where below-average seasonal conditions have been experienced. This fact was recognised by the Country Liberals government when we provided seasonal hardship rent waivers for pastoralists in the Plenty, southern and northern Alice Springs pastoral districts in 2014.
For the first time the Pastoral Lands Board’s annual report includes remote sensing vegetation monitoring. This satellite-based assessment component of the integrated monitoring program provides objective information on land cover and land cover change, and is a valuable addition to the report. Remote sensing vegetation monitoring stems from a collaborative research program between my Department of Land Resource Management and the Queensland Department of Science Information Technology, Innovation, and the Arts.
The Northern Territory Pastoral Lands Board is also responsible for approving non-pastoral use permits. In this reporting period non-pastoral use permits were approved for tourist activities at Curtin Springs and Narwietooma Stations in Central Australia. The board also approved a clearing permit for an irrigated agriculture crop to cultivate poppies on Tipperary Station, which is another non-pastoral use enterprise.
In the reporting period the Pastoral Lands Board visited Scott Creek Station in the Katherine pastoral district, Wongalara Station in the Roper pastoral district and Henbury Station in the southern Alice Springs district.
I take this opportunity to commend pastoralist Steven Craig of Mistake Creek Station for his ongoing commitment to the board. Steven has attended 52 of the 100 meetings of the Pastoral Lands Board since its inception.
I also thank Mr Tom Stockwell for his commitment to the Pastoral Lands Board. Tom has taken on the role of President of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and, as such, has resigned as a member of the Pastoral Lands Board. Tom was first appointed to the PLB in 2005. In addition to being a member of the Pastoral Lands Board, Tom has held office as the Chairman of the NT Weed Advisory Committee and was the Cattle Council of Australia representative on the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association Executive Committee.
Since this government came to power in 2012, many things have changed. One of these is the significant change we made in the way we approach our pastoral estate and the support we provide the Pastoral Land Board and our rangeland monitoring unit. I am very proud to be part of a government that is taking its obligations in this regard very seriously.
The Pastoral Lands Board does an important job. Its monitoring program makes sure the government has a full and clear understanding of the condition of our pastoral estates at any given movement. It is important we do this because we need to understand and be confident that the pastoral property lessees are doing the right thing by the property. They are caretakers of land that is owned by the Northern Territory government.
The work being undertaken by the PLB is helping to inform us about the condition of the pastoral estate, which is 45% of the Territory’s land mass. The work it does is critical to allow us to assess the condition of the land now and what it might look like in years to come.
I thank Mr Galton as the chair of the PLB, along with all the other members of the Pastoral Lands Board, who have put in a lot of hours over the past 12 months. Their work is appreciated by the government and I hope they can maintain their enthusiasm for the job as we move forward through this term of government.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, Rosebery Middle School opened in January 2011, representing a landmark investment in education in the Palmerston region. The school provides a rigorous middle school education program for students in Years 7, 8 and 9, with a strong focus on information and communications technology, enriched curriculum, performing arts and vocational education and training in school pathways.
The student population of 549 comprises 30% identifying as Indigenous, 10% with Australian Defence Force background and a growing cohort of English as an Additional Language or Dialect students. The school has an established pathways unit which includes the Autism Spectrum Disorder Unit and provides alternate pathways for students requiring additional support. This team has developed a reputation for high-quality service and inclusive learning pathways. The feedback from parents, service providers and students is overwhelmingly positive.
RMS also hosts the Arafura Kids in Town Engaged in School - KiTES - for Indigenous students from remote communities who are in town, and students who have been disengaged from the education pathway for an extended period of time.
The program provides a strong focus on literacy, numeracy and keeping students engaged in learning. I was very proud to support them at the end of year function last year, where they celebrated the learning successes they achieved during the year.
Overall attendance rates range between 85% and 90%. The school ensures maximum attendance by implementing the RMS attendance policy, which is signed each year by a parent or carer and by the student on enrolment. The policy includes a range of positive strategies, such as highlighting year level and class attendance rates at each assembly, 100% attendance raffles, each class displaying attendance as part of their data walls, and at the end of each semester rewarding high attenders of over 98%.
There are also other schools that do this. I remember being at Woodroffe Primary School, where a student achieved 500 consecutive days of attending school. I thought, ‘My God, that kid never gets sick’. I do not think I have achieved that many working days in a row for anything in my life, except politics where you cannot have sick days.
The Clontarf Academy is at the school, along with the Palmerston Girls Academy and the Smith Family to create incentives to encourage regular school attendance by Indigenous students.
The performing arts creative industries are a significant school focus dedicated to providing visual arts, design, technology, music, dance and drama. Year 9 students have the opportunity to complete a nationally accredited vocational education and training certificate in music production. Completion rates average 75% annually. Music lessons are also provided through a partnership with the NT Music School. This is also displayed every year in a school play, which includes fantastic vibrant, full of colour movement and light.
Year 7 has an ACE program - attitude, commitment and excellence. This class is introduced in Term 2 for students of high performance, attendance and dedication to learning.
Year 8 has a sports academy class which is introduced in Semester 2 for highly-accomplished athletes with high attendance and commitment to learning. They have strong connections to local artists like Janie Andrews and Jasmin Jan resulting in an RMS mosaic pole being installed at the Territory Wildlife Park. They are working with Gary Lang and Artback NT to establish an Artists in Schools program focusing on contemporary dance.
