2012-10-25
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that it is my intention to present the Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator at Government House. I request all honourable members to assemble on the verandah of Government House at 11.30 am and accompany me to present the address.
A program has been distributed to all honourable members outlining the order of proceedings. There will be a group photograph after the presentation to the Administrator, for the historical record.
Ms LAWRIE: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there was no advice to the opposition that the presentation of the Address-in-Reply to the Administrator would occur this morning.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst this is a matter for the Speaker’s office to communicate, I am certain our office had been in contact with the office of the leader of opposition business in the last week about this.
When I went through the business with the leader of opposition business some time ago, I said that we wanted to get the Addresses-in-Reply out of the way as quickly as possible. I had that conversation with the leader of opposition business with the purpose of getting it off the notice paper and getting the reply back to the Administrator as quickly as possible.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): The Leader of Government Business is correct. We did discuss the debating of the Address-in-Reply yesterday and finishing that as soon as possible; but we were never notified of parliamentary business ceasing between 11 am and 12 noon. It is perfectly reasonable for the notice to have been given the night before. This is normal practice. Notice is given at least the night before of the ceasing of parliamentary business.
Normally, this notice does not come from the Leader of Government Business; it comes from the Whip, which is the convention. There is no standing order about when notice is given but it is the convention that the Whip or the Speaker’s office advises. That did not occur. We will be going to the Administrator’s place; all we are saying is that notice would have been nice, especially of business in this House ceasing between 11 am and 12 noon.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if my office has been neglectful in not informing you properly of the suspension of the parliament to go to the Administrator’s office, I apologise. I am sure something of this nature will not happen again and you will receive correct and proper advice.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Leanyer Primary School students accompanied by their class teachers. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to you. I hope you enjoy your time in Parliament House, watching the parliament in operation.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby nominate Ms Larisa Lee and Mrs Bess Price to act as Deputy Chair of Committees when requested to do so by the Speaker; given under my hand this 25th day of October 2012.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that, accompanied by honourable members, I attended upon Her Honour the Administrator this day and presented her the Address-in-Reply to the speech Her Honour delivered on the occasion of the opening of the Twelfth Assembly and that Her Honour had been pleased to make the following reply:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Maningrida Middle School students accompanied by Mr Stuart Dwyer, Ms Helen Williams, Mrs Helen Wearing, Ms Noni Eather and Mr Terence Hayes. 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!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Thank you, and welcome to all those students from Maningrida.
Madam Speaker, the bill I introduce today is a major national transport reform involving the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory. In late 2009, the Council of Australian Governments endorsed the recommendation by the Australian Transport Council to create a single national rail safety regulator. This move was to overcome the differences in regulation that resulted from states and territories inconsistently implementing nationally agreed reforms.
The primary focus of the new law is to develop improved productivity and safety to industry while minimising red tape. Reducing red tape for rail operators in the Territory involved in cross-border activities by having a single national regulator means operators will no longer have to apply for accreditation in each jurisdiction in which they operate, nor will they need to abide by several different laws or pay multiple fees for what is essentially the same activity. This is good news for rail operators as the move to a national regulator is expected to deliver savings in time and money through improved productivity.
The national regulator will be based in Adelaide. However, industry and the Territory community can be assured that a permanent staffing presence will be retained in the Territory. The national law is based on the previously agreed national model rail safety legislation which the Northern Territory implemented with very little variation.
Given this consistency, the implementation of the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2012 will result in minimal changes for operators on the Darwin to Tarcoola railway. There will, of course, be some changes to our existing rail laws, including clearly setting-out the manner in which rail transport operators must make an assessment of risks for the purpose of their safety management system. This greater clarity will improve regulatory efficiency and simplify the compliance process.
A requirement on the national regulator is to undertake a cost-benefit analysis when considering making a decision that might result in significant costs to an operator. This will provide additional protection to the operator who may otherwise experience a significant financial loss from a decision by the regulator.
The standard of training for rail safety workers will be improved by ensuring training is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Quality Training Framework. This will ensure nationally consistent, high-quality training and assessment services, but will not disadvantage operators in remote areas who do not have easy access to an approved training provider.
We are increasing penalties, both in fines - currently the maximum is 400 penalty units, that being equivalent to $56 400, whereas it is up to $3m under the national laws - and imprisonment. Currently there is a maximum of two years in the Territory whereas it is a maximum of five years under the national law.
These changes will contribute to a more robust rail industry with consistent laws throughout the country. The Northern Territory will retain its rail safety policy role and will, through representation on national committees, continue to ensure the needs of Territory industry and Territorians are maintained.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to establish an independent Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority with executive powers for environmental assessment, and compliance and enforcement. The new authority will be known as the NT EPA.
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Authority Act established an Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, as an advisory body to government. Although this act was amended in 2010 to expand the powers of the EPA, the role remained limited to conducting research, inquiries and reviews on emerging and strategic issues, environmental incidents and decisions which affect ecologically sustainable development of the Territory. Environmental assessment and regulatory functions remained the responsibility of a government department. This dichotomy of roles created confusion in the community regarding regulatory responsibility.
More recently, the exercise of the assessment and regulatory functions by the mega Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport resulted in a perception of inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry.
During the 2012 election campaign, I committed to establishing a fully-functional, independent NT EPA with advisory, assessment, and regulatory functions. This commitment was driven by a desire to provide certainty, transparency, and efficiency of environmental assessment and regulatory functions to both industry and the community.
Today, I put forward the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill to deliver on this commitment. The bill establishes an independent NT EPA with comprehensive functions that will lead to:
enhanced efficiency and effectiveness of environmental assessment and regulation by bringing together advice on the legislative framework, transparent environmental assessment, and ongoing regulation of environmental matters
improved environmental assessment processes with a focus on timeliness and opportunities for streamlining the Territory and Commonwealth assessment processes
improved engagement with industry and development of clear environmental guidelines and standards
enhanced strategic approaches to environmental assessment with stronger links between planning and environmental assessment through membership of the NT EPA chairperson on the new Northern Territory planning commission and the membership of the Northern Territory planning commission chairperson on the NT EPA;
improved investigative compliance and enforcement powers through greater autonomy of the NT EPA.
The key elements of my election commitment were the independence and transparency of the new NT EPA. I will now outline to honourable members the significant provisions of the bill that deliver on these elements.
In summary, the bill ensures the new NT EPA will be independent and that decisions relating to the environment will be transparent by:
giving the NT EPA independent legal status
providing that the NT EPA and its members are not subject to ministerial direction
imposing reporting requirements on ministers in relation to advice and recommendations by the NT EPA
requiring appointment of members to the NT EPA by the Administrator having regard to specific criteria
enabling the NT EPA to make guidelines about administrative practices and procedures
requiring NT EPA members to disclose interests.
I will now turn to the bill in more detail.
Establishing the NT EPA as an independent statutory body means it is a separate legal entity from the Crown, able to sue and be sued, hold property and enter contracts. This gives the NT EPA real independence and identity.
To further ensure the NT EPA will operate independently, the bill specifically states the NT EPA and its members are not subject to ministerial direction when performing the NT EPA’s functions.
As the Environment minister, I can request that the NT EPA provides advice; I will not be able to provide direction as to the content of that advice. This was an important element of the previous EPA and is something I have ensured has been retained.
The changes I am proposing are not just a cosmetic exercise. The commitment I have made is for a strong, independent NT EPA with real powers to ensure development is undertaken in an environmentally responsible way, and this will be achieved through the bill.
An important element of this bill is the manner in which it imposes ministerial accountability for decisions not to adopt the NT EPA’s advice or recommendations. In the case of advice other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice. Those reasons may be made public by the NT EPA. This is a practical solution to concerns regarding the delays by the previous government in responding to advice provided by the current EPA.
In respect to recommendations made in an environmental assessment report, we have taken this commitment to transparency one step further.
In conjunction with a series of other amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures designed to streamline processes which I will outline below, this bill amends the Environmental Assessment Act to require the minister for the Environment, or the responsible approving minister, to provide reasons to the Legislative Assembly as to why recommendations contained in an environmental assessment report are not being adopted.
Environmental assessment reports are designed to assist responsible ministers approve projects in the most environmentally sustainable manner possible. However, sometimes, there are other considerations and practical and pragmatic decisions that have to be made. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency about this part of the decision-making process has, to date, resulted in concerns in our community as to the efficacy of environmental assessments.
This amendment will address these community concerns and improve the transparency and accountability of ministers in the environmental assessment and project approval processes. At the same time, it provides confidence to industry that ministers can and will continue to give practical consideration to environmental assessment recommendations rather than being forced to apply a general rule that all recommendations are appropriate at the time.
Whilst these amendments will make ministers more transparent and accountable, the amendments also place additional and complementary responsibilities on the NT EPA to ensure its recommendations and reports are truly reflective of the triple bottom line approach to decision-making and support ecologically sustainable development. In other words, the NT EPA will have to get the balance right if its recommendations are to be followed.
These are important elements of the bill, but this is not all it does. The bill will repeal the existing Environment Protection Authority Act and, in doing so, will cause the current EPA board to be dissolved. Members of the new NT EPA board will be appointed by the Administrator having regard to the criteria set out in the bill. These criteria are more detailed than those specified in the existing legislation, and are designed to give greater guidance to the Administrator in making appointments.
The criteria include a general regard for the range of skills and knowledge required by the NT EPA to enable it to exercise its powers and perform it functions effectively.
Specific criteria are identified relating to environmental, legal and regulatory, and economic, social and business qualifications, skills knowledge and experience.
The Administrator may have regard to potential member’s skills, knowledge and experience relating to regional and Indigenous issues and working with the community.
These criteria will give industry and the community confidence that people with appropriate knowledge, skills and experience are giving advice and making recommendations to government.
We have all heard stories about independent authorities who start to act outside their areas of responsibility, or stop acting in the best interest of the community in the way they undertake their functions. I can assure honourable members that this cannot happen with the new NT EPA.
This bill includes provisions that specify when the office of a member becomes vacant. These are standard provisions and include where a member resigns, or their period of appointment has ended and they have not been reappointed. Where a person has been convicted of an indictable offence or sentenced to imprisonment for an offence, their appointment will be terminated automatically. This is because we do not believe it is in the public interest for members of the NT EPA to have been convicted of crimes.
The bill contains power for the Administrator to terminate appointments. These are fairly standard provisions and are based on what is in the public interest in relation to the members of the NT EPA.
The provisions include one important element to ensure the continued accountability of its members, that being the definition of misconduct. The bill provides that the Administrator may terminate the appointment of a member on the grounds of misconduct. Misconduct has been defined to include where a member is not acting in accordance with the objectives of the NT EPA or not fulfilling the duties of the NT EPA.
This is not another way of saying that the NT EPA has to act in the best interests of government or the appointment of members will be terminated; it is not an attempt to limit the independence of the NT EPA. I am confident that the NT EPA members will give the frank and fearless advice we expect from our independent environmental regulator.
What the provisions will do is provide the Administrator with the power to consider how the NT EPA is functioning and to make any necessary changes to its members to ensure the NT EPA acts in a manner consistent with what government, the community and industry expect from its environmental regulator.
I have been talking about termination provisions which are designed to give government the ability to act when something goes wrong, something I am sure honourable members would agree is a necessary, albeit unpleasant, consideration when governments establish independent authorities like the NT EPA.
I have appointed Dr William Freeland as the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Environmental Protection Agency within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to oversee the transition to the new NT EPA. Dr Freeland will also be the government’s nominee for the Chairperson of the NT EPA.
Dr Freeland brings a wealth of experience to the NT EPA, having worked in senior positions with the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission, and as a senior environmental consultant.
Dr Freeland began his career with the Parks and Wildlife Commission in 1983 having completed his PhD at the Universities of Chicago and Michigan, studying the behaviour and ecology of primates in Ugandan rainforests, which was followed by six years as an academic in the United States.
In 1992, Dr Freeland accepted a position with the Department of Environment and Heritage in Queensland but soon returned to the Territory.
By 1994, Dr Freeland held a Deputy Director position in the Parks and Wildlife Commission before being appointed as the Director of the Commission in 1998. Dr Freeland has worked for the past nine years as an environmental consultant in Darwin.
Dr Freeland’s skills, knowledge and experience make him eminently suitable to guide the transition to the new NT EPA and to perform the role of Chairperson of the NT EPA.
Dr Freeland’s nomination as Chairperson demonstrates this government’s commitment to making recommendations to the Administrator consistent with the criteria identified in the legislation.
An important element of my government’s election commitment is the improved integration of environmental and planning processes, particularly in the early stages of proposals. It is important to note that by including the Chair of the NT EPA as an ex officio member of the planning commission, and by including the Chair of the planning commission as an ex officio member of the NT EPA we are one step closer to this integration.
I expect that the dual roles of these chairs will bring greater certainty and confidence to business in the planning process without compromising the environment.
I stated earlier that members will need to meet criteria for appointment. While the criteria obviously do not apply to the Chair of the planning commission, who is appointed on other grounds, overall, the criteria for members have been designed to reflect the breadth of the new NT EPA’s functions. The functions of the NT EPA will be to:
provide advice to the minister
undertake environmental assessments
undertake functions associated with the management of waste and pollution, including compliance and enforcement.
As I noted earlier, on receipt of such advice the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will have six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice.
Environmental assessment and regulatory functions will be undertaken by the NT EPA through the administration of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act, Part 7 of the Water Act which relates to waste discharge licences, and other environmental legislation as required. In exercising its powers and functions, the NT EPA will be expected to have regard to its objectives. The bill identifies the objectives of the NT EPA which are to:
promote ecologically sustainable development
protect the environment having regard to the need to enable ecologically sustainable development
promote effective waste management and waste minimisation strategies
enhance community and business confidence in the environmental protection regime of the Territory.
These objectives reflect the intent of government to establish a fully functional NT EPA aimed at providing government, the community and industry with appropriate advice on environmental issues and administration of the environmental protection function in the context of the growing and developing Territory.
The establishment of the NT EPA demonstrates this government’s commitment to providing certainty, transparency, and confidence to industry and the community in relation to environmental protection and ecologically sustainable development.
The NT EPA will assist industry progression of ecologically sustainable development, providing certainty and confidence in information and regulatory requirements and decision-making processes associated with environmental assessments and environmental licences.
The establishment of the new NT EPA does not create any additional regulatory burden for business as there will be no duplication of functions. Environmental assessment and compliance and enforcement functions under existing legislation will be transferred to the NT EPA. No new regulatory functions are being created.
Priorities for the new NT EPA include preparation of guidance material for industry and a review of environmental legislation to ensure the environmental protection regime for the Northern Territory should reflect industry and the community’s expectations.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill contains consequential amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures. It also contains consequential amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and regulations. These amendments will ensure the NT EPA will have the necessary legislative authority to undertake its functions.
I will turn first to the amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures. These amendments are designed to give the NT EPA the power to make decisions in relation to when an environmental assessment is required, the level of environmental assessment that should be undertaken and the contents of any environmental assessment report. These amendments will streamline the environmental assessment process, improving efficiency and timeliness.
Once the NT EPA has completed an assessment report, the report will be provided, in this case, to me, and I will provide it to my appropriate colleague, the responsible minister for that proposal. A number of the amendments clarify my responsibilities in this area.
Because of the independence of the NT EPA and its new role in the assessment process, ministers will no longer be able to influence the outcome of an assessment report. A new power has therefore been included in the environmental assessment administrative procedures that will allow me to provide comments on the assessment report at the same time that I provide the report to the responsible minister.
In keeping with the commitment for transparency and accountability, any comments I make that are not in support of the assessment report must be tabled with a statement of reasons in the Legislative Assembly. This will apply regardless of the extent to which the responsible minister considers my comments in making his own decision.
I will now turn briefly to the amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and regulations. These amendments are primarily administrative in nature. They affect the transfer of responsibilities for the functions under the act and regulations from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to the new NT EPA
A review of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act identified a small number of functions currently held by the minister that are more appropriately exercised by the NT EPA. These are powers in relation to the ability to require or accept a compliance plan and to enter into performance agreements. The transfer of these powers to the NT EPA is fitting with the role of the NT EPA, and will provide the NT EPA and businesses wishing to address non-compliance issues with access to options other than costly enforcement mechanisms.
I have retained the remaining ministerial powers under the act, such as those relating to the development and approval of environmental protection objectives, as, while I expect the NT EPA will provide me with advice in relation to these matters, the legislative nature of these matters makes it inappropriate for these powers to be exercised by the NT EPA.
There will be a need to amend the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act and the Water Act to give the NT EPA powers under these acts. These amendments will be pursued separately.
The consequential amendments I have outlined above are necessary to create the legislative framework to establish a fully functional and independent NT EPA. It will provide independent, transparent, and timely environmental assessments and regulatory functions of waste management and pollution control for the Northern Territory, and be more reflective of EPAs in other jurisdictions.
In keeping with its role as the environmental regulator, I anticipate the NT EPA will make recommendations for the further review and improvement of this legislation, and the environmental protection regime more broadly. With the Northern Territory poised for a period of significant expansion of industry both in urban and regional areas, it is critical that growth is managed in an efficient, sustainable, and transparent manner. As an independent NT EPA is the best way to achieve this, I look forward to receiving the NT EPA’s advice on a range of issues.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is for an act to reconstitute Tourism NT as a commission. Tourism is a vital pillar to the Territory economy. As such, this government accords it top priority and is committed to revitalising tourism in the Territory. The commission is key to achieving this.
The commission will bring a new rigour and depth of expertise to growing tourism in the Northern Territory. The tourism industry in the Northern Territory looks to the government tourism body to set the marketing direction of the Territory. We will be identifying candidates with the skills and capacity to do just that, and maintain ongoing responsibility for agency performance to form the commission and give it real clout.
The chair designate of the commission is long-term Territorian and self-made businessman, Michael Bridge. Mr Bridge is the CEO of Airnorth and the Chair of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, a position he has held for the last seven years. He is a recipient of the National Australia Bank’s Medal for Management Innovation and, in 2008, was awarded the Australian Aviation Personality of the Year for his work in creating an industry-wide forum bringing together the 12 industry associations in an effort to find a consolidated voice.
Mr Bridge has a deep understanding of local issues and I am confident he will maximise the Territory’s economic and tourism potential. He is eminently qualified to lead the commission board and will be a very hands-on chairman, ensuring the board is proactive in its work and informed and independent in its thinking.
The board will liaise with industry as necessary to remain informed on tourism issues and opportunities and provide strategic and valuable advice to me. It will be a great asset in helping to encourage the whole-of-government approach to maximising links between tourism, recreation, events, urban development, and the natural environment.
Joining Mr Bridge on the commission will be Tony Mayell, head of the former Northern Territory Tourism Commission until 2001. He will be Executor Director Southern Region for the Department of the Chief Minister and CEO of Tourism NT based in Alice Springs. This appointment not only reinforces the whole-of-government approach we are taking to rebuild this important industry after years of neglect, it recognises the importance of Central Australia to tourism.
The commission will be drawn from the best in the industry in the Territory and nationally to ensure we have the best minds available to put tourism in the Territory back on track.