I recall seeing a fantastic painting of the member for Brennan, which looked like him. It was amazing because often at schools paintings by kids do not look anything like the person. This one did look like Hon Peter Chandler. One day I will take a photo of it and ensure I remind him of it frequently.
Year 9 has a fashion art design course, leading to participation in the 2015 Apex Australia Teenage Fashion Awards. There are also whole-of-school programs in health, restorative practice, school-wide positive behaviour and wellbeing scope and sequence.
The school is doing many wonderful things and it has high expectations and high growth in working with the primary schools in the area. It also creates pathways between the primary school and senior college kids in Palmerston, and it is working on a joint governance board across all three schools. This will set common themes and threads across all schools in the Palmerston area and create a circumstance for kids to transition between those schools effectively.
I note the school council for this year: The school council Chair is Ms Nicky Natar and the members are Ms Marina Talbot and Ms Julie Studeman. Principal Lorraine Evans does a wonderful job. The Elected Teacher Representatives are Natalie Banks and Beryl Brugmans and the Treasurer and Business Manager is Samantha Sowry.
I was honoured to recently meet the house captains when we made the middle school’s presentations of the military units. They were as follows: for Marnba, Tulaha Jeffery; for Menida, Finlay Dale; for Wamba, Jozef Brown and for Balli, Jacon Lampton. The house vice captains were: for Marnba, Tyson Woodbury; for Menida, Hayley McAdam; for Wamba, Kyra Garner; and for Balli, Reshma Matta.
It is my pleasure to speak about these students. I wish them the best of luck and I hope they use this leadership experience to grow and develop their leadership skills over the coming year.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, International Women’s Day was created by the United Nations to recognise women’s rights and international peace. The day celebrates economic, political and social achievements of women, and acknowledges the urge to end discrimination against women and increase the support for women’s full and equal participation in society.
International Women’s Day was established in 1910 in Germany by the leader of the Social Democratic Party for women, Clara Zetkin. Zetkin, an activist and advocate for women’s rights, discussed the idea of International Women’s Day during an international conference for working women in Copenhagen. On 19 March the following year was when the first ever International Women’s Day was held across Europe, with the largest street demonstration attracting a crowd of 30 000. Two years later the day was transferred to 8 March and has since been celebrated on that day.
International Women’s Day has become a time to reflect on progress, to call for change and to celebrate the courage and determination of the women who have changed history. International Women’s Day is an occasion to review how far women have come in their struggle for equality, peace and development and it is an opportunity to unite, network and mobilise for meaningful change.
This year we reflect on the progress made since 1995, when the Fourth World Conference on Women adopted the Beijing platform for action, the most progressive blueprint ever for producing the advancement of women’s rights. This year we renew our commitment to achieve greater gender equality and we encourage people to join us on International Women’s Day to make a commitment to a brighter future for women and girls.
From 1908 the Women’s Social and Political Union in Great Britain adopted the colour scheme of purple, white and green to symbolise the plight of suffragettes. Purple symbolised justice and dignity, two values strongly associated with women’s equality. The three colours were used for banners, flags, rosettes and badges to show solidarity.
It was wonderful to share International Women’s Day in the Territory. In Alice Springs there were a number of events, including the former Governor-General, Dame Quentin Bryce, attending the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame for a community forum afternoon.
Many events were held in Darwin. I was privileged to attend the Charles Darwin University Northern Institute morning tea with some inspirational Indigenous women’s research speakers. I then attended the International Women’s Day march on the Saturday morning in the Darwin CBD and the following event at Parliament House, which I thank Madam Speaker for, it was an excellent event. I received positive feedback from people who attended that event. The kid’s corner was extremely positive and popular.
Last week the events continued with the International Women’s Day NT Women Lawyers Association lunch, with a panel discussion hosted by Darwin ABC journalist Eleni Roussos. Panel members were Auditor-General Julie Crisp, White Ribbon Ambassador and sports commentator Charlie King, and Magistrate Elizabeth Morris.
I want to talk about an organisation which Madam Speaker is very passionate about. The NT Working Women’s Centre was officially opened on 3 November 1994 by Hon Warren Snowdon. It was funded by the federal department of Industrial Relations through the equal pay unit. The centre was funded to provide information to women on issues such as pay and working conditions, enterprise bargaining, occupational health and safety, education, training, discrimination, work and family, unfair dismissal and superannuation. The centre’s services were targeted at women who were Indigenous, non-union members who worked in award-free areas, and also women who were re-entering the workforce. The centre also took a proactive role through outreach and community education, which is important and valuable.
In the NT, the Trades and Labour Council successfully tendered to establish the NT Women’s Centre and it was incorporated in November of 1994. The women’s committee of the NT Trades and Labour Council was the driving force behind the successful submission and was supported by Denise Spinks. During the centre’s early days it was run by a small group of very dedicated women. Pam Morgan was coordinating, Shivaun Inglis was the NESB field officer, Robyn Rioli was the ATSI field officer and the two administrative assistants were Lea Ponseca and Wanda Weber.
The interim management committee in 1994 was made up of Trish Crossin, Chris Caught from the YWCA, Caitlin Perry from Ruby Gaea House, Desiree Hathaway from the Ethnic Communities Council and Danella Beer from the Aboriginal Women’s Resource Centre. Invited observers to the interim committee of management included Jo Parish from the Office of Women’s Affairs, Beryl Mulder from the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Alex Saundry from the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Sharon Woon from the department of Industrial Relations and Pamela Griffiths from the NT Anti-Discrimination Commission.
The NT government has funded the NT Working Women’s Centre since 2006 through the department of Employment, Education and Training and funding has been continuous since 2006. The Commonwealth government has provided continuous funding from 1994 and we saw the second Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre open an office in Alice Springs on the eve of International Women’s Day in March 2013. It was officially opened by Alison Anderson and Trish Crossin and was a positive move for the women of the centre.
Today the centre has established itself as an important contributor to issues relating to industrial relations in the Northern Territory, and nationally through submission writing, public speaking, client work and community education. The centre has broadened its scope and its reach over the 20-year history. Currently it assists women with a huge range of issues, but consistently for many years the main issues women seek assistance with are in relation to pay and conditions, termination of employment, workplace bullying and discrimination. In 2013-14 the centre had a total of 3167 contacts with women and delivered 24 community education centres. A total of 29% of the education participants were from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and 21% were CALD. A total of 22% of case work clients were Indigenous women and 50% of all assistance was with women who reside in regional, rural and remote locations.
As of March 2015, the centre staff include: Anna Davis and Rachael Uebergang as co-coordinators; Lianne Blanch as administration and finance officer; Anastasia Coroneo as senior industrial liaison officer; and Nadja Reiter as industrial liaison officer. They are also joined by Melly Lewis, Regina Munn, Claire Pirrett, Anne Herbert and Amy Winter who are all industrial liaison officers with the centre. The current Chair of the management committee for the NT Working Women’s Centre is Emily Webster. Security and Public Officer Golden Noble-Harris, Treasurer Fateneh Misaghi, and Nadine Williams, Jude Harrison and Eloise Page are all on the committee.
Those at the NT Working Women’s Centre have asked me to pass on their acknowledgement and significant gains that have been made for working women since the centre’s doors opened in the Territory in 1994. Most significantly, all employees in the NT are now covered by minimum conditions of the National Employment Standards and federal minimum wage. All employees who meet the 12-month qualifying period have the right to unpaid parental leave, and many have an entitlement to paid parental leave. Women who are subjected to domestic violence or are in the care of a person who is subjected to domestic violence may request flexible working conditions.
Many issues remain for working women in the Northern Territory which require further attention and reform. Namely, women continue to be subjected to sexual harassment and assault at work by their colleagues. Women are treated adversely and sometimes terminated from their jobs because they are a victim of domestic violence. Women are paid 18% less than men and will retire with significantly less superannuation. Women perform the majority of unpaid care and work and are disproportionately impacted by the demands of balancing their jobs and caring responsibilities. There is a chronic shortage in the Northern Territory of quality, affordable childcare.
The NT Working Women’s Centre has celebrated its 20th anniversary in the Territory with a number of events, including a film night at the Museum and Art Gallery of the NT on 6 March. It also had a 20th anniversary celebration here at Parliament House hosted by Madam Speaker.
I sincerely congratulate the NT Working Women’s Centre on these milestones and their continued efforts in supporting Territory women. I am very proud to be one of 11 women in this parliament, and especially proud to be one of five Labor women in this Caucus of eight. Like all women, my life is often a juggling act while raising two young children, and I am grateful for the support and acceptance of our community in allowing me to take on this role as a woman and a mother.
As we celebrate these achievements in the House, we remember the struggle of women who are not so fortunate and we must continue to work together for all Territory women. I also acknowledge here in the House tonight Rachael from the NT Working Women’s Centre who is accompanied by her young daughters, Lucy and Hannah. Hopefully Lucy and Hannah will not have to overcome the struggles I have just talked about, because we will have done the hard work here in the Chamber.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I remember a pioneer of the Northern Territory’s pastoral industry, Mr Cec Watts, who passed away recently. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet Cec, but I am told by former CLP Primary Industry minister, Mick Palmer, that Mr Watts’ contribution to the Northern Territory cattle industry was enormous.
Cec was born in Sydney on 28 October 1926. He left school at the age of 15 to work in the Narrabri district on a property that ran sheep and cattle. In June 1942 Cec decided it was time to stand on his own two feet and at age 15 he placed a slightly misleading advertisement in the local newspaper’s situations wanted section. The advert read:
- Lad 15 seeking work on farm or station. Some experience. Can milk, kill and ride.
According to Cec, some experience was gathered during a two-week holiday spent on a relative’s farm in the Gunnedah district roaming around with his cousin, Don, chasing rabbits and foxes and fishing. His milking skills were pretty limited, but he understood the principle of the process. He could ride a horse, more or less, having learnt on old Toby, an ex-racing trotter. As Cec said:
- Thus was my career in the rural industry launched.
He received half a dozen replies and selected the offer from a property at Narrabri; however, his failings were soon unmasked. He found the going tough for a while, but as he was not too slow on the uptake, after a month he became useful. His milking speed improved, as did his riding.