These people will have authority and responsibility for all major aspects of strategy and policy development and the consequent operational outcomes. What a contrast to the situation we have inherited.
The previous government put in place an advisory board, failed to fill its full complement of positions, and failed to give real responsibility. This argument is symptomatic of the neglect and disrespect the previous government accorded tourism and it must be brought to an end.
Lest any of my honourable colleagues are in doubt as to the importance of tourism in the Northern Territory, and of the task for which we seek to establish a commission, let me present a few facts about the people employed in it and the contribution it makes to the Northern Territory economy.
People employed directly due to tourism make up 11.6% of the Territory workforce, almost 50% higher than the national share of just 8%. Around one in eight employed Territorians has a job as a result of the tourism and hospitality sector.
The tourism industry is made up of nearly 700 businesses, including accommodation providers, attractions, tour and transport operators and vehicles and vessel hire companies. Approximately 10% of these are medium to large businesses with national or international operations. However, 90% of the industry is made up of sole traders - micro or small businesses owned and operated solely within the Northern Territory. Around 65% of the businesses are based in the Top End and 35% in Central Australia.
This volume of small business, combined with the Territory’s small population base, remote locations and other unique aspects means Tourism NT has traditionally played a stronger leadership role for the industry than most of its state and territory counterparts. The tourism industry relies on Tourism NT to set the marketing direction for the Territory. That is why it is so important to have the right structure and the right people driving it.
I turn now to the contribution tourism makes to the economy. On the previous government’s watch, tourism was allowed to decline for many years. However, as the Territory’s leading industry employer, a sector complementary to resources and a bridge between cultures, tourism is well placed to deliver maximum social benefits to the NT and to grow the value of the visitor economy in the Territory.
The total contribution tourism makes to the economy consists of both direct and indirect contributions. Many people do not think about the indirect and direct contributions. The indirect or flow-on effects of tourism demand include supply of goods and services provided by non-tourism industries to satisfy demand of industries directly supplying the visitors. Transport by air, sea and land generates the largest direct contribution followed by accommodation.
In all, tourism contributes an estimated $1.4bn in gross value-added product to the Northern Territory economy - $1.4bn. That is 8.5% compared to 5.3% nationally.
These are significant figures. How much might they improve if the decline in tourism could be arrested, even reversed? We must focus on driving demand for holidays and conventions - an area with a potentially high growth rate - through a strongly focused marketing campaign within our industry.
The new board of commissioners for Tourism NT will provide that expertise and focus. It will also be charged with delivering the benefits of tourism to all Territorians. This includes ensuring a focus on our regions and making that dreaded Berrimah Line a thing of the past. For tourism to fire in the Territory it has to fire in all parts of the Territory.
I am pleased, therefore, to present this bill to members. I am confident the commission will aid this government to re-regionalise the Northern Territory and establish other hubs of activity outside Darwin, provide strategic direction to ensure tourism is flourishing in all parts of the Northern Territory, preside over a professional restructure of Tourism NT and set a new marketing direction, and initiate regional harmony and esteem for an industry that matters to the whole of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the Leader of Government Business advised early yesterday that they will be seeking to pass this bill through all stages on urgency during these sittings.
We indicated to the Leader of Government Business that we would need a briefing before we could decide if we support this urgency, which is reasonable. Our shadow minister asked for a briefing before this bill was introduced and the motion debated in the Chamber. We were told we could not have that briefing until Friday.
We asked again for that briefing before this debate on urgency occurred and were told again we could not have that briefing until Friday. If you are not ready to brief us on the bill, we do not believe you are ready to pass it.
If you rush this you will bungle it. You have form already, minister for Tourism; you bungled the move of the department from Darwin to Alice Springs. If you rush this legislation you will bungle it, and if you are not ready to brief us on this legislation we do not believe you are ready to pass it.
Parliamentary process exists in this Chamber so mistakes can be avoided. The common procedure is to have the bill sit on the despatch box for at least a month so industry and others have a chance to comment on the detail in that bill.
If you are not ready to brief us, I do not believe you are ready to pass the bill and the details should be left on the table for others to have a chance to comment.
You cannot consult on the detail of this bill in one week.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are being a bit pre-emptive, Mr Gunner. You are arguing against the bill at the moment.
Mr GUNNER: I am arguing against the third notice which is the urgency motion.
Mr Elferink: It has not been moved yet. At the moment you are arguing against the bill.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Tourism NT Bill 2012 (Serial 8) passing through all stages on Thursday, 1 November 2012.
Mr Elferink: Now you can attack him for everything you are attacking him with.
Mr GUNNER: We know exactly where we are, member for Port Darwin. The Minister for Tourism did not know where he was because he did not jump to talk to his urgency motion.
As I said, if you are not ready to brief us on this bill, you are not ready to pass this bill, you will bungle it. Industry needs the time and the opportunity to comment on the detail in this bill. You already have form; you bungled moving tourism from Darwin to Alice Springs. We are approaching anything this minister does with caution because he already has form on bungling things and if you rush this bill, you will bungle it.
The industry needs a chance to comment on the detail in this bill and if you give them only one week, they will not have a chance. You need to talk to industry. Give them a chance to comment.
Tourism Top End should have a chance to comment, as should tourism operators around Katherine, the Jawoyn and tour operators in Arafura. What about joint management? Traditional owners, park rangers should have a chance to comment; so should the cruise ship industry.
The commission you want to establish will set the direction and strategy of tourism for the next four years. You want to rush it through in one week and not give tourism operators and industry an opportunity to comment on the commission you want to put in place.
You need to give people a chance to look at the detail in your bill and decide if that is what they want.
The parliamentary processes exist to avoid mistakes and if you rush this you will bungle it. You have form already, minister for Tourism, on bungling things in this area. You need to take the time, get it right and pass it in the next sittings, which is only a delay of three or four weeks, and consult properly with industry. That is not too much to ask.
If you cannot brief us on this bill before the urgency motion, then you are not ready to pass it and we cannot support urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support the urgency motion for very similar reasons to the ones I put forward yesterday. Standing Order 179 says:
I have yet to be shown that a bill to reconstitute the Tourism Commission that would be delayed one month, which is the normal process for bills in this House, would create hardship. That is what the ruling should be. Will the delay of this bill cause hardship?
I listened to the minister for Tourism’s second reading, but would you believe there was no explanation, as was done by the Chief Minister, of the clauses of this bill? There was no explanation as to, for example, the introduction of this bill; the establishment of a new constitution, the chief executive officer - that is what I would expect. We got a run-down on the broad advantages of tourism for the Northern Territory which is fine, but I look at second readings specifically to see what that second reading says about the bill. I did not hear any of that in relation to this.
This is a unicameral parliament and it is really important that we do not move away from processes unless it can be proven that needs to happen. That is what urgency is. We do not have any other scrutiny. We do not have an Upper House. We have a Chair of Committees, which is one of the most important areas of this parliament where we can scrutinise bills. That is the key. We scrutinise bills.
We are now being told the government is going to bring in a commission and we will have one week to look at the bill. You might say that is all right, it is only a little piece of paper like this. I am not in the industry but I would be asking the industry what its opinion is. If you take up what the Chief Minister has said, the industry goes right across the Territory. We should be asking all of the Territory involved in tourism what they think.
So, whether there are people near Robinson River, Borroloola, Uluru, Timber Creek or wherever, the question is whether they have an opportunity to say if this is good. I am not making any comments on whether it is good or bad, I am just saying we should not be slipping into the attitude, ‘Well we need it in a hurry because it is convenient’.
Urgency is about hardship. Urgency should only be used in very special cases. I understood the member for Port Darwin’s argument yesterday, which had merit because that was a slightly different case of a bill that sat in parliament for three months ago.
In general, I have to ask why? Compare this with a bill that said PAWA would not be able to discharge waste into Darwin Harbour because of a legal ruling that said their licence could potentially be invalid and we had to pass legislation urgently to allow that process to legally occur. Now, I regard that as urgent.
It would be a shame for a new government which espoused so many principles when it was in opposition to seem to drop those principles when in government. It would be a shame to say in the first week that we, all of a sudden, decided a bill for the Northern Territory Tourist Commission was urgent, that it would cause hardship - to whom? It might cause hardship to the industry because the industry might say, ‘Gee, we did not have a chance to look at that’; but that is not the hardship we are talking about which would give this legitimacy to be passed under the suspension of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I have nothing against the bill but the process is wrong. It is abuse of Standing Order 179. I do not know whether the Speaker can make a ruling, but if the Speaker makes a ruling that it does not fit the criteria for hardship, then this motion should be defeated. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there is an understanding from opposition that it is the clear intention of the government to establish a tourism commission. We understand the intention. The issue here is the matter of urgency.
We believe strongly this should be debated in the November sittings of parliament. We believe very strongly that a part of good government is the system we have in place where legislation sits on statute books for over a month.
We know there may be quirks of time every now and again where the period falls a day short and we do not have an issue with that. We have expressed that view in conversations between the Whip and the Leader of Government Business; where the time period is just a day short or when there is a ‘technical’ urgency on some legislation.
However, to rush this through on urgency during these sittings without consulting with the tourism industry sets the bar very low for this new government. It is one thing to treat this parliament, the members opposite and the Independent member with a degree of contempt by ignoring our genuine and grave concerns about urgency, but it is quite another thing to treat the industry with contempt.
Realistically, we all know that tourism, as an industry, is incredibly diverse. As the member for Nelson has pointed out, we have a vast geographical area in which tourism operates. I understand there are very exciting tourism opportunities in the Northern Territory. Have a look at what the Jawoyn are doing around their region, particularly in Nitmiluk.
A commission will set the policy going forward for the next four years. This legislation gives effect to the structure and the detail of the powers of the commission. Industry stakeholders will genuinely want to see that, to hear from government how that will operate, to put forward ideas and suggestions which may, or may not, materially change aspects of this, but which may come up with some value-added amendments. This is why we have the process of draft bills sitting on the books for over a month.
I know, having been there, that the people of the Tiwi Islands are genuinely engaged in tourism opportunities. There are businesses there making the most of those opportunities. They would have an expectation that if there is a structural or policy change within tourism they would be consulted.
The government wants to play politics on this. This is a little test of maturity. I am being genuine in saying no issue or urgency arises because, as the member for Nelson has pointed out, there would be no associated hardship. There is clearly no hardship, there is no particular timing required. Sometimes, we have had to put bills in the parliament on urgency to meet the deadlines of Commonwealth legislation and funding payments and things like that. I have never, in 10 years in this parliament, seen a bill like this come before the Chamber on urgency.
Mr Conlan: I know, because you did not do anything.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection of the member for Greatorex who said we never did anything. Well, that’s patently ridiculous ...
Mr Conlan: You did not! That is why the whole industry is in such despair.
Ms LAWRIE: ... thousands of bills, legislation was passed in 10 years.
Do not get down to such a base level on an important debate.
There is no hardship; we have not heard from the minister for Tourism as to why there is a need for urgency.
When the shadow spokesperson was advised of the legislation coming forward, he wanted a briefing and was told he could not have the briefing until Friday – tomorrow - after an urgency motion is debated. That is extraordinary.
I remind the Chief Minister that in the five-point action plan a key test was accountability. Where is the accountability in not allowing the industry, which will be affected by the structure, powers and ambit of the commission, to have a say?
If you ram this through today using your numbers - which you can and which, by the signs of arrogance and the mannerisms coming across the Chamber and the huffing and puffing of the member for Greatorex, you seem predisposed to do - you will send a clear signal to not just the tourism industry, but all other industries, that you will do what you want regardless of their views.
Is that the tone, the standard, and the bar you set in your early days of government? Do not make an albatross around your neck Chief Minister. Rein in Bungles, show your leadership, stand up and say, ‘We recognise this matter of urgency is without the consent of the opposition and the independent. We understand you want time to fully look at and consider the legislation because of the vast geographic areas of the Territory. You need time to consult properly with key stakeholders.’
We understand this is one of the three industries in your three-hub economy. It is crucial. Do not rush this through. Stand up and show some leadership.
You have a minister bungling, crashing through on urgency when there is no hardship. I too join with the member for Nelson in putting the question to the Speaker as to whether this can proceed on urgency because it is a breach of Standing Order 179 - Urgent Bills.
That is clear, Chief Minister. It is an application of the Chief Minister or minister on your behalf. You have Bungles over here but this comes down to you. The decision about whether to push through the numbers on urgency might literally come down to you.
Mr Mills: Or a minister.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it says, ‘or a minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf’. This one comes down to you. It is a test of your leadership. It is a test of whether you are going to be accountable to the tourism industry.
Whether we agree or not in the debate on the tourism commission in November remains to be seen. That is the November debate, after industry has had a chance to provide you with its frank feedback. That frank feedback may well be, ‘This is great, we love it. We love every bit of it’. Who knows?
Today, they do not know because they have not seen it. I will give you the tip, next week is not long enough for all those tourism enterprises across the Territory to see it, understand it, discuss it - we know that. Do not push this one through on urgency.
I ask the Speaker: is this a breach of standing orders?
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for Tourism for bringing this forward. It is an urgent matter. The 11 years of Labor saw tourism go down, down, down. If at any point in time it was urgent, it would be now. I am sure we announced some 12 months ago we were going to set up a tourism commission. Sure, the legislation was not there, but 12 months ago - you have had some time to think about it. It is not all at the last minute. You knew this was coming. This was part of our election platform. You are right, it was part of our three-hub economy and you should not be getting in the way.
You are like Labor red tape getting in the way of progress. It is interesting when you sit back and think about hardship. Now you are talking about hardship and the provisions of urgency. Let me tell you about hardship. Hardship is about the tourism industry suffering under your watch for 11 years, particularly the last four. If at any point this was urgent, the time is now.
We have not heard from the opposition spokesperson on tourism about any of this. We had the bumbling member for Fannie Bay try to string two words together then rush to get the Opposition Leader to save his bacon.
The hardship for the industry is now. It is interesting when you look at tourism over the last four years and the minister for Tourism who sat in this chair right here ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This debate has to deal fairly closely with the motion about urgency. If we drift too far away we will get into areas not relevant to the debate we are dealing with.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, if you could address the motion.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am addressing. I do not recall in the last three years of the previous government whether, under the kingmaker statue, tourism ever came up as an urgent matter. I do not remember the former Chief Minister talking about how urgent tourism is, how we need to rescue our economy in the Northern Territory. This is urgent. That is why we flagged it 12 months ago and that is why my colleague, the minister for Tourism, the member for Greatorex, is fighting for this.
That is what it is about. I was about to reflect on the previous Tourism minister. When you want to talk about what is urgent, let us have a look at the bungles of the former member for Arnhem, the former Minister for Tourism. Let us have a look at her portfolio ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is about relevance. It is normal to stick to the topic, especially when we are dealing with matters relating to debate on urgency. It should be relevant. That has happened before in this parliament and it should happen now.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister, if you could stick to the issue, which is addressing the motion, not what previous ministers may or may not have done.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am used to the Leader of the Opposition trying to gag debate, but here we have a new low. The previous Minister for Tourism had a portfolio of Local Government. Is it urgent that we fix local government? Change election? Yes, it is. Am I trying to take my time on this to bring people along because it is a different matter? Yes, because it affects so many people in the bush.
Aboriginal affairs is an urgent matter that my colleague, the minister for Aboriginal Advancement is following up. The previous Minister for Tourism had Family and Children’s Services prior to the member for Casuarina. That is an urgent matter we need to be working on ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. The motion is:
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, if you could get to the point regarding the motion.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am building a case about urgency and talking about other portfolio areas of the previous Minister for Tourism and how she bungled those areas - FACS, Local Government, Aboriginal affairs. It is urgent that we fix all those portfolios, Tourism is just one of them. We all know there has been a downturn in tourism over a number of years, not to say that people in the industry have not been fighting hard against a badly performing Labor government. We released our platform 12 months ago. We are here for the long haul before Christmas to get this commission up and running. That is what we are fighting for.
The minister is prepared to offer a briefing to the opposition spokesperson and work together in partnership. You have a responsibility, as opposition, to recognise the platform we set 12 months ago and assist us to get our tourism policies through so we can start rebuilding tourism in the Northern Territory, rebuilding our economy, and rebuilding the broader Northern Territory. That is what it is about.
Madam Speaker, I fully support this motion by the minister for Tourism and congratulate him for bringing this into this Chamber.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the minister wants to pass legislation on urgency that will establish a new tourism commission and wants opposition support but will not provide me with a briefing on the legislation until Friday. This is not good enough. I ask again, as I did last night, what is the urgency, why the secrecy? More importantly, this legislation and his future tourism decision-making will impact on hundreds of Territory business - as the minister said, a $1.4bn industry.
Has the minister discussed this legislation with them and taken on board any of their suggestions, if any at all? How would the proposed tourism commission and transfer of tourism leadership to Alice Springs help us tap into the emerging tourism markets in China and India? These markets should be a key focus of our future plans and need to be discussed with the tourism professionals.
Indigenous tourism, which is very important to many people in the Territory, is one of our best tourism assets. Sadly, support for one of our most exciting and Territory-specific sectors, Indigenous tourism, I have been told is about to take a big hit to help fund the new arrangements. This will be a disgrace. Can the minister please state what arrangements he has made to consult with this important part of our tourism industry spread right across the Territory?
The incoming government says it supports the bush as its highest priority, but the new minister cannot help making derisory comments about too much strategy and focus on what he calls the ‘dreaming side’ of tourism. I was very offended by that yesterday.
I put this challenge to the minister: come clean on your vision for Territory tourism and your personal priorities. I am proud to shadow you in all you do, hold you to account for how you spend taxpayers’ money, and advocate as strongly as I can for the hard-working Territorians proudly investing in and developing a strong tourism industry.
The minister for Tourism should take a deep breath, stop ranting and raving, and do his job. He is a minister now and should focus on working with the people in the industry. Just remember, he is playing with the merits of his legislation which we can debate in the November sittings of the Legislative Assembly ...
Mr Conlan: Thank you for your general leeway there.
Mr VOWLES: Well, you were not here last night, mate.
Mr Conlan: Well, it is the same speech. Thanks a lot.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, now to bring some rationale to this debate. I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say about the hardship issue, but I want to set the stage for this debate so people can understand what is going on.
This policy was announced during the election campaign so - and I hear the shadow Tourism minister uses the word ‘secret’, to suggest we are secretly sneaking in on our tippy toes, a little mask around our faces with a swag over our back with this bill in it and we are going to drop it on the table and hope nobody notices. What nonsense. Did we talk to the tourism industry? Yes. Did I talk to the tourism industry? Absolutely. I was not even the shadow Tourism minister, but I travelled with the then shadow Tourism minister and we met with tourist operators, particularly in Alice Springs, and they thought it was a positive idea. Saying this is furtive, secret or sneaky is hardly a rational position to take. We trumpeted this from the rafters as our policy. No one was under any illusions as to what the CLP’s policy was prior to the election.
That is setting the stage for this. Now let’s talk about the hardship issue. Anyone would realise - and we heard questions on this today from the members opposite - that this causes some hardship to those people who work in the department and the members opposite said, ‘Oh there is concern, there is uncertainty’. Surely, by allowing this to pass on urgency we are dealing with their hardship in a way that would provide them with certainty.
Well I will come to the next part because the leader of opposition business said - and I heard it reiterated by the shadow Tourism minister - ‘Oh, you have not been able to supply us with a briefing’. That is fine, but when I spoke to the leader of opposition business about this over a week ago, he said, ‘I understand what you are doing.’ That puts the ball in his court. If he has a problem with urgency, he can talk to me about it and we can negotiate an outcome. If we cannot negotiate an outcome we do it on the numbers.
Have I been visited by the leader of opposition business? No I have not, because the leader of opposition business understands the business of this House and is an accommodating fellow, a gentleman, and he understands a reasonable and rational argument. The problem for the leader of opposition business is that his leader says to him quite regularly, ‘Oh don’t give them that, don’t let them do that’. So when I get an assurance from the leader of opposition business he then tells his leader ‘this is what they want’ and she says, ‘oh no, do not do that, do not give them that at all’. What happens then ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is misleading the House because there was never a conversation like that between the member for Fannie Bay and me. In all conversations he agreed urgency was ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the problem I have, Madam Speaker ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the Leader of the Opposition has claimed that you have misrepresented her.
Mr ELFERINK: If she wants to accuse me of that I have thicker skin. She knows she can do it by way of substantive motion - either that or she withdraws it. You can instruct her to withdraw it; it is water off a duck’s back to me.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the statement please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw it, but I speculate, because any person with a rational world view, who gets agreement from the Leader of Opposition ..,
Ms Lawrie: You did not get agreement.
Mr ELFERINK: I did!
Ms Lawrie: You did not!
Mr ELFERINK: Anyone who receives agreement from the leader of the opposition business ...
Ms Lawrie: You are verballing again - that is twice in two days.
Mr ELFERINK: Three times if you are going to make that argument. The fact is, you keep tearing him another one, and he has to say, ‘Oh, John, look’. He did not even do that this time. He did it yesterday on the issue of the timing of General Business Day. Finally, I said to him, ‘No, you are going to stick to the arrangements we had in place.’ Those arrangements were cemented in this place by way of motion.
If he had a problem with the urgency motion, the courteous thing would have been to say, ‘We are going to resist urgency’. That did not occur.
He is sick of doing the bidding of the Leader of the Opposition, which is resist, resist, resist, for political reasons only. That shows the management and leadership style of the Leader of the Opposition because it is clearly abrasive, politically driven, and is not in any way considered for the true and careful operation of this House. Nothing in the last week would have stopped the Leader of the Opposition coming around to this side of the House …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. This is all about verballing by the Leader of Government Business. If he is seeking clarity, the leader of opposition business said, ‘No urgency’, and argued against it. If you accept his views, you would say no urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that; that was really useful. If he wanted to resist, he could have come around to the Chamber any time. However, he chose simply to run the fight here on the floor of parliament.
He gave me no indication, yet was given good forewarning of this, this would become a fight. I am happy to have the fight on the floor of the Chamber if needs be, but do not suggest for a second that it is not the case of the Leader of the Opposition riding her leader of opposition business and saying, ‘Just fight them on everything’. It is the nature of the Leader of the Opposition to be in a state of perpetual battle. She wants to drag everyone else in this place to that place of perpetual battle. That is her world view because that is the nature of the way she wants things done.
We seek urgency because we need to settle this quickly for the sake of the people in the industry who have suffered badly under this government’s administration of tourism, and for the good administration of a good policy that needs to be brought on quickly to deal with the hardship issues faced by those people employed in this field.
Let us settle this down. There is no secrecy in what we have done. We have offered those briefings on the Friday. There was no complaint about the briefings being offered on the Friday until they came into this House today. They have tried to set a trap. The trap, once again, has blown up in their faces, because they are still too busy being political rather than actually caring about the necessary outcomes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I want to add to this debate that I am so disappointed in the member for Port Darwin. For our new members in this House in the first week of parliamentary sittings, they are probably in the space I was in four years ago where you have to learn quickly. Member for Port Darwin, I learnt a lot from you. I learnt, I watched, and I studied, because he is an experienced operator in this House.
I will share a couple of things he taught me: One, he said to me as a minister, ‘Do not dare come into this House with a story of just trust me’. He linked that with the reason - because we are talking about legislative instruments, we are talking about laws in the Northern Territory, and he said very clearly time and time again, ‘How dare you come into this House asking for any deviation from process with just trust me. That was the full-on dramatics of the member for Port Darwin. As we all know, he is very gifted with language and can craft spin in very clever ways.
However, he has disappointed me totally because he is on the other side. He is the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory and he is using spin and an argument of, ‘Just trust me. Pass it today and we will tell you about it tomorrow.’
That is incredible and I do not accept the drop in standards. Therefore, the debate on the other side has deteriorated to a point where we should all question this. I am backing the members on our side who have spoken against this, and the member for Nelson who highlighted the parliamentary process around how laws are passed in the Northern Territory. Do not deviate from that. Member for Port Darwin, I am very disappointed.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader talks about sending a clear signal. We are sending a clear signal to the industry: we give a damn. This industry was left wailing for far too long by a previous Tourism minister who was absolutely, who could not mobilise herself to do anything about an industry in decline.
We have spoken widely to the tourism industry over a number of months. The member for Braitling alluded to about 12 months. It has been longer than that; it has been about 18 months. We have spoken to industry operators up and down the Northern Territory about a relocation of the tourism HQ and reconstituting a tourism commission. This has been met with a large amount of support. So much so that we took it to the election and have subsequently brought this bill to the House. There has been plenty of discussion with industry. The consultation has been far and wide ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: ... I am talking about the consultation with the industry about reconstituting the Northern Territory Tourism Commission, which is exactly what the bill is about.
It is about the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. The bill is very simple. It is about establishing a board of directors, essentially, a board of commissioners who will have some clout to make marketing and policy decisions to set the future direction of tourism for the Northern Territory. It is pretty simple. If you guys do not get it, I feel sorry for you. That is why the Northern Territory tourism industry is in such decline.
It is not up to us to convince you of this. We do not owe you anything. You guys are over there for a reason. You were sent over there because you did nothing about tourism. People far and wide, right across the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory, put you over there for this very reason.
All you want to do is what Labor does - put up a blockage. Let us put another road block up, another stumbling block. Let us consult with every single man and his dog until the cows come home and we will never get anything done. That is exactly what you do. Another report. One person says, ‘I do not really like the look of that report’. ‘Okay, let’s send it back out for further consultation and perhaps we will do a review of the report.’
Those days are over. We are getting on with this. This is happening. We are going to take control of the tourism industry and put tourism back in the hands of tourist operators and make it the powerhouse industry it once was. If it was left in your hands, which it was for 11 years - we all know the state of it.
It is haemorrhaging. Member for Nelson, if you want to talk about hardship I am telling you, this is hardship. Not only do we have an industry haemorrhaging, we have staff across the Northern Territory in this industry. and working in Tourism NT, who need some certainty about the future of their industry. That is what it is about; that is exactly what it is about. Okay?
It is simple. It is going to happen; this is a government direction, it is government policy, it is no secret. Even the Labor candidate for Greatorex, Mr Rowan Foley, said in a public debate in Alice Springs on 7 August 2012 that it is a good idea. We are doing it!
As for the briefing, member for Johnston, what is the point of having one until you have heard the second reading speech? Even I know that, mate. We have introduced it now, you can have it tomorrow, then you can figure it out and come back with your argument. Hopefully, you may be able to string together another debate rather than the one you have already used twice. You had no questions in the House on this, you never wandered over and talked to me about this, and you have had one speech which you regurgitated twice - an absolute disgrace. Why don’t you get off your backside and take tourism seriously?
The Assembly divided.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the great Australian dream is to own your own home. This has been the aspiration and inspiration that has motivated millions of workers. Unfortunately, many Territorians now find that this dream has turned into more of a nightmare, for home ownership rates are falling as housing prices soar beyond the reach of many low- and middle-income families.
Houses and apartments are now too expensive for too many Territorians. The Australian Property Monitors reported in the September quarter 2012, the median price for a house sold in Darwin increased by 1.7% to $610 592, while nationally the median prices were unchanged. In the June quarter 2012, the median price for a unit sold in Darwin increased by 8.1% to $406 099 – this is the highest quarterly increase of all the capital cities.
Housing is special. It is not merely about bricks and mortar. It is cement which anchors a community’s social wellbeing. Housing is the foundation which encourages individuals and families to feel an integral part of their community.
Those with their own houses are generally more likely to be stable and have long-term employment prospects. Owning one’s own home engenders a feeling of financial security for a person or for a family, a feeling of comfort that cannot be experienced in a rental property.
Like my colleague, the Minister for Housing, I have heard stories from constituents, including those with young families who have been forced to abandon the Territory, not because they wanted to but because they could not afford to live here. Just last week, and I know my colleague the Housing minister, has also raised this, we were made aware of a young family in Palmerston who were told their rent was going up by $200 a week to $800 a week. The family are not highly paid. They may now have to leave the Northern Territory even though they love living here.
My government is committed to taking action and addressing the high cost of living and we cannot afford to keep losing our young Territorians. We must stem the population drain.
As a result of this, local businesses are struggling to attract and retain staff because it costs too much to rent and live in the Northern Territory. The worker group most in demand, the low- and medium-skilled, are the least best placed to be able to afford Territory housing costs. It would be misleading to say this problem can be fixed overnight. Like many very serious problems, it will take time, money and a focused government plan.
Those very detailed plans of my government will be designed to walk the fine line between pushing housing prices down and hurting people currently in the market; between allowing home prices to continue to rise and denying our young people the opportunity of fulfilling the great Australian dream.
The member for Brennan yesterday mentioned the double-edged sword of high housing costs. The dilemma is how to help those in genuine need to afford their own home or simply to be able to rent accommodation, for we must be conscious of the sacrifices made by those who have already bought into this hyper-market.
Government must take this into consideration and ensure these homeowners do not end up with negative equity in their purchases.
The previous government’s programs were conceived with good intentions but were poorly considered. Or, it is possible that, like so many other issues, the previous government simply took its eye off the ball. These programs were designed to help people into housing who needed a hand, and they did. However, at the same time they pushed up the price of houses.
Under the constrained land release environment and the shared equity schemes the previous government had in place, My New Home, HOMESTART, and HOMESTART Extra, people have access not only to new homes, but also to existing properties that have been lived in. Most people who took up these schemes bought existing dwellings. In fact, 93% of people bought existing dwellings. That is correct, these programs simply encouraged Territorians to buy existing properties which had been lived in. Encouraging more buyers into a tight market and equipping them with greater purchasing power could only lead to high prices.
It beggars belief that knowing these statistics the previous government continued to flood the market with more purchasers and give them more money. That is right, these existing programs increased the pool of people who could buy, and also increased their buying capacity.
Unfortunately, though, instead of pulling back these programs, it would appear the previous government could not admit they got it wrong. So, they continued to prop up and, therefore, reinforce their failing programs.
We are having a thorough look at these programs and we will be making changes. We have no choice but to increase the affordable housing supply. That is the essential difference between the two approaches. Ours will target the land and housing supply. We are going to concentrate our initiatives on increasing the supply of affordable housing. In the coming weeks, we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy designed to do just that. The programs we will put in place will be carefully designed to increase housing supply. The one thing Territorians can be assured of is we will stabilise the housing market and will help those who need a helping hand.
In contrast to our plans for action, consider the previous government’s inaction. In Alice Springs, for example, there is a huge parcel of land south of the Gap proposed for subdivision. Despite money being provided in Budget 2011-12, the site is still largely undeveloped. Services and the road have been built to the boundary, but it stops there. The previous government has dithered its way to a standstill. Apparently, it was unable to finalise a design and a plan so contractors sit idle and blocks are not developed.
Unfortunately, in this case it is not a lack of money that prevented the infrastructure being constructed by government to ease the housing crisis; it was the lack of will of the previous government. It is one thing where incompetence of a government embarrasses a government; it is a very different matter when the flow-on effects of this incompetence have the ability to destroy small businesses.
Someone has to stump up the investment capital to make such projects work. Let us not forget all the subcontractors who might have been involved. This bureaucratic inaction has the potential to directly impact hard-working family livelihoods.
Yesterday, the Minister for Housing spoke of our promise to build 2000 affordable and industry homes across the Territory over the next four years. That plan is called Real Housing for Growth. As the minister said, it is primarily aimed at retaining and attracting skilled workers to the Territory. This program will attract developers and/or investors to build, own and manage new housing. Government may potentially contribute land and there will be a competitive process to identify participants.
Unlike the previous government’s inaction, we will play a hands-on role to ensure there are no bureaucratic impediments to investment. The government plans will provide head leases on the dwellings for up to 15 years and they will be leased to key workers including much-needed apprentices, the service industry’s young families and others currently being squeezed out of the rental market. If we can attract and keep apprentices and encourage them to make their futures in the Territory then we will, no doubt, have one of the strongest arguments for statehood.
Our Real Housing for Growth will see rent for eligible tenants discounted by 30% of the median market rent in the area. This discount should be the catalyst for employers to be able to lure the workers they need. Not everyone can afford to buy their own home. It is here where public housing steps up to the line.
Public housing is exactly that; it helps Territorians on low incomes strive to reach their potential to make a contribution and to share the benefits of our community.
The eligibility criteria for public housing is quite extensive and includes: homelessness, medical issues, disability, women and children escaping domestic violence, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people facing numerous complex issues. Other criteria include circumstances where there has been private rental market discrimination or exclusion, and where children might be at risk, including their parents and caregivers.
The waiting list is the best indicator of the demand for public housing, and a recent review of urban public housing waiting lists found general applications had declined and priority applications had increased significantly. This has contributed to a 12% increase in waiting lists from 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Yesterday, the Minister for Housing mentioned it was estimated that the demand for public housing will continue to grow. He pointed out the strongest growth was likely to be in single person households and involved couples and families without children. Data shows 69% of applicants seek two or less bedrooms, while 27% seek three bedrooms and 4% seek four bedrooms.
This growth in demand for smaller properties is an Australia-wide phenomenon. Some believe it is a reflection of the ever busy lives we lead, but the growth in demand for smaller properties probably also reflects growth in the number of older people seeking public housing. Needless to say, an increase in the number of single parent families and single person households will also be affecting those statistics.
These social aspects of public housing present challenges to the management of the public housing portfolio. This is important for without a well-managed and cared for asset base we will have little hope of caring for those people most in need - generally, those seeking public housing. Unfortunately, our public housing portfolio fails to meet the needs of those changing demographics of the Territory - smaller households, single parent families and single person households.
In relation to public housing, there are more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in around 5000 dwellings, and 40 000 people living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings.
Like much infrastructure, the urban public housing stock is ageing, with the average age being 28 years. A concerning 50% of the stock is between 20 and 29 years old; 21% of the stock is 30 to 39 years old, and 12% is more than 40 years old. Many of these old and inappropriate properties are no longer suited to contemporary public housing requirements; with age comes more expensive repairs and maintenance. This increased cost of repairs and maintenance is concerning not simply because of the cost of materials, the big cost is the need for tradespeople to do the work.
The member for Brennan has pointed out that the program of modifying dwellings to suit the needs of tenants as they age is also costly. All new dwellings will be built in such a way to ensure they are suitable for well into the future.
The accommodations of tomorrow will have to include wider doorways and wider corridors as many tenants will need access for wheelchairs or walking aids. This farsightedness will have to extend to hobless showers and dwellings on one level. This will, of course, include a stipulation that there are no steps leading up into the building.
The challenges are extensive and will only be met by proper long-term planning. While such new designs may meet the specific needs of tenants, they will also provide the flexibility to adapt to these changing demographics.
Whether we like it or not, it is probable that we will have to provide more public housing in the future, not less. To achieve this outcome with acceptable and affordable budget parameters we will have to ensure public housing asset management strategy is not considered in isolation.
There must be a greater range of choice for public housing tenants. In addition, there must be more appropriate environmental standards and, for the sake of the tenants, the accommodations must be more efficient. We want to keep the cost of services down for public housing tenants.
As I pointed out earlier, the cost of repairs and maintenance will be fundamental considerations of our strategies. New public housing properties will be designed to minimise the need, as much as possible, for repairs or maintenance. The designs of the future must also seek to encourage the development of a community spirit. It will be increasingly important that public housing tenants feel they are part of a caring group, and housing design can help play an important role in this.
We will help the housing sector adapt and grow. This will not be easy nor will it be achieved overnight.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw to your attention the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells, please!
There is a quorum present.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, this will not be easy nor will it be achieved overnight and there are significant challenges, not least will be the strength of the Territory finances. Without a solid fiscal position we cannot care for ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells!
There is a quorum present.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, without a solid fiscal position we cannot even begin to care for the less fortunate people in our community. It really is where the kindness of governments begins and ends. We will direct all our energies towards helping Territorians realise that dream of owning their own home and we will do our part to ensure rents are affordable.
While we have so many challenges in the urban areas, we must not forget those challenges in the remote areas. The people of remote communities have the same aspirations as other Territorians. I said I will govern for the whole Territory, not just one part of it.
I have listened to the wonderful first speeches of my parliamentary colleagues. The burning desire of Aboriginal people in the bush to be recognised as having these same aspirations has been reinforced to me.
We must listen to our fellow Territorians in the bush and give them a proper say in their own lives, including decisions relating to their housing. But with this comes responsibility. As with all arms of government, we must find ways to bring down the unacceptable costs of building remote housing. Put simply, we must become more efficient.
The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing has delivered that great Australian dream to thousands of families. More than 700 homes have been built and there have been more than 2490 refurbishments and rebuilds under the partnership agreement.
By the end of September, more than 3000 families were living in new or improved housing. The problem, though, has been, at what cost? The opportunity costs of that waste have been lost dreams for so many others. My challenge for my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement, is to reduce administrative overheads and do more with less.
We are working to improve the management of remote housing in the Northern Territory. We are targeting 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds by June of next year.
The government has commenced discussions to ensure there is improved opportunity for local Indigenous workers.
Our remote housing plan will deliver better outcomes. We are aiming to involve local communities and residents in these programs, and by doing so, reduce inefficiencies and bureaucracy
I move that the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is quite extraordinary that the statement by the Chief Minister starts off talking about the great Australian dream of owning your own home and the benefits people derive in their family from owning their own home, when the only housing policy articulated by government is ‘2000 rentals’.
This is not a policy for ownership, a policy for rentals, so the bizarre hypocrisy at the start of the statement is not lost on this side of the House. Further, it is not lost because one of his first actions as Chief Minister was to axe a housing finance assistance scheme in the Northern Territory called My New Home which was a scheme for home ownership. It was to give Australian Territorians the leg-up into their dream, that great Australian dream of owning your own home.