After four years on a property called Wairou, Cec decided to move north to work with cattle. In a book by Jeff Hill called Horsebells and Hobblechains, Cec said:
- Big mobs of cattle coming down from Queensland used to pass through the reserve over the river …
From where he worked, that is. He then said it:
- … kindled a desire in me to get out into the back country.
He moved to the Northern Territory after winning a position on Coniston Station near Alice Springs, which was then owned Mr Randall Stafford. After a short stint at Coniston, Cec moved on and worked at the road house on Banka Banka Station about 100 km north of Tenant Creek. When he heard that the Vestey company - the owners of several stations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia - were hiring, Cec hitched a lift further north. Cec was offered a job at Limbunya Station, a large station in the western Victoria River district. He left Darwin with Mr Jack Quirk, who was the company’s pastoral inspector at the time, controlling around 20 stations then owned by Vestey Group.
On arrival at Limbunya, Cec was immediately reassigned to work at Nicholson Station in the Kimberley. Shortly after arriving at Nicholson, Cec was bet 10 bob that he would not last in the job longer than six months. He went on to spend 20 years on stations in the Northern Territory and in the Kimberley, including:
- Flora Valley, Gordon Downs, Stuart Creek, Turner, Birrindudu …
He initially ran stock camps and eventually managing several of these stations. Cec said he never managed to collect on that bet.
Cec was not promoted to the position of manager within Vestey’s until he married Dawn. At that time it was policy that all managers had to be married men. In 1965 Cec was appointed Pastoral Inspector for Vestey’s Territory and Kimberley group of stations and lived in Darwin for 17 years while holding that position. In 1981 Cec became General Manager of Vestey’s Australian pastoral operation based in Rockhampton where he retired in 1986. Cec said he would not have changed a thing about his life and adventures in the north.
I quote from the book Horsebells and Hobblechains:
- Mustering the big open range country, the characters black and white, the mobs of good horses, they all made the north a very different and special place in those days. Wouldn’t have missed it for quids.
A cremation ceremony was held in Rockhampton on 26 February 2015 for Mr Cec Watts. I also acknowledge Jeff Hill for writing the book Horsebells and Hobblechains, which contains the stories of 28 outback cattlemen capturing the huge contribution they made to Northern Australia’s cattle industry. Thank you also to former CLP member - and former Speaker of the House - Roger Steele, who lent me his copy of Horsebells and Hobblechains.
Last month I had the honour of opening the Katherine office of the Cancer Council Northern Territory. This wonderful group provides many support services to those affected by cancer. This includes those battling this dreadful disease and their family and friends who are also affected. The Cancer Council has worked hard to open an office in Katherine, with many fundraising and sponsorship efforts ensuring the office can operate for 25 hours a week. The Cancer Council Northern Territory office provides support to Katherine residents and for the many Territorians who live in remote areas and use Katherine as a hub.
The Country Liberals government was proud to assist by providing office space within the Katherine government centre for the Cancer Council’s use. This government knows how important it is to support cancer patients, which is why we also helped establish chemotherapy services at the Katherine District Hospital. I expect to be part of the opening ceremony for the new cancer chairs next month. We have also established a short-term support position at the Katherine District Hospital to help develop local networks and links to provide additional support for cancer patients and their loved ones.
The World’s Greatest Shave is a magnificent cause in support of cancer research. This annual event is embraced by the whole community, with hair getting shaved right across Australia in pubs and clubs, at shopping centres and in schools. If you do not want to lose your locks you can colour your hair or buy the merchandise, all in the name of fundraising for research and to provide additional cancer support services. It takes a brave and gutsy person to shave their head, even for something as important as the fight against cancer.
One person who I am proud to know is Katherine resident Allirra Braun. For such a young person, Allirra has already notched up a great many achievements. She competed in the 42.2 km New York City Marathon as part of a 10-person Indigenous marathon project team in November last year. She braved incredibly strong winds and freezing temperatures to complete the marathon in four hours, 21 minutes and 12 seconds - well deserving of the hot chocolate she indulged in afterwards.
Prior to the New York City Marathon, Allirra completed a 10 km run in Canberra, a half marathon on the Gold Coast, the Sydney City2Surf and a 30 km trial race in Alice Springs.
The best part of her incredible story is that a year before the New York City Marathon, Allirra was - in her own words - overweight and not able to run 100 m. Sadly, the passing of her grandmother who was battling diabetes was the inspiration she needed to lose 32 kg to get fit. She joined Robert De Costella’s Indigenous Marathon Project in late 2013 and qualified for the Indigenous running group four months later.
Allirra has now participated in the World’s Greatest Shave, which specifically raises money for the Leukaemia Foundation, a very worthwhile cause. Allirra has raised thousands of dollars, which placed her at number three on the NT leader board prior to her shave. She raised this money by holding meat raffles, through personal donations, money jars placed at Katherine businesses and from homemade muffin sales.
This is a brave thing for a young woman to do and I applaud her courage. I was honoured to donate money to her fundraising efforts. Well done, Allirra, you are a magnificent role model in Katherine.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak about my recent trip out bush, especially to the communities recently affected by Cyclone Lam. I flew in and the road driving to Gapuwiyak was terrible, as it always is after the Wet Season. I hope the responsible minister will drive down that road and look at it because every time I go there I come back missing a number plate, which is not funny to NT Fleet. It causes a headache every time. The road is always terrible and needs some improvements.