We had 1000 Territorians registered and in the queue with TIO, waiting for their chance at housing finance approval, who were shattered by the decision of the Chief Minister Terry Mills. Terry Mills, there are 1000 families out there who will not be confused by your spin. They know who made the decision to shatter their dream to own their own home.
You might find this an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth; you might be quite happy with your lot in life owning your own home, and you might be in the financial position to help your children have a leg-up into home ownership, but there are many families who do not have the same fortunate circumstances. They were the ones who felt, and still feel, the impact of the global financial crisis which the Chief Minister told us in parliament yesterday is over.
The global financial crisis is not over, you were wrong in that as well. You were wrong in scrapping and axing the My New Home scheme and in saying the global financial crisis is over. It is very real and very present in the lending decisions being made by our financial institutions. I will step out one of the consequences in pretty simple terms, in the hope that someone in the government might understand what I am saying.
Prior to the global financial crisis hitting, banks would loan sometimes up to 95% of the mortgage. With mortgage brokers pushing and shoving, sometimes you would get above 95% of the mortgage. What occurred with the global financial crisis is that lending practices changed. They reset the bar on how much they were prepared to lend for finance, so when it came to the residential home finance scenario they shifted to providing no greater than 80%. The family or the individual had to have a 20% deposit.
The days when you could get your 5% deposit and get a leg-up into your home financing based on your income, based on whether or not you could afford to service your mortgage, abruptly changed as a result of the global financial crisis. Through no fault of their own, the family or individual who had been saving and still held down their jobs or job, had their home budget under control so they knew how much of a mortgage they could service, experienced this abrupt change
As a result of that change, fewer people were able to go to a builder and say, ‘build me a house’ in that great new suburb of Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli or Muirhead. They cannot do that because they do not have a 20% deposit. The home ownership dream slipped away from them, not through any fault of their own but as a consequence of the real impact here in the Territory of the global financial crisis.
It might be news to the Chief Minister who thinks the global financial crisis is over, but the financial institutions have not readjusted that changed lending criterion. They require a 20% deposit. The My New Home Scheme was designed for a second mortgage to be carried by the government for that 20% deposit, so that people could - if they met the normal commercial lending criteria assessments by TIO - they could get the money required to purchase a new construction. That was one of the criteria of the My New Home Scheme. It was for new construction, not existing stock. It also provided for a 10% deposit into a purchase-off-the-plan unit development.
Another result of the global financial crisis and the change in lending practices is that developers used to be able to go to the bank and finance their unit developments based on the book of the developer of anywhere between 40% to 60% - sometimes higher - of presales. The global financial crisis hit and the banks changed their lending criteria to developers, so presales for units are now required at 100%.
Listen to the developers, Chief Minister. Meet with the Urban Development Institute of Australia, NT branch, or push yourself out of your comfort zone and meet with the Property Council and ask them what that has done to the residential property development market in unit developments.
It meant that the cranes came off the skyline because they could not achieve 100% in presales. It is a very high bar to set - too high. While some people see the wisdom in buying off the plan, many want to see a building under construction, or at least having commenced construction, before they feel confident enough to buy off the plan. There is a cohort of people who are looking to purchase who are not confident at all about buying off the plan and will buy a newly constructed unit.
My New Home covered the consequences of the global financial crisis and the change to the financial lending criteria that was impacting on the residential property market across the Northern Territory. We have the land to supply.
You do not have to believe me, ask the Master Builders Association which, in a media conference, told the entire media pack, ‘We do not have a problem with land supply across Darwin and Palmerston; there are seven suburbs being developed’. It is not a land supply issue anymore, it is a housing finance issue; a unit development finance issue. That is the brake on new stock. That is the brake on stock stimulus.
We found the right product for the right circumstance in the right market, and the action of the CLP was to axe it without listening to the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, the Urban Developers Institute of Australia Northern Territory branch, the Property Council, or the actual developers who are developing land.
When we were creating the My New Home and HOMESTART Extra - and HOMESTART Extra is different and I have noticed in debate the government is starting to confuse the two, and I will distinguish between them in a moment - policy and engaging with all the stakeholder and industry groups, it became very clear that the developers had land ready to bring forward, and bring the lots into supply. However, they could not do that without the home financing - the buyers lined up to bring forward those lots.
Talk to CIC about its development at Palmerston University. They were ready to bring forward lots. Bellamack could bring forward lots, the couple of subdivisions in Johnston could bring forward lots. Muirhead has stages they could bring forward. Therefore, it is not land supply, it is financing. Not one thing in this statement before the House deals with financing for home ownership.
You are trapping people into rental with your policy. Your policy is about 2000 rentals at 30% below market price.
One wonders - and I could be suspicious at times of things announced by the CLP, and I am trying not to be suspicious about that figure 2000. Let me think: 2000 rentals subsidised through government schemes. How does that ring a bell? Oh, I know, NRAS.
The federal government NRAS scheme has 2000 rentals earmarked for the Northern Territory. It is currently sitting in the hands of Ethan. Pretty confident that Brendan O’Connor, the federal Housing minister, is going to make a decision at some stage to put those 2000 back out into the full market to ensure other developers have a crack at that. So, if other developers have a crack at that, that will free up those NRAS rentals and we will see construction.
I try not to be suspicious and think the CLP is going to claim what is a federal government scheme, and use their promise of 30% and reduce it down to 10% as a top-up, because that would be an outright, misleading furphy. I am not allowed to use the word ‘lie’ so I will not use it. It would be another broken promise.
Interesting! Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. I am a little suspicious because I saw the new Minister for Housing proudly standing in front of the village at Parap proclaiming the new stock into the housing market when he had nothing whatsoever to do with that project other than turn up at the press conference. The project was a Labor project through and through. He turned up at the press conference to claim it.
Let us face it, they are getting a bit of form on this one. The minister for Sport was out today claiming the new squash courts at Marrara - a $4m grant from the Labor government constructed under Labor, opened and used when Labor was in government. That is okay, just claim away because we will call you out on every single moment of it. You will be seen to be the shallow person you are.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to ask the Opposition Leader to withdraw that unparliamentary comment about one of my colleagues.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
The hypocrisy of leading with the statement of the great Australian dream of home ownership is interesting when their actions have been to shatter the dreams of Territorians by axing their only housing finance assistance scheme which was designed for home ownership via new constructions. We call it stimulus - a stimulus of stock - and I note the statement completely ignores the stock stimulus programs of Buildstart and BuildBonus where Territorians were given cash grants to build new stock.
This is an inconvenient truth for you. Minister for Housing, or an inconvenient truth for the Chief Minister. Let us pretend thousands of new homes and units were not built under Buildstart and BuildBonus. Let us bury our heads in the sand and leave that one out of the statement. It does you no good at all and you lack any credibility when you have a blinkered view of what you will and will not say about housing.
What can we see in this document that has any aspect of detail? We see the promise of 2000 rentals at 30% below market. The affordable housing rental company currently has $50m from the 2012-13 budget to build stock at 20% below market. Will they be claiming the affordable housing rental company stock, the affordable housing rental company that is in a joint venture with the Land Development Corporation - all the work we set up, all of the work we funded through a Labor budget, the budget that seems to shock the member for Araluen?
Will you rip that $50m out as a savings measure and be behind the eight-ball on this promise, or will you try to claim our work?
It is interesting because there is no detail on the 2000 stock, no detail on where, when, or with whom. You say you will go into private partnership - you have no other way of doing it, so that is bleeding obvious - but with whom? The whom will be a question I will continue to pose because there is scant reference to a competitive process. It does not explain what the competitive process is.
Again, I do not want to be too suspicious. I do not want to be so suspicious as to think they might be doing some dodgy deals with a couple of mates to ensure that support during the election campaign is repaid. I will not be that suspicious. That could not possibly happen in this day and age even though there is ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would recommend, as member for Braitling, that if the Opposition Leader wants to make some claim she does it by substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not made any claims. I am saying I am not being suspicious.
Mr GILES: You have made some terrible inferences and are trying to play dirty politics. If you want to put this on the table, make a substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Just asking questions Too much for you Gilesy?. Pressing a few buttons, mate? Am I getting too close to you?
Mr GILES: No, all of this stuff about you and the election. You like to point at this and that. Make a substantive motion. Put your money where your mouth is. The Court of Disputed Returns, take it there.
Ms LAWRIE: You doth protest too much. You walked into that one, Gilesy.
Mr GILES: I know exactly what you guys are up to.
Ms LAWRIE: I wait for the detail.
Mr Giles: I know how you did it in Barkly. We will bring that one up later.
Ms LAWRIE: I wait for the detail on competitive process. What will be the competitive process? There is mention that the government may - curious use of the word may - provide Crown land. They do not say Crown land, they say government land. I point out that it is Crown land. This sense of arrogance - we own, we control - already pervades through the statements of this government. It is Crown land, it is land owned by the people of the Northern Territory.
There is a reference that you may provide government land, that is, you may provide Crown land. If so, what land, through what process? What is the competitive process, where will this occur, and in what time frame will this occur, because evidently we will have 2000 new dwellings within the four years.
Two thousand will not get you there, we know that. You have already axed the home ownership part, ignoring the fact that the home lending criteria of the banks and institutions has not changed.
I heard that mortgage brokers approached the new government about the My New Home scheme. The mortgage brokers said, ‘Look we get that you do not like the last thing because it was Labor’s, we get that you were on the record as saying it is too risky to have 100% of the loan sitting out there, 20% carried by and underwritten by the CEO of housing. They said, ‘If you move it to 5% and rename it, you’ve got us. As mortgage brokers we are in, we will do it’.
That would be resetting it to where the mortgage brokers were previously. So I have been waiting for the renamed, rebranded, rebadged 5% deposit. It has not appeared.
They care so little about the dire need for housing in the Territory but they would not even do the political spin trick by renaming, rebadging and shifting the goal post just so slightly to 5% required deposit.
The arrogance is unbelievable. You will not listen to industry, the construction experts, the Master Builders who are the expert developers, the Urban Development Institute of Australia who sell the stock, the Real Estate Institute who understand the development, the Property Council; you will not listen to any of them and you would not listen to the mortgage brokers when they pitched a sensible idea to you of rebranding, renaming and adjusting slightly. This is incredible arrogance so early in the new government, it is almost overwhelming.
Talk to the Master Builders and others out there, the land supply is not in crisis in Darwin and Palmerston because of the seven suburbs and AZRI needs to be developed further. I note that the Minister for Housing has been railing against - and the member for Braitling joined in - the incompetence of the Labor government because they built the services and the road to the edge of the Kilgariff subdivision. Please get a briefing from industry! That is what everyone does. That is what happens.
The Crown develops to the edge of the subdivision, you put the subdivision up for direct sale into the market place, auction, you choose your range, choose your process, and the developer pays for the infrastructure within the subdivision, that is what happens everywhere.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Perhaps the Opposition Leader could clarify why there was $3.5m in the budget 18 months ago to do the headworks into the block.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, the railing is out of ignorance. Listen to the developers! Then again, if I was a developer I would tell you guys to pay for the lot because you are going to make a bigger profit if you convince an ignorant government to stump up what no government stumps up anywhere. Why wouldn’t you? Maybe you have been talking to a couple of developers who have been telling you to get in there and pay for all the infrastructure inside the suburb.
In relation to $3.5m, it is not unusual to do the trunk road. We did the trunk road right across. All the other infrastructure you are railing about not being built is what the developers build. I do not know why I am giving you a lesson in how to develop land but I am so frustrated with your stupidity about how you have approached housing stock stimulus in the Territory that I feel like giving you a few tips on behalf of Territorians.
Mr Giles: Highest rents in the country under Labor.
Ms LAWRIE: I wanted to have the opportunity to check out the Batten Road site at Marrara. The Batten Road site - curious it did not appear in the statement, yet it is housing stock. It was completely missing from the statement.
There are 270 dwellings, short-stay workers’ accommodation, contracts with Ausco Modular. They do this construction, they are highly experienced, they have the DA being lodged either tomorrow or Monday, so where is this new government on the 270 dwellings sitting on a 9 ha site capable of going to a yield of about 600. Where are you on that? Hands off the wheel, silent.
We have 270 dwellings at what they call ‘stay-over’ in Darwin being developed by Ausco, signed-off by the Labor government, a short-stay workers’ accommodation village, exactly what industry needs but I doubt you would know that because I have not seen any evidence yet that you are meeting with or listening to industry. There is no mention of it whatsoever in a statement on housing.
No mention of the potential yield of up to 600 coming out of that site; zero, zip, pretend it is not there. I am not pretending it is not there. I looked at the site. It is remediated, grassed, irrigated; it is ready to go. It will be opening next year because that is how good, efficient and capable Ausco Modular is.
Then we go to the discussion about the need for changes to eligibility for public housing. Bring that on! I look forward to seeing the detail on your changes to eligibility for public housing. There is no mention of additional public housing stock or how you would fund additional public housing stock - because that is fundamentally what the government needs to do - no mention of that. No, you are talking about changing the eligibility. Is that code for cutting the waiting list by removing people’s eligibility? Is that what that code is for? Time will tell, we will see the details. We will see the how many families you evict from public housing.
Then there is this curious part of the statement that talks about the repairs and maintenance requirements for public housing stock. The light is shining, you need to repair and maintain public housing stock.
We have repairs and maintenance in the Territory Housing budget. I went to the election with a commitment of tipping an additional $4m into the R&M program across the urban public housing stock, but you know what? There is not a cent in the CLP commitments.
That is okay, we will see what they are going to do to repair and maintain the public housing stock, which is ageing. Public housing stock ages: the light has gone on there. The curious thing about that is, if I were suspicious, I would think that was code for, ‘Here we go, they are going to start selling off public housing stock again’, because that is what the previous CLP government did.
It sold off thousands of public housing stock. We had to put a stop to the sale because there was no real replenishment program. As they were selling they were not building new stock. They were just selling stock and the waiting lists were coming under greater and greater pressure. We stopped the sales and went into a program of building new stock.
We built new senior-villages and we have land set aside across Palmerston east for a range of public housing dwellings from duplexes, triplexes to single dwellings. It will be interesting to see what happens to that new stock-creation program. There is no detail in this statement though, just a bit of a hint, a bit of a suspicion that they will go into selling off the old stock that needs to be repaired and maintained.
I have a constituent who is happy for me to talk about their story publically because they were in an old public housing dwelling and it was very run down. After lots of pushing and argy-bargy with the department, finally they had it assessed and there was an agreed scope of works. I will not go into the palaver about how the family was mucked around in the move, the crates, etcetera. This is very current. They moved out and when they came to move back in, the agreed scope of works had not been done.
There were things on the scope of works that were agreed needed to be repaired and maintained. Bearing in mind the department went to the expense of moving the family out and putting them into another tenancy.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask whether this was a SIHIP house under your administration? That was quite prevalent right across the Territory, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: He will get his chance. They moved them out. They went to the expense of moving them out. This is a family who, for years, needed the R&M and, then, they finally got it - you beauty, agreed scope of works. They moved them out and then moved them back in. Lo and behold, quite a few things on the agreed scope of works had not been done. The laundry had not been done; the external painting had not been done.
Minister, you might want to meet the family. I will take you there and introduce you to the family and they can take you through the documentation from Housing which showed the agreed scope of works and what magically fell off that scope of works. They asked me in their correspondence if it was because of the election and the change of government.
I am not a suspicious person. I do not want to suggest for a minute that there could be a political reason why the scope of works changed. I will be asking the Minister for Housing to look into this matter and come back with a fulsome response as to why the scope of works changed after the department went to the expense of moving the entire family out. It was the chance to go in and do the renovations.
Good luck with your ambitious repair and maintenance project. I hope, though, it is not code for selling off public housing stock. I really hope it is not. You are going to walk into the ‘changed criteria for eligibility’ trap; you may walk into the ‘sell off public housing stock’ trap, and you will become known as the worst Housing minister ever. If you want to be a good Housing minister, do not walk into those two traps too easily. That is a little tip from someone who is passionate about public housing.
In what you need to ensure you have affordable housing, I will remind the Chamber the Labor government was the first government in the Territory’s history that set aside 15% of Crown land turn-off in all new subdivisions for affordable and public housing. What had happened previously is governments would turn them off to developers.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the member for Barkly and the members of parliament. If you want to create the stock, you need to create the land and the lots to create the stock. Setting aside 15% of all subdivisions has enabled us to do that, and will enable you, Minister for Housing, to proceed to continue with the development of the affordable housing rental you have ambitiously identified - the 2000. That is where your Crown land is - that 15% of land set aside. It will also enable you to continue the construction of new public housing, of new stock, as you are changing the eligibility of the public housing criteria.
I have pointed out my suspicions. I hope they do not bear fruit because they would be ripping off Territorians. I pointed out that axing My New Home is ludicrous. You could pick up the mortgage brokers suggestion and make it a 5% deposit requirement, not the full 20% - just offer 15%. Or you could do what you have been doing all along, which is ignore everyone and go ahead with what you think.
I know the member for Braitling will rail against the SIHIP program because that has been his raison d’tre, and why should he change? He is not going to change. He has trouble adjusting to the transition, I guess, of thinking he is now a minister. I do not know what it is.
Anyway, thank you for pointing out in the statement how much has been delivered to date through SIHIP. It is impressive. Literally, we have thousands of Territorians across remote areas of the Northern Territory in new and refurbished housing as a result of the Labor government agreements to provide SIHIP. Thank you also for pointing out what is currently in the forward works program for the SIHIP program and the numbers of new housing and refurbishments that have been agreed to and signed off between the federal Labor government and the Territory Labor government.
I was curious about where the new homes for the homelands and outstations promised by the CLP in the election campaign are? They are not in the statement. Yet, this is a housing statement. This is a real housing for growth statement.
How do you completely leave out the outstations and homelands when you promised new housing? You did not just promise the refurbishments we had committed to, you matched that. You said, ‘Yes, we will refurbish but we will also provide new housing on the homelands’. Perhaps you can explain in your response to the statement, minister Chandler. Where is the housing committed to for the outstations and homelands, because it is completely missing from this statement?
All in all, I have to rate it as a 2.5 out of 10. I thought yesterday’s was pretty bad. I probably would have rated yesterday’s at about a 4, but this one has come down. Can you guys do a little more homework, a bit more research, find a little more grunt, get some vision, remind yourselves what your promises were and try to put some detail onto them. I look forward to the next statement because I have enjoyed the last two. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do my best to obey my mother and not lower myself to that level of bitterness.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the House and respond to the Chief Minister’s housing statement. In doing so, it would be very easy to remind Territorians that the situation we are now in - from fiscal imbalance through to the high cost of living, the high cost of housing, the high cost of rent - has not just appeared in the last eight weeks.
We had a Labor government in the Northern Territory for the last 11 years. It has been described in this House as a set of crocodile jaws - that is what we have seen with the overspending of this government. The crocodile jaws of the cost of living going through the roof, and the cost of housing.
However, I will not lower myself to the standard delivered by the Opposition Leader. As at the Media Awards a couple of weeks ago, there was a level of bitterness in her speech. By all standards it was a very jovial set of awards for the media, everyone was in a good mood, yet the Opposition Leader delivered a speech which put everyone in the room back in their seats. The level of bitterness in that speech was remarkable.