Flying to Ramingining was the most touching, as there were few trees in sight. Almost every second tree was gone and that really hurt. Being the local member for the area, visiting one of your communities and looking at the devastation, despair and hurt in people’s eyes, you can see it. To the Yolngu people the cyclone has not really affected their lives. It affected everybody else who is not from there, but not them. It is just another episode. That is the strong thing about my people. I am so proud to be their local member at the end of the day.
The team work from day one - they picked it all up. Even before Balanda people and contractors were there they were picking up the fallen trees and doing the heavy lifting. At devastating times like this they come together. I have not heard one person, except the member for Nhulunbuy, applaud the community for their efforts. Look at the ALPA team in Ramingining, Milingimbi and Gapuwiyak. Gapuwiyak was probably not as affected as Ramingining and Milingimbi. The local team in the community has come together and put in the effort. The men - even blokes as young as 16 - worked hard every day to clean up their community, and that is a lot. It is okay to go out there and have a photo taken with them, but at the end of the day you appreciate and see that they had to go through a lot.
Where I lived for almost all my life in my community, the only devastation we ever get is being flooded out of Katherine and the bridge collapsing every now and then. But that does not happen very often, so we are pretty lucky. Beswick, on the other hand, is under water again and I do not think the local member knows about it. Will a flood plan be created for the region? It has happened almost every second year; Beswick goes under water. People in the bottom camp area have now moved up to a new sub. No one is there to help them. It is the community and those who are employed and live there. Other than that no one is there to help them move all their belongings up to the new sub – nothing. That happens every year. Where is the support for the people on the ground?
There is a lady in Milingimbi whom I have known for some time who runs the art centre there. She is a beautiful woman and does a lot for Milingimbi. She is a very nice lady and was always opening her doors if we had nowhere to stay, which was very generous of her. The enthusiasm in the community and the pride they have to fix the problem, pick up the trees, help each other out, share the food and go hunting for the rest of the family – there is a great effort from everyone in Milingimbi and in Ramingining.
They told me the government has visited the area and what they have been promised. It is peanuts, as always and they are not impressed. I thank the Education minister for taking the time to go to Ramingining School. They need at least four new classrooms, a canteen and toilets. That school needs to be upgraded. The devastation caused there is terrible. There is no shade for the kids to sit in during recess and lunch; they all have to sit under the buildings. They now have to use the library to sit down, and we all know the population of Ramingining is pretty big.
Mr Chandler: They were beautiful trees.
Ms LEE: Yes, they were very beautiful trees, but there is nothing left. I have put it on my Facebook page if anyone wants to donate trees to Ramingining and Milingimbi, it would be appreciated.
Mr Higgins: They will not be as big.
Ms LEE: From little things big things grow, I am sure we have all heard that saying - that is what they teach. The kids would enjoy that and it would give them something to do. When they are old enough and when their kids have kids, they can say, ‘That is from when Cyclone Lam came through and I planted that tree’. It will be inspirational to talk about the history. They will remember that moment for the rest of their lives.
Then the second hit was by Cyclone Nathan, and after four weeks the houses are still leaking. The biggest concern of some of the locals was another cyclone coming and water running through their house. It was so bad they had to fill bags with rice or whatever they had in the house and put them against the door, because that is how much the water was smacking into the house, through the doors, the windows and louvres, you name it. It was terrifying. What they used might have been the only food they had, but they did what they had to do so their kids could have a good night’s sleep.
On Elcho Island and in Milingimbi the water starting running onto the floor inside and they could not sleep the whole night, which is terrifying. The government needs to look at this and consider it in the future.
There is hardly any investment in these communities. The health centres are far behind. Warruwi does not have a cyclone shelter. Does the member for Arafura realise the federal government has cut youth centre funding in Maningrida? They are on Facebook, crying out to have the funding reinstated, but is anyone listening to them? The saddest part about being elected into parliament is when you cannot represent the people who put you there.
I will speak up for the Maningrida mob and share their posts on my page as well as on my personal Facebook. I will tell them that the member for Arafura said he was not doing simply nothing. But that is exactly what I saw during the whole week; he did not come in during adjournments and say anything good about them. The member for Stuart does not care that Beswick is flooded.
There are also issues with petrol sniffing. The Attorney-General sent a letter to Beswick telling them that Children and Families will take their kids away. Already kids have been taken and your big final decision is to put up signs in the community for people not to take petrol there? Petrol will still get into that community whether you like it or not, but that is the best solution you can come up with. Now it is flooding, do you know where they will all be? They will be in Katherine. Ask the service station mob. It is terrifying during the floods there. These kids run around with their bottles, fill them up with free fuel and take off again.
The load on the police force is amazing; there is nothing they can do. There are no laws for sniffing petrol. What are we doing about that? These kids are killing themselves by the minute. They kill 10 000 brain cells every time they sniff, which they will never regenerate. It is not like marijuana or ice, it is not like anything. This is a different sort of sniffing altogether. As we all know, ice is getting out there in Katherine. It is a big issue. I have seen a lot of people I grew up with who are now on that stuff, which is sad. There is nothing I can do about it. I wish I had longer to talk about all the issues in the bush, especially in Katherine, but I will leave it for now.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I outline some of the small assistance that was given to Galiwinku, Ramingining and Milingimbi in the wake of Cyclones Lam and Nathan
I point out that the honourable member for Arafura took the time to come to me and show a great interest in the government’s effort to help these communities. His concern was genuine and heartfelt. It may seem trivial to some, but the need for sport and recreation activities in these communities has been highlighted by many people in the region. With much destroyed, the kids need something to amuse and occupy themselves.