It would be very easy to point out the failures of the previous government on so many different levels; however, I thank the Opposition Leader for pointing out what is the bleeding obvious in so many areas.
She spoke about taking the high road, the high principles of talking about statistics and so forth. The first thing she told me was there were 1000 applicants for the HOMESTART schemes. In fact, as of 19 September 2012, there were 105 applications in progress. Sixty-four had been approved in principle, ten pending settlement, and all of those will be honoured.
One hundred and five applications is a little different to 1000. If this is how wrong she gets her numbers, no wonder the budget in the Northern Territory is so out of whack.
You heard the Chief Minister describe the initiatives of this government - that we will concentrate our efforts on increasing the supply of affordable housing. Rather than go over the bad news of the last 11 years, how about we be a little positive and start to talk about the solutions?
We have identified the problems through the help of very active departmental figures, our own research, our own knowledge and yes, through talking to industry. Industry told us the biggest stumbling block for them developing in the last few years was the way government would get in the way rather than assist business in jumping ahead. For the Opposition Leader to allege that we do not speak with business and industry is so wrong.
I found the figures the Chief Minister quoted for September median house and unit prices very unsettling. Let me put it into context for you. The median price of a house sold in Darwin in the September quarter was $610 592. That is more than $0.5m. The median price of a unit sold in Darwin in the June quarter was $406 099, just under $0.5m. I then looked at the Northern Territory public sector salary rates for a few of the essential workers we are trying to retain in the Northern Territory and wondered how on earth they would ever afford a $0.5m property.
To clarify this, I went online last night and entered information into the ANZ Bank loan repayment calculator. I selected an ANZ fixed home loan for three years with an interest rate of 5.54%. I then selected the fortnightly repayment options on a proposed loan amount of $0.5m. The fortnightly repayment came back at a staggering $1420.63. How on earth can an assistant teacher with a starting salary of $41 586 or a classroom teacher with a starting salary of $62 017 afford to meet those repayments and maintain a household?
Aboriginal health workers, enrolled nurses and social workers with starting salaries of $39 678, $49 546 and $41 200 respectively are in the same boat as the other professions mentioned above. These positions represent low- and middle-income workers you and I rely on to provide services important to maintain our social fabric. They represent our children who have been squeezed out of the rental market and have no choice other than to live at home with mum and dad or seek greener pastures elsewhere, as so many have done in the last few years.
It is a known fact that while housing prices have strengthened strongly since 2012, rents have also increased significantly. Within a very tight rental market, every time a rental property is open for inspection there are at least 20 people looking over it but only one applicant will be successful.
Only two weeks ago I asked a real estate agent how the market is and how things were going. He explained to me that he was getting two or three people walking through an open house for sale. By comparison, he was getting 70 to 80 coming through houses for rent. Again, there will be only one successful applicant.
Worse, rents are high. Under Labor’s watch, the Northern Territory became the housing rent capital of Australia. A friend recently told me his five children have left the Territory because they cannot afford to live here. His daughter, a nurse, who previously worked at the Royal Darwin Hospital, was particularly upset at having to leave the Territory because she could not afford the rental prices.
She told her father she could not envisage the time where she could realise her dreams of owning a home in her home town. She is now working in Perth and living in the home she purchased in recent years. This is another nurse the Territory has lost. Another friend told me her parents are now living on the Gold Coast where they are paying half the rent they were in Darwin. Her children desperately miss their grandparents, and she also misses the support they provided her as a working mother.
I restate the Chief Minister’s words and reassure Territorians: we will take action to keep families together and deliver on new affordable housing.
For Territorians the housing market is tough at all levels. Potential homeowners hoping to secure a loan are dealing with banks that have maintained conservative lending criteria since the global financial crisis. There is also a lack of no- or low-deposit finance requirements for mortgage insurance, where loan-to-valuation ratios exceed 80% and requirements for developers to achieve higher levels or pre-sales are up to 100% before releasing construction finance.
These figures are impacting on the delivery of new houses in the Territory, and on the ability of prospective homebuyers to save a deposit. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach, particularly for young Territorians and those on low or middle incomes.
I have often said if you are on a fly-in fly-out contract, maybe have a good job at a mine earning $120 000 a year you could, perhaps, afford the market in the Northern Territory. But how does the young lady or the young man who is serving coffee at Gloria Jean’s or the Doughnut King afford the market in Darwin? Families are forced to stay together, not because they love each other but because they cannot afford to move apart. Businesses are purchasing homes for their employees to live in because they cannot get affordable housing in Darwin. This is a result of the bad management of the last 11 years.
As the Chief Minister stated, the previous government’s shared equity schemes led to 93% of the buyers purchasing existing dwellings rather than new ones. This has done nothing to change the supply and demand economics.
In the coming weeks we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy designed to do just that. The programs we will put in place will be carefully designed to increase housing supply; and the one thing Territorians can be assured of is, we will take action.
In my previous speech I described how a strong and expensive housing market is one measure of a booming economy and, consequentially, strong employment. The downside, of course, is that as housing prices rise the community finds it increasingly difficult to afford home ownership. Proper planning several years ago might have eased the pain of the current very high prices.
I recall arguing when I first came into this House in 2008 that, for the previous three years there had been no new land released in the Palmerston area. I heard the then Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition, say they needed around 300 to 380 new blocks of land a year to keep up with demand. We soon learnt that should have been 1700 a year, and we have yet to see that being realised. In the last four years that has not been realised, and so further and further we have squeezed the market to the point where the average person cannot afford to buy or rent a home in what we would consider standard circumstances.
I have spoken of our plan to free up more brownfield land for development and regeneration and how this government will accelerate the release of surplus public sector land. We will work with developers to unlock land to progress development; we will create conditions that support local economic growth and remove barriers which prevent local businesses from employing staff, and get the Territory building new and reasonably priced homes.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, our government’s Real Housing for Growth plan will see the construction of 2000 affordable and industry homes across the Territory over the next four years.
This week has seen the Homelessness Summit under way. It has been two years since the previous summit. In the past, the responsibility for homelessness was split between two ministers, and two agencies, creating challenges of its own when negotiating the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. The Chief Minister has put in place commonsense administrative arrangements and placed responsibility for homelessness under one minister, and one agency, that being Housing.
As the Minister for Housing, I have a particular interest in understanding the complexity of homelessness and the work taking place across the Territory to support those who are homeless. The recent release of the revised 2001 and 2006 Census data using the new Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of homelessness, shows that homelessness in the Northern Territory is the highest in the country. Of the 791 people per 10 000 considered homeless in 2006, 665 were understood to be living in severely overcrowded situations, the majority of whom are residents of remote communities.
I previously spoke of public housing and how it provides homes at below market rents for more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in more than 5000 dwellings, and more than 40 000 living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings. The statistics demonstrate that in remote dwellings there is an average of more than eight people in every remote dwelling. In certain areas - those I have been witness to, such as on Elcho Island when we drove past a home in which there was evidence of up to 40 people living in it.
I visited the school and heard how difficult it was, in some circumstances, to get children in remote areas to go to school. They are living in a house with up to 40 people. Their sleeping shift might not start until 3 am or 4 am and, then, a couple of hours later, people are trying to drag them off to school. Statistics can be skewed sometimes. Whilst on average we have eight in every dwelling, we know of many circumstances where there are many more.
Although the new ABS definition changes the way we measure homelessness, the remote figures above underscore the need for homelessness support in the Territory and the need to look at the innovative ways to deliver housing in the bush, including home ownership. The overwhelming majority of housing in the bush is public housing. We need to be smarter to redress the balance of public to private housing in a manner that also grows our local economies.
This government recognises that homelessness is not a stand-alone issue and is influenced by the wider housing sector. That is why we are providing our Real Housing for Growth plan which guarantees to help lever in new investment, removing the planning and financial barriers that are holding back the housing market, and developing a clear direction to help increase the supply of all forms of housing owned or rented, public or private.
The Territory government will also continue to support the first NT affordable housing company, Venture Housing. More detail on the support that will be provided to Venture Housing will be included in the comprehensive housing plan.
As I previously stated, there are significant challenges, and the state of the government budget will require some innovative solutions that do not increase the size and extent of the deficit. As the Chief Minister rightly pointed out, it is a delicate balance to stabilise the housing market and ensure homebuyers who bought in the overstimulated housing market do not end up with negative equity.
Rest assured, this government is determined to work to address both the short-term symptoms and the long-term causes. We are prepared to put in place the required reforms to increase the supply of affordable housing. This will not be easy. We have heard it in this House many times before when we were talking about complex issues - this cannot happen overnight.
However, unlike the previous government which rushed in a scheme weeks before an election, our plan will be well-considered, will work with industry, and ensure we have the right methodology so we can afford to provide additional housing to help with affordability in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his talk on this very important issue. I fully concur that we are going through a period where it is very difficult, especially for young people, to afford to live in a house or even rent a house. However, I do not think the solutions are simple.
One of the problems with this document - and I thank the Chief Minister for bringing it on - is that it has very few bricks and mortar, if I can use the pun. It is a little like a book with the introduction but not the rest of the novel.
It might be coming and I appreciate that, but the problem we have is, it has been put forward and we do not have something from the government to get our teeth into. Here are some of the issues the government needs to look at. I do not think it is as simple as people make it out to be.
Mr McCarthy: Do not call it puff piece, Gerry, whatever you do.
Mr WOOD: No, I will not do that.
We know it is very difficult for many people to buy a home or rent a house. My daughter is in that boat at the moment. She rents a house in Palmerston, she has three kids, and it is not easy for her to keep her head above water. One of the issues that is sometimes missed - before I get into more details - is the social impact on families that comes from higher mortgages and higher rents
Where two parents are forced to work and have to send kids to childcare, there is not enough emphasis placed on the long-term effect of that on our society. We look at kids today on the street who are pinching cars, we have kids who get into trouble later in life - many of these things stem from an unstable background.
I have probably mentioned this before, I visited a prison in Ohio about six years ago called West Central Therapeutic Centre. It is a different kind of prison. People could voluntarily go there to see if they could turn their lives around. At the end of my visit, six of the men in the prison sat down in front of me and said why they were there.
All of them had broken homes. They either had parents working all the time, they never saw their parents, or the parents were dysfunctional when it came to running the family. They had other problems such as drugs and alcohol.
You wonder whether we have a society which basically requires two parts of a family to work long hours to achieve what we would hope to be the norm for Australians - the ability to own their own home.
This is an important area. It is not as easy to fix as people make it out to be. I will put forward some of my ideas.
The key to affordable housing is affordable land. If you have an artificially restricted land bank and no competition, you will continue to have high prices for land. If land is cheap then you have some money for a house. If land is expensive you have less money for a house and, in fact, may not be able to afford the house. You might have to live in a tin shed, which people in the rural area have done for a long time.
I asked someone recently how much an 800 m2 block in Coolalinga cost. They said $320 000 for 800 m2. A young person then says, ‘Well, the house is going to cost me 250’, so they have to find about $570 000. You certainly will not earn that on one income, you will not be able to pay for that, you will need two incomes at least and they will have to be fairly good incomes.
The reality is there is very little affordable land. Part of the problem is that the previous government did not release enough land some years ago and it got behind. Because it got behind, land prices went up. In the rural area, in one year prices of land went up $100 000 in twelve months. The average price of a 2 ha block of land in the rural area in about 2006 was $100 000. In one year it shot up to $200 000. There was a great spike in the price of land.
We have to do something about making more land available so there is competition. This government is a private enterprise government and will say you cannot release too much land because people’s land values will decrease. But if you do not do something about it - because many people have made good money out of what I call an artificial spike in the price of land - then we are never going to get anywhere.
That same argument about having too much land on the market, unfortunately, came from the Labor Party when it was in government. I remember, when I said that there needs to be more land available, the then minister said it would affect the market. I felt that was strange coming from a Labor Party whose main concern should have been to make sure there was adequate and affordable land for families so they could afford to build a house.
We are where we are today and the question is: how do we turn that around? I tell anyone who wants to know that perhaps they need to talk to the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff, John Coleman. Up until the change of government, John Coleman was the CEO of the Land Development Corporation, a new body associated with the same corporation that has been developing industrial land in the East Arm Port but now had a job to develop residential land. It is developing Zuccoli.
One of the concepts - and I hope John can let me know if I am wrong - was that the government, through the Land Development Corporation, was trying to find out the real cost of turning off a block of land in Palmerston because there are a whole range of issues; it is not simple.
He was trying to see what the cost was and if the private developers were putting the price of land up to such an extent that there was an artificial price which did not reflect the cost of developing that land. If we are going to debate turning off lots of land, we need to stop and think about how much it will cost.
I do not know what people looked at when Zuccoli was being built: the sewerage works, the water, the storm water and, in some cases now, recycling water. There is the required kerb and guttering. In some cases, especially in Zuccoli, there are erosion controls because it is quite steep and difficult engineering designs are required. Plans have to be drawn up and, on top of that you have the headworks.
In the Northern Territory, the taxpayer pays for the headworks. In some other states, I am not sure that occurs. But the Territory government, which is us as taxpayers, pays for the infrastructure that goes to that subdivision. If it needs a big sewerage line, a new set of sewage ponds to cover the extra waste, a bigger power line, a bigger water line or a new water tower, the government pays for that.
They are all costs we pay through our taxes. The cost of the land does not reflect that. It reflects owning the infrastructure that is within that subdivision. Then the developer puts a margin on it. What John Coleman and the Land Development Corporation were trying to do was see whether the margin private developers were putting on was reasonable or was contributing to land prices that were making it harder to have affordable land and housing.
I do not know what stage that is up to, but I hope that people who are debating this could find out from John Coleman. Perhaps the Land Development Corporation could report back to this parliament on that because it would provide an important foundation for people who want to debate this issue.
Then if you have affordable land, there is a discussion about affordable housing. Housing is very expensive in Darwin. People talk about how expensive it is in the remote areas and I know there has been a lot of discussion about the cost of SIHIP housing, but today there are many more requirements and this area needs debate.
In the Top End, not so much in the Centre, you need a house that is cyclone proof. Today you must build a house that is five-, six- or seven-star energy efficient. It has to be designed by an engineer. Other regulations add to the cost. It is not just the case of putting up four walls and a roof and those costs need to be investigated. I have had reports, and I hope the engineers do not come down too hard on me, that local engineers over-design houses in the Top End. If that is the case, what does that extra over-design mean when it comes to the cost of a house?
I was talking to someone the other day who is building a small addition to a shop near me. I looked at the amount of steel in the floor. He said a company designed this and it will never blow away. It was a huge amount of concrete and steel. If the government is looking at trying to make houses more affordable, there needs to be a real investigation into all the elements of a house to see if we can reduce some of those costs. Are we over-designing houses? All those design features you put into a house, such as five-star efficiency, whether it is cyclone proof - all those things add to the cost.
Of course, we have those features for good reasons, but if we want to have affordable housing then we need to look at those things as well.
What about the cost of other regulations? There are local government regulations, regulations from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, when you have zoning, when you have applications for waivers, such as when you might want to have the house slightly closer to a fence line. All those things add to the cost. I am interested in what detail the Minister for Housing will bring in, but I am also interested to see whether there is an investigation to see whether some of those costs are adding to the cost of a house. Maybe there are areas where we could have reductions.
Also, the cost of labour. In the Top End labour is short because you now have INPEX. You have a big company taking labour away from local jobs; you have to bring people from elsewhere. I have met local people who have lost workers. I was at the brickworks in Humpty Doo the other day and the owner had lost two or three people just like that. His forklift driver had gone, his truck driver had gone. Why? Because they went to INPEX and he could not afford to keep up. He could not pay that amount.
It is the same with people who build the houses. If they are losing staff to INPEX, the only way to keep them is to match the wages. They match the wages in building the house so you as the purchaser will have to pay for those extra wages. That is an extra cost; it makes the house less affordable. These issues need to be looked at.
There is the issue of where you are going to release more land. I know the Chief Minister said we would look over the rural area and people have said there is plenty of land. It is not quite as simple as that, and planning is about doing it the right way.
I have shown people this original CLP document from 1990. Its concept was to have a series of areas and, basically, the concept is still the same in the more recent 2010 document planning for greater Darwin. The concept was to have a number of cities around the harbour, where the harbour was the centre and the whole area was divided up into rural, Defence, environment, and industrial areas. That concept is really good.
When we say there is plenty of land out there, let us make sure we stick to the plan. Otherwise you get what I call ‘the north of the Brisbane line’ development. I travelled from Brisbane to Maryborough a few years ago and I saw development that was higgledy-piggledy. It did not seem to have any reason. There were little blocks, big blocks; they were all mixed up together, and compared to our rural area it was a disaster. At least someone in the rural area has made sure we have kept some sense in our planning.
The member for Goyder and I are passionate about making sure that when government talks about releasing land, it does not see the rural area as a cheap option. There are options, and Weddell has not been spoken about today. It is a bit like Kilgariff. They have both been designed in similar ways and much work has gone into them. I went past Kilgariff the other day; I had a look. The member for Braitling is dead right; there is a pipe and a bit of work done along the fence line, and a new road is being put in, but that is about it. The scrub is still there; it has not been developed.
Weddell is probably further away in the sense of infrastructure, but the planning side of it is well advanced. It would be good to see what the government thinks of those two new developments, because Weddell will probably take 50 000 to 60 000 people. If that could be developed, obviously, you can get more land. Instead of looking at the rural area as a place for cheap development, let the rural area develop according to the plans the member for Goyder and I put out, which have an emphasis on developing the rural centres and allowing the areas around that to stay rural.
The member for Araluen spoke today about Education housing. There is land in Humpty Doo. I know what she is talking about because I was at the Taminmin College Council a couple of weeks ago. There is not enough housing for teachers, even for Taminmin, at Humpty Doo. People live in town, they do not want to travel 50 km to school each day.
There is land available that neither government has really used. There has been one duplex built in Humpty Doo on government land in 20 years. I blame both governments for not investing in places like Humpty Doo. There is an opportunity to build houses there for teachers so they can walk down the road to school. I would like to see that as something the government will look at. However, there are other constraints. There are constraints about native title and wet areas. We have to realise it is not always that simple.
I congratulate the government for at least saying it will tackle some of these issues; it is going to put houses there. However, I want to hear a little more about where it is going to do it, and how it will do it. I will be very interested when this plan comes out.
I said before, there are options that could be developed straightaway. There is land near the new prison where water and power go right past. I am very happy, Minister for Housing, for you to come out and I will show you some of the advantages of 1 ha blocks - which is one of my favourite topics.
You do not have to use kerbs and guttering, you can use rural roads. You do not need storm water drainage; you just need power, a bitumen road and access to water. That can all be done there for a reasonable price, and that land could be developed. I get so annoyed when I hear about the houses at Eaton which could have been put on 1 ha blocks and offered to people at a reasonable price. When you look at suburban blocks there is much more detail required. However, there are opportunities still for ...
Mr Chandler: How many blocks, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: At least 100 blocks. There is also land south of Wallaby Holtze Road. It backs onto the new bicycle path. That land is available for smaller blocks and could be sold to a developer. I would not call that affordable housing land because it is a bit tricky, but I would love to show you that land. It has some problems and has to have access from Temple Terrace. However, it is not so much an affordable housing subdivision - because there will be some expenses - as another option for semi-rural zoning, maybe of 0.4 ha which might be slightly more built-up.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member has an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. Minister, I am happy to show you some of those areas. I do not care which government is in power, I would love to work with you to give young people a chance. People forget the problem in the rural area is that much of the land is private, and those private developers are hanging on to that land. There is a development at Girraween Lagoon by a very good developer. However, he will not sell 80 blocks of land and put them out in one year. He will sell 10, maybe 20, over the next two years. The price will stay somewhere between $300 000 and probably $450 000 for a 1 ha block, because that is the price people are paying for land in the rural area.
We have an opportunity, because the government owns the land, to at least, with conditions, sell some of its own land at a reasonable price. That is the negotiation we have to talk about. You do not want to hit the market too hard, I understand that, but you can sell the land with covenants, such as, ‘we will give you a cheaper block of land, but if you sell it within five years you pay us back a certain amount of money’. There are ways of ensuring you do not affect the market but allow young people to come in.
There are other issues, other options. The other option is the community land trust. I have mentioned this before - in America they have community land trusts. There is one community land trust that is trying to get off the ground in Australia called the Waratah Community Land Trust, and I will read from their document:
That is similar in some ways to what is trying to occur on Aboriginal communities. It basically means a person will manage this large parcel of land - it can be a private person or a government - they will lease you a parcel of land and you can build your house on that block of land. You pay a certain amount every month for the lease, or every year. You put all your money into the house and pay a lease arrangement. This encourages private ownership. The only other restriction is that you cannot sell the land and make a big profit on it because the idea is to allow people to enter the market. I am interested in talking to the minister about land trusts as a reasonable option.
Part of the Chief Minister’s statement talks about public housing. When you are in opposition it is easy to knock the government. Public housing is a difficult area and I would rather more emphasis be placed on trying to get people to buy their own houses. It is an issue with Aboriginal land where most people live in public housing. I will get onto that in a minute.
How do you increase the number of public houses? On one hand you have a scheme which says, ‘Well, we would like to sell all those public houses. If you have lived in them long enough we will give you the opportunity’, which takes houses out of the market. This argument was given in parliament as the reason you had longer waiting lists - housing numbers had dropped.
It is a difficult area. I get people every now and then who want a house, they are pensioners who cannot get a house and the waiting list is long. I have known people to have died before getting onto the waiting list. I am unsure how you solve that. Some heads together may help.
The funny thing from my point of view is that Foxy can build a pile of accommodation for asylum seekers just like that. A workers’ camp near Karama will put 250 units there like that, but why can we not sometimes do that for people who cannot afford to live in a house - urgent accommodation - and give it to an organisation like St Vincent de Paul? Perhaps use Berrimah prison when it is empty.
Are there ways we can help people, at least in the short term, to get some accommodation? Foxy can do it for asylum seekers, the previous government commenced a worker’s camp in Karama, and they are doing it like that - in 12 months there will be 250 people living there. Why can we not do that in cases of urgency? We need to think outside the square and be a little braver.
It is a big issue in Aboriginal communities. I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation. We have four Aboriginal people here. I would love them to be part of the conversation about how we get people to own a house. The member for Arafura might be able to tell me how many houses are privately owned on Bathurst Island. Not many. There are not many private houses anywhere on Aboriginal land. My wife would like to build a house on her land. It is an Aboriginal land trust. You have to get a surveyor, then you have to get agreement with the Aboriginal land trust for a lease and it becomes complicated.
Some communities do not want leases, some communities want 40-year leases, some communities only want 10-year leases, and some communities want 99-year leases. I do not know where it is all going because there are some communities where the leases have run out and there are public houses there.
We need to look at where we are with Aboriginal housing from the public perspective. Where are we in allowing Aboriginal people to have their own private houses? Someone said today, surely we have the right as Australians to own our homes. But there are difficulties on Aboriginal land that need to be sorted through. It has been going for ages. We need to see if we can make some headway through those difficult areas because Indigenous people should have the right to buy a house, but look how many have one. There are not many privately owned houses on Aboriginal land.
That needs to be looked at. Do not forget we have this issue of growth towns. I do not know where the debate is now. I have always felt that one of the sad things about the growth town discussion is that those middle-sized towns like Barunga, Beswick, Nauiyu, Palumpa, Peppimenarti and Santa Teresa are left out of the new homes. They can have refurbishments, but they cannot have new houses. There needs to be a lot of discussion about that. Just because some places have been given a growth town label, why should that mean communities like Nauiyu, which always built good houses and looked after them, have had only one house built in the last 10 years?
This is part of the total debate. We cannot afford just to have public housing; we have to bring Aboriginal people into the mainstream and give them a chance to have a choice so they can have good housing.
I welcome the statement by the minister because it raises the issues. It does not have much in it, to be fair. It tells you the bad things the previous government did. In three or four years I can probably tell you what bad things you mob did. I would rather get away from all that and work constructively because that is what we should be trying to do. It is an issue.
It is about families. I get back to the basics. As I said before, if families have to struggle, if families have to have 40 people in a house, if mum and dad are working so hard they can hardly see their kids in the evening, that is not helping the social fabric of our society. This is a very fundamental issue. It is not just about the bricks and mortar and it is not just about housing. The one thing missing in this statement is that it is about a home, and there is a vast different between a home and a house. That is what we should be concentrating on because there is no place like home, member for Brennan.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this important statement from the Chief Minister on what is an important issue to every Territorian, or every Australian for that matter, whether they live in Darwin, Alice, Nhulunbuy, one of our growth towns, or any of those places in between, including our homelands.
On the crucial issue of home ownership, the Chief Minister said in this important statement that low- to medium-skilled workers is the group having the most difficulty getting into the housing market. We can add to that our homelands people and our remote communities, which the member for Nelson has just highlighted. I agree with the Chief Minister. We want these people to have access to housing and we want to keep Territorians in the Territory. There is no doubt they are critical if we are to maximise the economic growth opportunities that lie ahead.
We want to provide the opportunity for the thousands of apprentices and trainees supported by Labor to have their own homes and to be able to work in the jobs they want to do and the jobs we need them to do to continue to grow the Territory. We had a plan to help these people get off the rental roundabout and the government, after much dithering, has scrapped it despite the scheme’s overwhelming popularity and, sadly, with no other plan to replace it.
My New Home was a scheme to help Territorians get off the rental roundabout and buy a new home up to the value of $750 000. My New Home was a no-deposit scheme with no mortgage insurance, an innovative scheme which attracted a huge number of inquiries, most of which translated into applications, because those trying to break into the market recognised that this was an important and excellent opportunity, but that window of opportunity has now been closed.
The CLP has scrapped this scheme despite its overwhelming popularity. It would have helped thousands of Territorians become homeowners. It would have stimulated housing construction and with it, of course, jobs, training opportunities, procurement opportunities for the supply chain, but those opportunities are gone and, with it, the opportunity to see the freeing up of rental properties.
What of HOMESTART Extra, another initiative of the Labor government? We are proud of the assistance we have given to low- to middle-income earners to help them realise the dream of home ownership. Since 2004, HOMESTART has helped approximately 1500 people become homeowners - singles, couples and families all wanting to put down firm roots in the Territory and raise their families here.
We changed the scheme to make it more accessible and effective for Territorians, including a change to the shared equity scheme that allows between a 50% to 99% share of the property, little or no deposit, no lenders’ mortgage insurance, up to a 35-year loan term, no application fee, and $15 000 for assistance - effectively an interest-free loan. This attractive and accessible scheme helped more people become homeowners.
The Labor government was mindful of a very important area, one which would ensure people on lower wages working in important parts of the economy, such as tourism, retail, services and so on, could access rental properties. Tourism is, and always has been, a key part of the Territory’s economy and one which Labor grew during its 11 years in government.
Again, I eagerly await the release of the details on how the new CLP government plans to deliver the 2000 affordable rental properties promised in its first 100 days plan issued before the election, flagging these new affordable rental properties as something it would act on immediately. Two months into the CLP’s term we have heard nothing of how this promise will be delivered.
The Labor government set up Venture Housing Company, the Northern Territory’s affordable housing rental company, and this was an exciting new start for the Northern Territory. The redevelopment in Parap was the first cab off the rank with 35 affordable rental properties. I know from my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, this was an important part of his 2008 election campaign, and one which he, and Labor, delivered on.
I want to highlight that we made significant commitments in the budget for more affordable rental properties in the growing city of Palmerston, and I hope the government continues with our plans. My first job in the Northern Territory was at the Palmerston high school, or Driver High School as it was then. I was there in 1987 and I can hardly believe when I go there now how phenomenal the growth has been. In 1987, Palmerston was predominantly Housing Commission properties, but today it is a diverse and beautiful city with a really diverse mix of housing.
I turn to public housing. One thing I agree with the Chief Minister about is that public housing is important. It is vital to ensure we maintain the integrity of the stock, not only for the residents, surrounding neighbours and the broader community, but to ensure we can deliver the most cost-effective system possible.
I stand in this Chamber flabbergasted to hear the government has no plan about how to improve public housing and spends the opportunity in this important statement to talk merely about cost-effective design principles. I want to know, as do other members on this side of the House and, indeed, Territorians, what the government plans to do with ageing complexes such as Wirrina in Parap, which was redeveloped, as I have already mentioned into a contemporary complex under Labor.
We had a plan and we were delivering on that plan. I encourage the government to look at it closely and act quickly, not to dither, but to look at what can be done to regenerate public housing. The Labor government had committed to the redevelopment of Tomaris Court, Kurringal Flats and Shiers Street. These are all prime locations that host ageing complexes where we were going to deliver an important regeneration and modernisation of housing.
It would have included public, private and affordable housing for Territorians. I cannot impress strongly enough on this new government that they must act, they cannot dither, they cannot get bogged down in a blame game, they must step up to their responsibility to meet the needs of public housing and they must step up to their election commitments.
Public housing, or lack of it, in the town of Nhulunbuy is of huge concern. We have one of the longest, in fact, probably the longest waiting list in the Northern Territory for public housing tenants. There is a shortage of government employee housing. However, we have seen some fantastic ventures with traditional owners developing estates, which are delivering and will deliver long into the future, housing returns for traditional owners. It is incredibly complicated with the town existing on a special purpose lease, and whilst those leases were renewed last year for a further 42 years, as we all know from the media today there are some real issues around the certainty of the future of that town.
Regardless, we need the Chief Minister to step up to the plate and fight for the largest company in the Northern Territory. It is not just about a mining company, it is about a very important regional area. I remain optimistic that the place will continue and, with it, we need to see the government investing in housing for both public tenants and government employee housing.
I now turn to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing - NPARIH is the acronym - of which the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Indigenous Program is a very important part. As I represent a bush electorate, it is a program I am very familiar with and one which is very important to Indigenous Territorians. Clearly, it is not so important to the Chief Minister, given that it gets little more than a cursory mention at the end of his contribution, with almost grudging recognition that the program - the biggest remote Indigenous housing program in the history of the Territory and the nation - has been delivered.
The Labor government was proud to negotiate with the Australian government the $1.7bn 10-year program which will - and which is, there is no doubt about that - transform the lives of Indigenous Territorians. There is no denying the program got off to a rough start - we know that, it has been well documented - but we worked hard with the Commonwealth to ensure we were delivering a program and getting the results we needed to see.
As a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I also had the opportunity to visit places outside my electorate to see new and refurbished housing, and to see the things which were working well, as well as the things which, as we all know, were problematic.
The Council of Territory Cooperation added a layer of scrutiny to the program and SIHIP featured in many recommendations made to the government. I acknowledge the hard work of one of our most senior public servants, Ken Davies, who led the initial review of SIHIP when it became apparent there were issues in the early stages - a review he conducted on behalf of the Territory, with his Commonwealth counterpart, to be able to identify a better path forward.
I am so pleased the Chief Minister saw fit not to sack Mr Davies as he did other CEOs because, clearly, he recognised Mr Davies’ efforts as the CEO of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Regional Services - a portfolio with the biggest reforms in government, including managing SIHIP. His efforts were outstanding and I have no doubt he will continue to serve this new government well.
Today I stand in this Chamber proud of what has been life changing for over 3000 remote Indigenous families now living in new or improved ...
Ms Anderson: Absolutely disgraceful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker …
Ms Anderson: Not one house south of Elliott
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Namatjira!
Ms WALKER: This comes from the member for Namatjira who thinks the program can be delivered without bureaucrats - she is sacking them. She sacked the one independent person at arm’s length who has delivered frank and fearless advice …
Ms Anderson: That rubbished you and your government.
Ms WALKER: Do I have the call here, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira! Order!
Ms Anderson: Rubbished your government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira! Please be quiet.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the member opposite - who is most insistent on interjecting; she will have her moment to talk shortly - seems to think describing reports as airy-fairy, accusing people of being in la la land, is sufficient without recognising that what needs to be fixed here is the bureaucracy. You cannot get through this without the bureaucrats; there have to be public servants involved in this program delivery. I will be the first to say there needs to be improvements, and we look forward to seeing how the members on the other side are going to do this.
Under SIHIP, 700 new homes and almost 2500 refurbishments and rebuilds have been completed.
Having watched the roll-out of the program at Galiwinku which started not long after I became the member, I cannot tell you how frustrating it was in the first 18 months with people contacting me frustrated, heading into cyclone season, wanting to know when this new housing was going to be delivered. The biggest issue in getting that program off the ground was securing land tenure. I was repeatedly told that you cannot invest taxpayer dollars from the government into housing programs where there is no tenure over the assets going in there.
To their credit, the traditional owners at Galiwinku worked hard to resolve their issues and to see, eventually, 40-year leases put in place. I cannot wait to see that same point reached for the community of Yirrkala which, like others, is desperate to see new and refurbished houses to address the overcrowding issues and everything that goes with it.
Where you have overcrowding you have difficulties in getting children to school, family dysfunction, places which have been neglected for so long - for decades under a CLP government and under previous federal governments. The underinvestment cannot be underestimated and, with it, the sheer volume of work needed to address this imbalance.
We all know the reality is that the funding available cannot fix everything at once. I wish it could. When I visited Santa Teresa with the Council of Territory Cooperation - recognising that whilst the refurbishments were occurring at that community there were no extra beds delivered, no extra space made and, therefore, the overcrowding was not addressed. As a member of parliament, it is incredibly frustrating when you see some communities benefiting and others not.
I can only hope in the 10-year commitment going forward with the federal government to continue this program, we will continue to address the needs of those communities yet to receive the benefits. The official opening of the program at Galiwinku was in June, I believe.
I cannot tell you how pleasing it was for me, along with members of that community, to see 90 new houses and 70 or more rebuilds and refurbishments. When I go there now I go out to that subdivision and see families that are proud and happy, and each person has their own little spot; their own home. There is growing community pride coming as people are establishing gardens; keeping their places tidy, and are very proud and obviously very happy to see this program has been delivered. They waited for it for a couple of years, but it has come.
That is not to say all the housing issues at Galiwinku, Maningrida or Groote Eylandt have been resolved. However, it has gone a long way to beginning to meet the needs.
The new government made considerable efforts to talk down NPARIH whenever it had a chance, to find fault and criticise, often to score cheap political points. Now the responsibility of delivery of this program lies firmly in its hands. It will, hopefully, now appreciate the incredible efforts that have gone into achieving the delivery of this massive housing program, which is changing lives for the better. The hard work and dedication of the remote housing team in the new Department of Housing continues under the leadership of Andrew Kirkman and his efforts must be acknowledged and commended.
Andrew, along with Ken Davies, made numerous appearances before the Council of Territory Cooperation to provide information, to answer questions, as well as supporting our visits out to those communities where SIHIP was happening.
I also want to acknowledge the other public servants supporting the remote housing programs even though in some sectors they have had nothing but scorn heaped upon them. We are incredibly proud of what has been achieved so far, and we hope the new government stands firm to continue this important program.
It will discover, as we did in government, there are some big challenges in delivering this program: managing the logistics and costs of working in remote communities; delivering the critically important training and employment opportunities for residents in those communities, not only for the life of the project, but to equip people with skills which will take them forward and be able to take those jobs on - all those in repairs and maintenance - so we do not need to see non-Indigenous contractors flying into these communities.
I look forward to seeing the new government negotiating the tenure with landowners and their statutory representatives via the land councils. This housing program was one it spent much time talking down and I genuinely wish the new government success in its continued delivery along with the continuous improvements which governments, regardless of political persuasion, must find.
It was disappointing that the Chief Minister made no reference to housing on the 500 or so homelands and outstations for the 10 000 Territorians who live on the traditional clan estates of their ancestors. While, before the election, the CLP was big on talk, it was pretty thin on details about support for the homelands. Its somewhat thin policy document does not state exactly what its commitment is, other than $5200 will be allocated per occupied dwelling on the basis that it is the principal place of residence.
I know that the people of the Laynhapuy Homelands are very keen and anxious to know how this program will work; how that funding will be delivered and administered; what input homelands residents will have; what say they will have in the repairs and maintenance program for their homes; how that will feed into the homelands resource agency and then on into – you cannot escape it – the bureaucracy of the government.
I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister or the Housing minister and I am sure the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have a big role to play in this, and so she should. I am sure the member for Barkly also wants to know what their plans are to support housing on homelands and, importantly, how they will support the building of new homes on homelands. We have always known that homelands are continuing to grow. Perhaps, I should elaborate, just say within …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to standing order 77, I move that the member have an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Barkly.
If I can speak for my electorate, I know that the Laynhapuy Homelands and the Marthakal Homelands continue to grow. They are strong places; this is where people want to raise their families. Many of these places have schools and they see these places as culturally strong, strong in law, healthy places and they want to know what support they can expect from government.
They need to be able to grow their communities and have new houses there. We look forward to hearing what the new government’s plan is in supporting residents to realise that aspiration to have new houses built on their homelands, whether that be through some kind of public housing model - that is difficult given that these estates are recognised as private estates - or whether, as the member for Nelson has suggested, private home ownership.
I want to turn finally to social housing. I am hoping that the new government continues the work we did with the non-government sector to deliver housing for people faced with homelessness. In recent years, working with the Australian government and the non-government sectors, we delivered around 450 extra beds for those most in need. This included accommodation for homeless people, families escaping domestic violence, and affordable housing and supported care for people seeking medical treatment.
As shadow minister for Housing, I am trying to meet with key stakeholders, as I am across all my areas of shadow responsibility. I made it a priority to meet with NT Shelter and I thank Toni Vine Bromley for meeting with me early in September. As the peak body which advocates for appropriate and affordable housing for all Territorians, NT Shelter takes an active role in lobbying government and key stakeholders. I am not sure whether relevant ministers have had the opportunity to meet with NT Shelter; Toni did tell me she had made contact with the Housing minister’s office so …
Mr Tollner: A couple of meetings.