In conjunction with the East Arnhem coordinator from the Department of the Chief Minister and the East Arnhem Regional Council, the Department of Sport and Recreation has provided assistance with sport and recreation activities. At this stage, officers from the department and other sports organisations have been sent to the affected communities. Activities are available for all community members, from youth to the elderly, and consist of AFL scratch matches, AFL sessions at schools, basketball games and other physical activities. Community events have been held, including discos, barbecues, movie nights and community fun days.
The council also sought assistance from the department in the form of a grant for damaged sport and recreation equipment. I am pleased to report that together with the member for Arafura we have handed over a grant for $10 000 to replace some of the equipment in the three communities. The council will use the grant for kids’ sports kits with various balls and other equipment, gaming consoles and audio visual equipment from all three communities.
The council said the purchase of these resources would help them restore some normality to their residence, even though it may be a small part. I thank the member for Arafura for his interest and support, and send my best wishes to those communities on their way to recovery.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member for Daly had to say about efforts to keep kids occupied in some of those communities. I want to put on the record that at the oval in Galiwinku in late 2011 - more likely 2012 - a special purpose grant funded the construction of football club room ablutions for the people of Galiwinku. To this day, they remain locked, unused and have not been opened because of issues with connecting the facility to appropriate sewerage works. Perhaps the Sport minister would like to move forward with that. It is unbelievable that in two-and-a-half years of government, that facility remains unused. I am sure Don Winimba, who is the president of the football club and a liaison officer with East Arnhem Regional Council, would have chewed your ear if he had reached you.
Mr Chandler: We will have a look.
Ms WALKER: Thank you.
I was disappointed today to receive confirmation on the back of rumours last week that the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner position at Yirrkala will finish at the end of this financial year. That disappointment, anger and sadness extends across the community and families of Yirrkala as well as other stakeholders dedicated to better outcomes for children, some of whom have contacted me. I have it on good advice that when this news was broken to the staff of Yirrkala School last week, where the service is embedded, quite a few tears were shed.
Six specialist Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner roles were created on the back of the Growing them strong, together report which was the result of the most extensive investigation into the state of child protection in the Territory’s history.
The report was authored by experts such as Children’s Commissioner Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby, and was presented to the government in 2010 at which time an undertaking was made to adopt all recommendations of that report, so many of which have been abandoned under the CLP.
The adoption of those recommendations created the six practitioner roles, which have made a positive difference in the communities and the lives of children and families where they have operated. Under the CLP those six practitioners have now shrunk to four. Practitioners have departed and under this government have not been replaced.
I stand to be corrected, but I understand those vacancies are most recently in Papunya and Elliott. If so I am sure the member for Namatjira and my colleague, the member for Barkly, will have something to say about that.
Yirrkala is losing its Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner because a greater need has been identified on the Tiwi Islands. I am pleased the needs of children and families on the Tiwi Islands have been recognised and they need to be supported, but the right thing to do is recruit a new practitioner, not fill the role at the expense of families and children at Yirrkala. They are seeing good success with this support mechanism in place.
The CLP can come into this House and put the case forward to open the way for increasing their salaries, but they cannot find the funds to fill vital positions in the Department of Children and Families which are pivotal in turning kids’ lives around.
I have observed the role of the practitioner at Yirrkala as a public servant expert in children and families working in an integrated capacity with kids and their families - as we know, in the Yolngu Indigenous culture there is often an extended family network - to help and support families raising their kids, assist with problems they might experience and be an important provider of preventative services to keep kids and families out of the child protection system.
The program has been successful in Yirrkala over the last three or so years because community and interagency stakeholders have worked well together. They have collaborated, tailored programs and worked towards solutions which are culturally sensitive and culturally appropriate.
People who understand about working with people in remote communities also know it takes time and patience to build relationships which are mutually respectful and based on trust. What it takes is this specialised practitioner role to lead it and build a successful, sustainable network to improve outcomes for children and families, which can be measured in any number of ways.
Over the Christmas break, often a time when kids will get into trouble during school holidays, Yirrkala had no break-ins or petrol sniffing outbreaks amongst their youth, without a doubt thanks to the dedicated and collaborative efforts of a number of people who work in children and families - from the Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited to the East Arnhem Regional Council youth programs - and the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioners, who worked together to keep kids occupied, kept an eye on them and kept them out of trouble.
I doubt we will see the same results in the mid-year school holidays if this position is gone, in the knowledge that there are cuts in my electorate - as with the rest of the Territory - to important youth programs funded under IAS. I found it appalling to hear the member for Stuart today say in Question Time that it is not her job to lobby for reinstated funding, that it was our jobs which is something we do naturally.
I am sure the Minister for Children and Families is on his way down in the lift now, ready to burst into the Chamber and accuse me of all manner of things. When he gets here perhaps he can explain why this position has been terminated …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you cannot reflect on the absence of anyone in the Chamber.
Ms WALKER: I am sorry, I forgot about that. He can explain why it is that this position has been terminated at Yirrkala, because the community is bewildered by it. Perhaps he can also explain how stripping $8m out of the last year’s Children and Families budget is acceptable. Removing preventative programs does not equate to improving children’s lives, but rather shows that the system is going backwards and worsening outcomes for kids. All the more so when the Chief Minister was in here this week, with his epiphany about the state of children at risk and exposed to danger on the back of a tragic and unforgiveable alleged act of physical and sexual violence upon a little girl in Alice Springs.
Next sittings in this parliament will see the 2015-16 budget handed down. Will we see the self-interested, self-promoting, unelected, unpopular Chief Minister with a similar budget to last year for his own department, for $33m worth of spin with no outcomes attached? Will we see much-needed funding restored to the Department of Children and Families in that budget, and resources and staff in place to help kids at risk before they find themselves in the child protection system? The simplistic ambulance at the bottom of the hill approach to the needs of the Territory’s disadvantaged children is the philosophy of the Minister for Children and Families.
In the meantime, on behalf of the people of Yirrkala I call for the Minister for Children and Families to step in and keep the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team practitioner role at Yirrkala in place, as it is very much needed.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have heard nothing but doom and gloom from members of the opposition. In fact, that is what we get every sittings. I recall that when we were in opposition they accused us of trashing and driving down the Territory. You are doing the exact same thing. You never want to look at the positives in the Northern Territory.
We have heard the doom and gloom, grand sweeping statements about a crime wave gripping our community. The member for Barkly felt it necessary to bang on about the good people of Palmerston, saying:
- Palmerston residents are fed up with the out-of-control crime wave.
I wonder if, before speaking on behalf of the good people of Palmerston …
Mr McCarthy: It was for the good people of Palmerston.
Mr CHANDLER: … whom he does not represent, he might have considered taking the time to investigate what attributed to this spike in property crime in Palmerston during the reporting period. He may have felt inclined to applaud the efforts of the hard-working members of the Northern Territory Police – rather than bang on about the dire circumstances – and their great success in foiling a well-organised crime syndicate which comprised six individuals from interstate, alleged to have committed 100 unlawful entries. He may like to applaud our hard-working police officers for arresting and charging the ringleader of this syndicate, believed to be responsible for over 40 unlawful entries. He may wish to applaud them for arresting and charging the other five members of this syndicate, believed to have collectively been involved in over 60 unlawful entries, and for pressing further charges against this crime syndicate relating to a number of associated property offences, such as stealing and unlawful use of a motor vehicle.
Had you taken the time to read the commander’s message on the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services website where the crime stats are hosted every month - not every six months like the former Labor government - you would have been able to inform yourself before evoking a message of dire circumstance. You would have realised our hard-working police officers deserve a round of applause because not only did they foil a very successful interstate crime syndicate, but they rounded up, arrested and charged a group of five recidivist juvenile property offenders and put them before the courts. This group of youths was charged with approximately 100 offences, a number of which were unlawful entries.
Had you taken the time to look at what the crime trend was impacting on this spike you would have discovered that an adult and youth duo had been actively targeting building sites and industrial premises over this time, and were collectively responsible for over 40 unlawful entries and the theft of $250 000 in stolen property. The arrest of these two prolific offenders has seen a large quantity of stolen goods returned to their lawful owners and, once again, our hard-working police officers deserve applause.
Palmerston police engage in target management strategies, including bail compliance checks. Police have conducted well over 700 bail checks since the start of the year and have detected over 70 breached bail offences, usually dealt with by arrest. Palmerston police have also conducted close to 2500 proactive patrols in identified hot spots since the start of the year and continue to employ a series of disruptive police activities. Had you done your homework, you would know the reasons for this spike and understand the offending outlined above and the excellent arrest results in this regard.
I note you had nothing, zip, nada to say about the fantastic results in your own town of Tennant Creek. Is there nothing to say about Tennant Creek at all? The outstanding results have realised continuing significant decreases in total property offences; they are down by 33% compared to the previous year. House break-ins are down by 36% in Tennant Creek and that should be applauded. Tennant Creek has realised a 60% decrease in assaults is a marvellous result. The member for Barkly should be applauding not only this government, but also Tennant Creek police for the marvellous work they do.
Member for Barkly, you have been scaremongering and misleading the people of Palmerston because you did not have the ticker to applaud the local police in your electorate of Tennant Creek, which is shameful. The results speak for themselves, but in jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory there can be peaks and troughs with our stats. It is a small jurisdiction and sometimes we see spikes in levels of crime. I would be complaining if they were not solved or protecting us and doing their job. In this case there were some amazing efforts by our police and it shows you that a handful of people can make a huge difference to the statistics and make it appear a lot worse than it is.
In opposition we had fun with statistics. I used to love that you could get the same set of statistics to tell two completely different stories. I understand that, but if you understand the context of the statistics, you will see that a few people had made an amazing difference in the statistics in Palmerston. Another amazing result was achieved by our hard-working police officers.
We should look at some of the areas with a huge decrease in crime and other activities, especially around antisocial drinking in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. This is a lesson in statistics; they can be used to create different stories and perceptions.