Ms WALKER: You have had a couple of meetings? That is very good to hear.
I know they have been seeking those meetings so I am really pleased to hear they are happening. It is vital for you to engage with NT Shelter and other NGOs involved in this area. I hope you do not disband the Homelessness and Housing Advisory Group. I hope you maintain the level of funding the Labor government committed to NT Shelter. It represents a broad range of important non-government organisations that provide housing and support and, in turn, provide very valuable advice to government.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I look forward to holding the new government to account. I look forward to seeing its overdue plan for how it will deliver these 2000 new homes. I especially look forward to hearing how it will deliver housing in the bush, to communities as well as homelands. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this important statement before the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I also take great delight in participating in a debate about a very important topic in the Northern Territory. It comes with a sense of irony though, because how things change so quickly! I remember presenting ministerial statements to this House myself and with colleagues when we were in government, to the absolute bile and vitriol from members who were the opposition then, particularly the member for Greatorex. But we continued with that debate, we did it with rational thinking and integrity, and those guys in those days did not quite rise to the occasion and continued that line of approach. Here they are today bringing it on.
The Leader of the Opposition marked the ministerial statement and it was scored down. Unfortunately, it only scored 2.5 out of 10. You have a very experienced parliamentarian, ex-minister and Deputy Chief Minister in the Leader of the Opposition, and really the mark of character is to take it on the chin. Take the criticism and then turn that into a positive.
If the Chief Minister has been marked down on this one, let me give him a bit of advice - being an ex-school teacher - with the staff and the public sector, go back to the whiteboard upstairs and start off with a scaffold of what, where, when and how. If you use that scaffold of what, where, when and how and put land release and housing and those substantive concepts into that scaffold, then you may be looking at a score well over five next time you bring this statement back to the house.
It also coincided with a very aggressive Question Time with a dorothy dixer element today, which was hell-bent on trying to slag off the previous government over land use, planning and housing. It was a string of dixer questions that tried to create a strategy and then followed up with this statement.
Being an ex-minister for Lands and Planning, I would like to talk about a few of those issues. To start with, I fought very hard for the sub-division at Kilgariff in Alice Springs and the Labor Caucus and Labor Cabinet supported it. I have advised the member for Braitling, the Minister for Infrastructure, that the only blocker in that project was the NT general election in 2012.
When an election is called the government goes into caretaker mode so that project slowed down. The reality now for the project of Kilgariff is that the CLP, with its cuts to the public sector and the sacking of one of the key players, the fantastic and the dynamic CEO of Lands and Planning, David Ritchie, has put fear into and scattered the department well and truly.
There will definitely be a job of trust when the CLP government has to build that trust with the department to get that project back up and running. I will talk a little more about Kilgariff. When we went into caretaker mode and I went back to fight for the seat of Barkly, there was a legacy of 2000 units approved in the CBD of Darwin and Palmerston with 4000 lots of land approved and under construction in the greater Darwin area.
There was a subdivision in Katherine with land for sale, a subdivision in Tennant Creek with all the land sold, and a fantastic building program going on. Kilgariff was under way, not to mention the other suburbs that were stepping up out of the ground, such as Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston, Stages 1 and 2, and Zuccoli. Mitchell is in the pipeline and there are private developments at Coolalinga, University Heights, Durack and do not forget Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
That was a very proud moment for me to leave the seat of power and return to fight for the seat of Barkly, knowing that Labor’s land release program was well and truly under way and still in the most difficult of all times.
The Chief Minister has put himself on the record as saying the global financial crisis is over. That was a very brave statement. I would be very cautious in my approach as the Northern Territory government, because the crisis is well and truly not over. When it hit in 2008, the Treasurer and other members on this side outlined the limitations brought to the land and the housing sectors - real limitations where the money just stopped; it was not available. Developments were ready to go, but they could not secure those very important pre-sales because the boundaries had shifted considerably with the tightening of global money markets. That was a reality.
The CLP opposition whinged, whined, and barked about that for four years. That was its rhetoric. Unfortunately, I see in this statement and what I heard in Question Time today, it has taken that rhetoric into government. You want to drop that quick, ladies and gentlemen, because it is of no use now.
The ball is in your court and you are delivering, so get positive about it and start to acknowledge the great work done under Labor, because you have inherited some really good opportunities. You have inherited a time in the Northern Territory where it is booming, and you will see this stuff roll out. You can claim it in media events; you can spin it any way you like because, from this side, it is all about growing the Territory, and if you do not do it properly, you will be judged accordingly. Those members opposite know the reality of that, being politicians.
However, let us talk about Question Time and some of the quotes I have written down here from the Housing minister, ‘What we will do’, and that lovely quote he used, ‘lots of plots’. That is great lingo. Last night we debated a very important topic on alcohol reform, and it was all about ‘gunna’ do this, and ‘gunna’ do that and ‘this statement brings to the House what we will do’.
However, subsequent speakers have all commented on the fact that it lacks substance and needs to have a bit of meat on the bone to tell Territorians exactly what you will do. You have a very good framework to base off, because much of this work has been done.
I encourage the Chief Minister, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to get the department to give a presentation of the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, because I was involved in that, as were my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues. We worked hard; it was a massive body of work. It definitely goes way above and beyond the old dusty 20-year plan of the CLP.
It brings the greater Darwin area into focus for what is the capital of northern Australia during one of the fastest growing periods you will see in the history of the Northern Territory. That plan is superb, and it will give you the base level to work off in your deliberations about good planning and how to work off the evidence-based research that created the plan.
The Chief Minister made a brilliant statement. It was a couple of years ago now. I cannot put a finger on the time, but it was in one of those classic slag-offs of the government and all the rhetoric around what the government was not doing. He said, ‘I flew into Darwin the other day. I was on a QantasLink flight and as I looked down, I saw all that land out there, and this government’ - he was talking about the previous Labor government ‘cannot deliver, and cannot do that. All that land out there.’
I was the Lands and Planning minister, and it was a great experience to work with experts in the department and discover, not only good planning, but the realities of delivering land. The member for Nelson has given members in this House, over many years, that story. I participated in those lessons as well. When you are talking about delivering land, as in the Chief Minister’s statement, or the current Minister for Housing with his ‘lots of plots out there’ and ‘we’ll get this right’, then you really have to look at the constraints. The constraints are very complex; there are many of them.
For members opposite, particularly the new members of the CLP, I would like to start with native title. The CLP makes no mention of it in the statement. In Question Time today Borroloola was quoted. Well, lo and behold, the last time the Chief Minister was in Borroloola he jumped out of the plane with two television crews behind him, pulled the biggest stunt with a media show, and let me tell you, member for Braitling, that got votes for me in the election. I have to thank the Chief Minister for that stunt and trying to breach the respect and trust of the people on the ground.
Borroloola was raised as an example in Question Time today. Borroloola is ready for development. Borroloola will develop, but there is a very sensitive issue around native title and recognising the traditional owners of that land and doing business with those traditional owners.
I live in Tennant Creek and can give you examples. Native title as a constraint, forget it. Native title is an opportunity. The previous government had just negotiated a capacity for 200 lots with the native titleholders. On those 200 lots, we have released 54 lots of serviced land and both multiple dwelling and single dwelling homes are under construction. This will increase the capacity, the economics, and the community development of that town substantially.
Another example of good governance and the Labor government negotiating with traditional owners was the Barkly Work Camp. It is state of the art, the jewel in the crown of the new era of thinking - a whole new take on Corrections that, if continued as a policy, will help keep people out of prison.
As the member of Port Darwin tells the public, we will need to keep Berrimah. The whole idea is a new order in community corrections. The new regional work camps, the Katherine prison farm are to keep people out of the Darwin Correctional Centre. I cannot go into that today because that is not really relevant.
We wanted to site the Barkly Work Camp in a particular spot and, because of the constraints around land in that spot, we moved it. We negotiated with two different groups of native titleholders - not one but two. We succeeded in the first negotiation and then we had to tell them we were really sorry, that land had too many constraints. It would not be financially viable for us to do it there. We then wanted to put it elsewhere, we went into negotiations with a whole new native title group, and we secured the second one.
That is an example from Tennant Creek, but make sure you members on the other side take a big interest in the new planning commission and the new Environmental Protection Agency and speak up for the native titleholders. If you go down the road we went down in Tennant Creek you will achieve real community development. If you go on the historical road of the Country Liberal Party you will end up locked in litigation and court for decades. Learn from those mistakes and you will be a very good government.
We get into some pragmatic areas when somebody looking out the plane window over the greater Darwin area says, ‘Look at all that land down there; that the previous Labor government could not develop. They could not release it.’
Think about some of the concepts like biting insect zones, flood zones, storm surge zones, waterlogged land, land belonging to the Commonwealth for Defence, private land, land with constraints around noise attenuation from the airport, land preserved for future transport corridors and heritage areas. That is a shortlist of some of the constraints you deal with when you are talking about the release of land in the greater Darwin area.
Do not forget this statement did not talk about the Territory’s newest city opportunity at Weddell. It did not talk about what the previous government did in supporting the INPEX development and ensuring those important head services the member for Nelson talked about - roads and water and power going straight past. You do not want to talk about that in a statement about future planning and creating affordable housing. That is why you scored 2.5 out of 10.
You can go back and write a few more paragraphs around Weddell and talk about what, when, where and how, because that is the real jewel in the crown of creating the harbour city, that is all well and truly documented in the previous government’s Greater Darwin Land Use Plan.
The member for Nelson talked about head services and the provision of land, and that is an expensive job. You have a bit of a team together; you have the member for Braitling as the Minister for Infrastructure, the Chief Minister as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and the member for Brennan as the Housing minister. You will have to work closely together on this because it is a team effort that delivers serviced land. When you guys get your boots dusty, kick a few ant beds, see what happens on the ground and talk to the developers, then you will see that the biggest challenge is providing serviced land. The land service costs are the bottom line before you go anywhere near the developer and the on-costs that are added.
Regarding the member for Nelson’s point about the Land Development Corporation, that is exactly what we were doing in the previous government. We made a joint venture in Zuccoli. It is under construction; it has an incredible capacity; it is being developed according to the new principles of urban development. Have a look at it; talk to those people and you will see all the challenges associated with delivering serviced land. There we are talking about Crown land. As the member for Nelson pointed out, there are taxpayer-funded needs for servicing that land to get it on to the market where you can then start to do business with the developer.
Do not forget my advice about land release - take it or leave it. However, regarding your new planning commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, I am very interested in exploring how that legislative instrument will change the nature of how land release is done in the Territory. Be aware that the environment needs to be protected. You need to ask the questions about that for any new land development coming online. When we get away from Crown land we do not dismiss those requirements; we just move them into the developer community.
The member for Brennan, the Housing minister, and the Chief Minister talked about the subtleties of how we are going to work with developers and do this business quicker, faster and cheaper. Be aware - this is what I talked about the other day - developers are about making profits and you have to be able to strike a balance as the government of the day will be held accountable.
Go out there and do your best, use the experts in the department. Be careful you do not lose too much corporate knowledge. I was extremely saddened when David Ritchie departed as the CEO. He taught me so much; he is a brilliant bloke and a great operator. Be careful of the loss of that corporate knowledge because when you go walking in the developer community, the private sector community, you will need every trick in the book up your sleeve. They are very astute people. They are very intelligent people, but they are profit-driven and you need to be top-line negotiators to make sure you achieve the best results.
That leads me to Kilgariff and the member for Braitling. I talked about the project stalling because of the election but now you guys will get it back on track. The previous Labor government and I fought hard for that for Alice Springs. I fought hard for Katherine, I fought for Tennant Creek and I also took great delight in the developments around the greater Darwin area, but it is your job now. We put $10.5m into it, but you have to sell it to a developer now because the government does not continue to build homes.
You have to bring a developer on line. We started the search in the market place but, unfortunately, in Alice Springs there did not seem to be the capacity or the will to develop Kilgariff, although at the time it was the clear principle of the Northern Territory Labor government, to make sure locals got that work. We were trying to do that, but we had a backup plan to use the Land Development Corporation.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Johnston and I thank the members for their support.
The backup plan for Kilgariff was that the Land Development Corporation was definitely interested, but you are in charge now. You will be running the show. The Land Development Corporation has some excellent experience in the joint venture they are conducting in Zuccoli. They have a proven track record in the delivery of industrial land.
If we move them into residential land they might be your key in Kilgariff, but make sure you go back with your land use planning and talk to the demographers. The demographers will give you the predictions and unfortunately Alice Springs is not growing quickly. I suppose the member for Greatorex, the Minister for Tourism, should take a bit of responsibility for this when he supported that negative advertising campaign in Alice Springs that went viral globally and sent the message that Alice Springs is a ‘no go’ zone.
We argued in this House about that and we recommended to you not to do that because that was dangerous territory. However, those negative stories went out globally, and having to deal with that is one thing. The demographers have shown that Alice Springs needs growth and I am interested in the plans from the new government about how you will grow Alice Springs because you do not create lots of service land to watch the weeds grow.
It is the old supply and demand and you have a perfect opportunity. We planned for the first cut of Kilgariff as 140 lots, but there is a capacity in that area of over 3000 lots and it is creative country there. We also looked at innovative ways to deliver affordable housing for Alice Springs and Central Australia. That is where I went the extra step with the developers and the joint venture companies we were working with. I said it is not just about serviced land, it is about housing infrastructure.
We should be looking at alternative building products and the debate you need to have in the Territory is about smaller lot sizes. The member for Brennan uses the rhetoric of a person with a middle income. People cannot expect to have an 800 square metre block and $400 000 home. I could not afford it and still cannot afford it. I had to work my way up. It is a natural progression of renting, to buying a unit, to a moderate home or whatever. You need to start that journey and not overlay too many big expectations on everyone to expect 800 m2 of land with a $400 000 house. That is not attainable for many Australians. We have to work with those contingencies and do our best.
In Kilgariff we were talking, not only about serviced land, but about alternative building materials and smaller footprints.
There is one other debate I would like you guys to continue in Alice Springs that I took up and received a lot of criticism for - I got hammered actually - but I kept it on the table, particularly with the Planning For the Futures Forum in Alice Springs, and that was about building height regulations in the town. It is a tough debate, but I hope the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment with his new planning commission and his new Environmental Protection Agency, will continue the debate. The debate for Alice Springs is a good one.
There are antisocial issues in the town. If you look at the town, with all respect, it is a planning nightmare. The principles of modern urbanism show that if you create nooks, crannies, dead ends and areas that attract antisocial behaviour, that are hotspots, that are dark, sheltered, not visible, then you attract problems. The principles of new urbanism now say that if you can create active street frontages, if you can create elevated environments that offer passive surveillance and you start to energise central business districts with people, they are your best security because naturally, people are looking, they are living, they are interacting and others are not welcome to come in and behave in an antisocial way.
However, the battering I took in Alice Springs was, ‘Don’t you come down and preach that. We are not building anything over three storeys, and you get back to Tennant Creek.’ So I said to them, ‘Well, if I can find a five or six-storey development, I will take it from Alice Springs and bring it back to Tennant Creek, because we will welcome it.’
The principles of modern urbanism need to be applied in Alice Springs, Darwin, Palmerston, or wherever. There are some very good agencies which were created by the Labor government - stakeholders and advisory groups - that are able to educate a government about this. Make good use of those brilliant minds and those ministers working together out in the field getting some dust on their boots and losing that rhetoric of an opposition, because you are now in government and you are now driving the dozer, in charge of the excavator, and you have to protect the mangroves and the environment in all the development. You enjoy the ride, because I tell you I did, every step of the way. It was fascinating.
There are a couple of points I also want to comment on from a media statement of the Department of Infrastructure which says the
Well, good on you, member for Brennan, that it is great. You know what? I will put on the record I want to take the credit, because I did it! Under the Labor government, I did it! I worked tirelessly with the Department of Construction and Infrastructure which was fully involved in this, and we went over hurdle after hurdle. We jumped them all.
It is all about taking those commercial contracts and creating gangs of local people in remote communities to do the work. My mantra around it for government when they showed me all the constraints was: Guess what? The locals are not going to ring the ABC. They are not going to ring the member for Braitling to get on the radio and write to The Australian and stir up merry hell that blocks everything, that creates all this negative politics around it. The locals will do the repairs and refurbishments in their own time, at their own pace, in the life of the community.
This is what I call the community rhythm. Government understood that. They said, ‘That is a bit weird, mate’. I said, ‘Listen, believe me, I live in the bush. I know no one will ring the ABC and complain. No one will go and bag out the government and rubbish us and try to drag us down with all this negative rhetoric because we are going to be doing it.’
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure worked tirelessly to put that together and I congratulate the Minister for Housing for putting it out there, spinning it out in that media world you used to criticise, because this is a good thing. Well done! I look forward to seeing the results of that in the Barkly.
I will give a little advice. I should not give too much advice they tell me. However, this is about Territorians. Public Housing - I am running out of time. I am sorry I am going to keep my time. Public Housing: the statement concentrates a lot on infrastructure. I will give you a tip. The secret is ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an additional 10 minutes to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has already had his 10 minutes.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Braitling. That is why I am rushing through this.
Concentrate on tenancy management; that is what it is all about, mate. We have put in place, as the previous government, some excellent initiatives in education and awareness for tenants in tenancy security. Be careful of the budget cuts and the economic rationalism; they will go there first. For the member for Braitling, the dynamic new Transport minister, watch out for budget cuts to the Transport Safety Officers because that is a brilliant program. It should be extended to Alice Springs. That is where I was heading with it next. The economic rationalists up there on the fifth floor will be putting a knife into things like that really quickly.
Regarding remote housing - and it was discussed by the member for Nhulunbuy – fantastic: 934 new houses, 2950 refurbishments. However, the big mistake you made in your statement was - and the member for Braitling will be freaking out about this - you have put down a date, a year, and a number. Then, we can just drag you all through The Australian, and the ABC and Channel 9, and whoever else will listen to us, and bag you out for the next couple of years. I will use all your Hansard; I will just change the names to protect the innocent. I will quote it, I will plagiarise it every step of the way and drag you through the media.
At the end of the day, that is SIHIP; that is what we negotiated with the Commonwealth government. Do it better; good luck. I look forward to it because it is the kids of the future who will have an outcome. Watch out for The Australian though because we will have to do some business down there.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, before I start, I will pay a compliment to the member for Barkly. Normally, he comes into this House and rattles on like a crazy, leftie ex-chalkie. No one really listens, we just put up with Hector for the sake of putting up with Hector. However, his talk about modern urbanisation around environmental guidelines in the Alice Springs CBD was probably the best contribution I have heard him make. It is a pity that during his tenure as minister in the previous government he was not prepared to work through some of those issues with the members of parliament from Alice Springs. I would have been very supportive of looking at raising the height restrictions in Alice Springs above three stories. It is important to get better, modern urbanisation and also to get more people living in town. That completely supports the development of the town.