The police have done a fantastic job, and a few people made a huge difference in Palmerston. It is great to report that the police are on to it and have taken effective action.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister neglected to outline the nature of the adjournment I made about Palmerston, because it talked about alcohol-related assaults, antisocial behaviour and the holistic failure of the TBLs pushing problem drinkers out of the region and into places like Palmerston.
Thank you, minister, for the statistics on property crime solutions. I commend the police and I acknowledged the TBLs at least three times in the adjournment. As you said, in opposition we challenge you. In government you twist and turn the semantics. Not once did you mention alcohol-related assaults or antisocial behaviour in Palmerston and I did not mention it, so my apologies go to the people of Palmerston. A critical assault – a stabbing – then happened, where the two people involved were residents of Tennant Creek. That announcement did not make me feel good.
You can twist and turn, but the adjournment was about a holistic failure of the CLP’s alcohol policy and I presented a very clear alternative for consideration by government, so bring it on, minister. It was great to see you on your feet. I feel good about being an opposition member, because it comes down to the old saying, ‘If you can’t take the heat you should get out of the kitchen’.
I wish to speak about the CLP cut to homebuyers’ assistance which is making it harder for Territorians to buy their first home. The litany of broken promises from the CLP continues. One that is stark in the mind of Territorians is the promise to bring down the cost of living, yet the reality is different. The CLP has raised the cost of living with higher power bills and in the savage cuts to homebuyer assistance.
Just after taking office the CLP axed first home owner programs like HomeStart Extra and My New Home. This saw first home buyer rates plunge almost 40% in the Northern Territory. They followed with removing stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers. Under Labor first home buyers received the stamp duty exemption on the first $540 000 of the value of their home in new and existing homes - a saving of up to $26 730 - and were eligible for an additional grant of $7000 for new or existing homes. On 4 December 2012 the CLP government announced that the stamp duty first home owner concession would no longer be available to first home buyers, costing first home buyers up to $26 730. On 1 January this year, the CLP slashed the first home buyer grants.
The CLP removed the $12 000 first home buyer grant for purchases of existing homes in Darwin, and the $25 000 first home buyer grant for an existing home in regional areas. It is well known that first home buyers can often only afford to buy older homes. Despite this the CLP slashed the scheme, excluding the purchase of older homes. While they argued that the new home purchases stimulate building, this change risks making it harder for young people who cannot afford a new property to enter the market. Many empty nesters sell their old homes to downsize to a new property. These often provide the affordable entry point for first home buyers who cannot afford a new house and do not want to live in a unit.
Under these changes, the CLP has stripped all home buyer assistance for first home buyers that can only afford older properties. Since the CLP was elected, a first home buyer wanting to purchase an existing home in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area has lost up to $33 000 in home buyer assistance from this mean-spirited government. First home buyers wanting to buy an older home in regional areas of the Territory, such as Tennant Creek, have lost up to $51 000 in home buyer assistance with the combined loss of the stamp duty concession and first home buyer grant.
The CLP are making it harder for Territorians to buy homes and stay in the Territory. Since the removal of first home buyer grants for existing properties from 1 January this year, finance commitments for first home buyers dropped by 27% for the month of January.
First home buyers purchasing new properties have also gone backwards under CLP housing policy, losing around $7 000 in homebuyer assistance since the removal of the stamp duty concession. The CLP has broken its promise to cut the cost of living for first home buyers in the Northern Territory.
This is a serious matter which the Territory opposition has brought to this House as the government brings down another budget. This is an example of policy that was scrapped. This is an example of cost savings of about $30m for the government, from memory, but we on this side of the House want to challenge the government and ask them about the bigger impact not only on young families getting into their first home, but on the Territory economy as a whole.
We have seen the reduction in the finance sector, families unable to get into a first home, as well as seeing a punitive policy which is now contributing to the rapid increase in the cost of living. We need balance in this market. There is an opportunity to move back to a realistic policy regarding the homebuyer assistance for older properties. I encourage the Treasurer to reconsider this position from the CLP in the 2015-16 budget and beyond, especially recognising people in regional areas. We know about the land release programs in the Top End. I was involved in those programs, working with the department and experts to master plan the suburbs rolling out under the CLP government’s jurisdiction.
There is also a great need in the regions. We need to assist young families, stimulate the regional economies and get young families into their first homes, as well as experience the add-on effects of stimulating the construction industry, renovations, landscaping and those young families with their local hardware shop purchases for DIY tasks. They will have stories to tell their children about how they got their first start.
I take this opportunity to ask the Treasurer to consider a clear alternative presented by the Territory opposition, in stark contrast to the member for Brennan who terms it all doom and gloom.
I also wish to thank the staff in the Hansard unit, because I came into this place with a great interest in Territory history, and I see the Hansard as an amazing record of what is conducted in this place. A record I will consult for many moons during this privileged position, and long after it. I think those who take the time to assess the Hansard will see that Territory Labor, from 2012, continued to present this government with a challenging opposition, with a clear debate and with alternatives which can be acted upon.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. I want to put my thanks on the record to honourable members in the Chamber today for their understanding with some of the technicalities in the passage of bill Serial 115. This can be tricky for new players and I hope to be more proficient with this come the April sittings.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016