It was very funny walking into this Chamber today, and reflecting this afternoon, thinking about our introduction the other day and the speech by the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, chastising you in a funny way about your support of the Phantom. I was thinking today about the Phantom being purple. I happen to have a purple tie on today. I looked around our wing meeting this morning and my colleague to the left, Mr Tollner, the member for Fong Lim, has purple on today. My colleague, the member for Namatjira, has some purple on, and the member for Arnhem has some purple on her shoes and a purple iPhone. We have some colour with the member for Brennan, minister Chandler, and the member for Drysdale is all in purple. I thought, ‘Gee, we are really supporting the Phantom’.
I did not really want to talk about it, but then I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk. The member for Nhulunbuy, who sat here for four years and did not say a word, today talked about homelands and SIHIP and had all the answers in the world. I thought: there is the biggest phantom in the room, the ghost who walks. She had nothing to say for four years, but the ghost has walked into our parliament today and spoken about things she never had the guts to speak about when she was on this side of the Chamber.
We issued our homelands policy in the lead-up to the election to support people on the homelands. We who supported reforms to the Indigenous housing program known as the failed SIHIP program. We fought for reforms, for change in Aboriginal communities and rural and remote areas across the Northern Territory, not these guys. These guys blew the budget, removed all forms of service delivery, took jobs away, took the cultural independence of local governance away from Indigenous Territorians. However, the member for Nhulunbuy says, ‘We will hold you to account’. I might get someone to look through the Hansard and see what she has said in four years. Boo! Maybe it is the ghost who walks.
Madam Speaker, I know you are a Phantom fan and I appreciate that; however, we have two phantoms now. We have the comical phantom and then we have the hilarious phantom from Nhulunbuy. We have John Paul Young; Hector the Road Safety Cat; Phantom, the Ghost who Walks. We are really filling the place up. Do not worry, member for Johnston, we will come up with a name for you soon too in all forms of fun.
I listened to what the member for Barkly said about modern urbanisation. My ears pricked up a bit when he misled the House about the 140 lots he was planning for Kilgariff. My understanding is it was only 70 lots. He can mislead the House if he wants, but my understanding was it was only 70. The point is, there are no lots developed.
He spoke about a planning forum in Alice Springs. That was in June 2008. People who were interested gathered around in a room at the Crowne Plaza in Alice Springs and spoke about the future of town planning, suburb development, land release, housing lots, blah blah blah, and the Labor government was going to do something about it. Well, here we are today and there has been no land released. You have to ask what they did.
We have the three Ds - debt, deficit and Delia. They are the common things that have really brought this Territory government, under the former administration, to disrepute because of the financial mismanagement. It is up to the Country Liberals once again to fix it up. People always talk about how recessions or bad economic times come in cycles. They do come in cycles. Every time Labor gets in, the economy, the fiscal management component of a government structure, goes down.
Then the Liberals get in and we fix it up again. It will go down when Labor gets in and we will fix it. You just have to look Hawke and Keating then Howard. Then look at Rudd and Gillard; they brought it down. It will be up to Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey to lift it up again. This is the cycle of economies within a government context. The Liberals fix it, Labor ruin it. That is the cycle we are in at the moment.
It is the same in the area of housing. We saw poor elements of land release, poor elements of planning, high-cost conditions of housing and rentals, and now we are in a position where, as my colleague the Minister for Housing said, people are leaving the Territory and it is up to us to fix it. It is another heavy burden we have to carry and we will come back to fix.
I will focus my component of this speech on Central Australia because I know the Chief Minister, in his statement, and the Minister for Housing have concentrated on a broader Territory-wide view, so I will look at this from an Alice Springs perspective, particularly around the Kilgariff subdivision.
I have a copy of the presentation undertaken by Opus that was delivered at that presentation in the Crowne Plaza in June 2008. That presentation went through a number of options, including further development of Larapinta, joining up Sterling Heights and Albrecht Drive. It went through Mt Johns subdivision, potential around Undoolya, South Sadadeen and what is commonly referred to as the AZRI Alice Springs Airport area, also known as Kilgariff.
Let us look at what progress has been made on these subdivisions over the last few years. That was in 2008, and here we are more than six years later in the latter half of 2012. What action did we see from the previous government in addressing affordable housing issues, or district housing issues in Alice Springs, apart from putting out glossy brochures and little PowerPoint flyers? Not a bad PowerPoint flyer but putting those out, you cannot really live under this. I suppose you could, there are a few pages; you could stick some together and sleep under that.
Very little has been done towards the growing need for housing in Alice Springs. There are about 25 lots in Mt Johns Stage 1, 40 lots in Sterling Heights, 33 lots in Ridges Estates. Eleven years. Anyone who is a mathematician add that up - eleven years. We release of land of at least 50 lots per year. For example, I understand that the next stage of Mt Johns has a capacity to turn off 40 blocks in a pretty rapid time frame, if you wanted to make that happen. That is high-cost land.
I will turn my attention to Kilgariff. Why is this site still largely undeveloped? Why is the design of Kilgariff yet to be finalised? We heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about Kilgariff, but fly down there next time you visit in six months, drive from the airport into Alice Springs; you will go past the gate where all the headworks have stopped. We have this little beautiful farmland, cows growing, an intersection going into it just at the start of the fence, but nothing. We have right hand turn lanes to go in, left hand turn lanes, but just for cows.
Stage 1 headworks, which began in March 2011, some three years after the forum with a value of $10m, was initiated by the previous government but that was a very slow delivery time frame. This had formed part of the money put into the budget, programmed in, revoted out, programmed in, revoted out, programmed in, revoted out.
The Stage 1 headworks were delivered by the department of Infrastructure in three contract packages, for those who would like to know. The work included connecting roadworks with the new intersection and essential services, including sewers, electricity and water supply. Nearly 20 months later these Stage 1 works are only now nearing completion.
Stage 2 enabling works is the next stage in opening up the new subdivision. For this, we have been waiting for government action since early 2011. Budget Paper No 4 listed an allocation of $3.5m as a revote, and I spoke about the revote. In other words, $3.5m had been on the program since 2011-12 and the early stages of the planning for that budget which would have gone back to 2010 and even now remains unspent, when there is a housing crisis and house prices are blowing out.
You only have to look at the December 2011 quarterly house and unit sale statistics provided to me by LJ Hooker. They show that in the year ending 2004, the average price was $254 834 and in 2011 that has doubled to $491 695. The average unit price has gone from $163 707 in 2004 to $356 993 in 2011. Prices have more than doubled for units and just under doubled for houses. That is in a seven year period.
You really have to ask what the previous government did and how much it cared because that has completely blown out and made it unaffordable for many Territorians, particularly Central Australians.
The Country Liberals government, being in since the evening of 25 August, has taken decisive action to get work moving. Officers from the Department of Infrastructure under my direction are now working closely with colleagues in the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to scope out Stage 2 enabling works. There have already been meetings held and things are progressing at a rapid pace.
Stage 2 works will include a new spine road into the heart of the site as well as key drainage and essential services works. These works will go out to tender early next year and will provide opportunities for local contractors to win valuable work. These Stage 2 works are expected to be completed as early as possible in 2013.
I walked into the department after being made the Minister for Infrastructure and said to the CEO, ‘I want to get this Kilgariff stuff happening, find out where the blockages were’. The blockages were inertia. The blockages were a lazy Labor government. Immediately we had meetings with officers between the two departments of Infrastructure and Lands, Planning and the Environment. Immediately an action plan has been put into place. I have arranged for a meeting between me, the Mayor of Alice Springs and senior Infrastructure officials to start working on the design concept plans before they go to tender to make sure we get things in the right pattern.
Things are moving. It is like the debate today on urgency and the Minister for Tourism wanting things to happen because we are going to drive the economy. We will drive it for the benefit of all Territorians.
I look forward to working with the Chief Minister, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to ensure that the next phase of constructing serviced allotments will be timely and cost-effective. It is not going to be a case where we blow the budget out like Labor would do with the three Ds: debt, deficit and Delia. This will be for us, a cost-effective and timely service delivery model; delivering housing opportunities through land availability in the suburb of Kilgariff. I have already asked the Department of Infrastructure to investigate opportunities around further development in Larapinta Valley.
This housing at Kilgariff has an opportunity of providing some 2500 lots in the combination of AZRI and Alice Springs Airport land. This will provide housing for thousands of people as the town of Alice Springs grows, as well as providing commercial and recreational space. It will not be like Labor, where it is just a pretty brochure, it will get Alice Springs pumping - and I say that deliberately.
We are talking about economic drivers in the town of Alice Springs in Central Australia. The Kilgariff subdivision does not just create an opportunity for the successful tenderer to put in the spine road, it creates opportunities for all the other land servicing work, for the builders who will want to build, for the NRAS opportunities that we will work towards that Labor could not do over the last term of government. It will mean landscapers have more landscaping to do, the gravel companies, the concreting companies, the builders, the roofies, the chippies, the sparkies - everyone will have more to do. It will get our town pumping. That is just the first part into getting our economy growing vibrantly. I really look forward to it.
Part of my contribution to this debate tonight was to talk about Kilgariff. I will leave the rest of my contribution to a later date, but I wanted to let the House know that as soon as I became Minister for Infrastructure, I directed the department to get on with Kilgariff. I am working closely with the Chief Minister as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. We are getting down to business and rolling up our sleeves, releasing land in Alice Springs. We are ensuring supply is in front of demand in a new greenfield site which represents significant opportunities.
Madam Speaker, I move that this debate be concluded at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: This morning I received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition:
Is this matter of public importance supported? The matter is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this definite matter of public importance, that is, the member for Arafura’s election promise to reintroduce full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands.
We heard during the election campaign, both in Arafura and other bush electorates, that Country Liberals’ candidates were promising support for the return of full-strength grog to bush communities. Frankly, we were unsure this was Country Liberals’ policy and a firm commitment endorsed by the party. This was especially so, given the Country Liberals’ gushing endorsement of Mal Brough’s intervention, including the alcohol controls and blue prohibition signs at the entrances to Aboriginal land and living areas across the Northern Territory.
Earlier this month, the NT News jumped on this story, reporting how the Country Liberals had quietly campaigned supporting the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands. Then we had the odd experience of reading a letter to the editor of the NT News in the name of the member for Arafura, denying the suggestion he supported the return of full-strength grog to his home community. This was no part of his election campaign, he said. However, a video interview with the member for Arafura proved quite unequivocal - yes, by his own admission the member for Arafura had said this was a part of his campaign.
We have heard this promise also featured in the campaign for the seat of Arnhem, particularly on Groote Eylandt. More recently, we have seen the Chief Minister come out of the closet, once again, bringing the Queensland Liberals’ template of government to the Territory, supporting drinking clubs and local plebiscites in our bush towns on the return of full-strength grog - those same communities which are wrestling with poverty, poor living conditions, poor school attendance, and limited employment opportunities for local people.
Let us return our focus to what is important in the Territory. Territory Labor has heard the message from the bush about local government reform and frustration with the consequences of decades of neglect only now being seriously addressed through our partnership agreements with the Commonwealth. As Opposition Leader, I am taking my team to the bush to hear the grief, and reconnect with those who are unhappy with us.
One of my recent trips was to the Tiwi Islands, accompanied by my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy. This gave us a great opportunity to not only hear about education, youth programs, local government issues and healthcare provisions, but also to hear directly from community members and community workers about the angst and consequences of the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands.
We met a great range of people: local government leaders, mothers, grannies, youth workers, people with a long-term perspective on the Tiwi life and the key issues affecting Tiwi families. We met with senior traditional owners, and women, in particular, are distressed at the prospect of another debate about the return of full-strength grog. Those wanting to feed their grog habits have found new powerful allies and they expect to be rewarded for their support of the Country Liberals at the recent elections. The Tiwi women are concerned about how a final decision will be made, whose voices will prevail, and who speaks for the children.
Yesterday, the member for Braitling spoke about his support for cultural governance. I would welcome any of the Indigenous members of the government putting on the record how cultural governance will work in their planned plebiscite on the return of grog and establishment of drinking clubs. How will different views be considered and where will the balance of power lie in making a final decision? Who will take account of the risks to children, who will advocate for those children, and who will listen?
Yesterday, the member for Braitling also praised Senator Scullion for his support in the NT election campaign. Hopefully, Senator Scullion used his travelling time with the member for Braitling to tell him that any plebiscite in our bush towns, if conducted properly, would tell you they do not want alcohol back. This is Senator Scullion’s perspective on this issue as reported by the ABC News website on 9 October.
I note the Chief Minister has spoken before about the dignity of taking responsibility. I take it this is what underpins his thinking on the issue and his support for plebiscites on more grog for our bush communities.
Let us talk about decision-making. We have a framework providing a forum for community discussion, consideration of evidence, local opinion and expert opinion and, ultimately, an independent decision by the NT Liquor Commission. Now, under the Stronger Futures framework endorsed by the Country Liberals colleagues in our national capital, the Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs, not wanting to see the massive investment in addressing Indigenous disadvantage cut off at the knees, also has a role in approving alcohol management plans in prescribed alcohol areas.
Community consultation, consideration of evidence and independent adjudication has been a framework that has supported over 90 communities across the Territory firmly rejecting alcohol in the interest of community, family and individual wellbeing. Where drinking clubs have been established, we have often seen these become not family-friendly social clubs, but swill houses and centres of political power within a community built around access to grog. We see extraordinary alcohol consumption, often capped, but relentlessly ever present with regular drinking above harmful levels becoming part of the day-to-day life of those communities. An insidious co-dependency has emerged as the clubs produce income through the sale of alcohol and proceeds are used to endow favoured projects.
This is a key risk Senator Scullion has also warned of. At Nguiu, or Wurrumiyanga, the name traditional owners prefer for the township of Nguiu, there has been a well-documented history of alcohol-related harm, particularly domestic violence and other assaults. This is a sad history which leads directly to the 2006 decision to ban heavy beer at the Nguiu Social Club. Let us be very clear about that history. That decision was a direct result of a community conversation, consideration of the evidence and, notably, proper attention to the needs of those without a strong voice, the children and youth of the Tiwi Islands.
An important consideration leading to that critical decision was the work of our thoughtful Northern Territory Coroner, Greg Cavanagh SM, and his 1999 inquest relating to youth suicide on the Tiwi Islands. In particular, Coroner Cavanagh found the embedded culture of daily drinking at Nguiu, particularly by men, was directly linked to unacceptable levels of domestic levels, assaults and trauma. Tragically, he found a direct link between the culture of heavy drinking and a local epidemic of youth suicide.
Ganja was, of course, also a part of that equation but the coroner noted, very clearly, a direct link between the operation of the club and heavy drinking. He said:
Dr Parker, with 20 years experience amongst Tiwi Islanders, observed a strong connection between alcohol abuse by adults and the internalisation of violence, anger and grief among Tiwi youth as a core factor contributing to suicide and self-harm. Importantly, he also commented on a pattern of a 20-year lead time; how childhood trauma festered over time and often erupted 20 years later in suicide.
More recently, our Children’s Commissioner, our advocate for Territory kids, has also expressed alarm about totally unacceptable levels of alcohol-related violence against Aboriginal women in the Territory. A level of violence he says is 80 times that of other women - a fact that beggars belief and is totally shameful.
We know that this outrageous level of violence in our families is fuelled by grog. I would go on but the facts are well-known. They are well-known, I believe, by the member for Arafura, who was prominent in supporting the Coroner at the time. I look forward to hearing from this new member for Arafura about how his thinking has evolved and how he sees the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands being handled.
What message will the return of full-strength beer for adults and drinking as a core part of day-to-day Tiwi life seem to young people at risk?
It is important that the member for Arafura and the Chief Minister outline their plans because many of the people we listen to on the Tiwi Islands are deeply anxious about the return of full-strength grog. They are fearful of returning to an environment of heavy drinking, with less money to feed the kids, more arguments and humbug. They are scared about the impact on Tiwi children, wondering how a vote for grog will be handled. This is absolutely a matter of definite public importance.
I call on the government to explain to Territorians, to Tiwi Islanders, how they will ensure that we move forward and not backwards, forward in protecting women and children in supporting Tiwi families to live healthy lives and celebrate their Tiwi culture and identity, not a return to community life revolving around the club and grog as a central part of day-to-day life.
Explain to Tiwi Islanders, Territorians and Australians generally how we will not slide back to the awful truth that in 2000-05 the Tiwi Islands was the suicide capital of the world. I have heard fine things said about the fact that the member for Arafura is not a drinker. I have heard fine things said that he lives at Four Mile where the aspirations of the community are that there will be a rehabilitation centre, not for the return of full-strength grog - the community has aspirations for a rehabilitation centre run with Tiwi culture at Four Mile to deal with the problems they have with the drinking of mid-strength now, and the serious problems they have with ganja on the islands now.
They are looking to the senior leadership of the member for Arafura because they know he is not a drinker and he lives the gentle life at Four Mile, which was established for rehabilitation. They are looking for that information I have spoken about here and they are looking for that leadership with genuine angst. We listened to many different people - elders, men, women, children. They are waiting for the answers. We would like to hear them.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I am a senior Tiwi elder and I am proud to be a Tiwi. I can talk to them through Tiwi law and through white law because I am elected to be here. I can speak for Tiwi. About reformed drinkers, I stopped drinking in 1983. That is one example and people have a choice.
Tiwi people come to Darwin and have access to full-strength alcohol. I see them drunk on Darwin streets and I am saddened and embarrassed for them. We have a social club on Tiwi that only allows light beer with a meal. Tiwi people are telling me they should be able to drink full-strength beer in their own community, controlled by their own people.
Tiwi people should have choice and community decision-making. Like any other location in the Northern Territory, Labor does not trust us with alcohol. Tiwi people are already taking responsibility for looking after problem drunks in our community.
The facility at Four Mile on Bathurst is a potential site for a rehabilitation program and problem drunks on Tiwi Island to come back to our community. There is a building already in place which is inappropriate for the type of rehabilitation use.
Tiwi people are sick and tired of being told what to do by Labor, and Tiwi people are telling me that Labor is treating them like second-rate citizens. If you talk about closing the gap, does that mean that whites can drink heavy and blacks cannot? I am here to listen to them and to communicate their views and ideas in this parliament
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, Rome was not built in a day. Problem drinkers are not going to fade away; they are going to be here forever, and we can expect younger generations to follow. Unless we, as government, start talking seriously about how we can help each other out, we as a whole will not get anywhere with this issue of problem drinking.
Let me take you back to last year, when I chaired the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. I remember the then Deputy Chief Minister walking into a room full of Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council members and the Indigenous Economic Development Task Force to tell us how this new Enough is Enough alcohol reform package was going to help our people. You should have seen the Indigenous Affairs Advisory councillors’ jaws drop. I remember, to my understanding, we as the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council were there to advise the then government on what was best for our people in order to engage with each other.
I do not believe we were consulted, or were even advised that this was happening. That day, the only person who felt so low was me, as Chair of the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council, because I had to calm my councillors down. We are here today and we still have not done anything about the drinkers out there, and these drinkers are our families. They are our families; our fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters. Just remember that when we talk about this big problem we have in the Northern Territory.
We bury people. My four brothers died in a town camp because they drank every day, day in, day out. I want to seriously work with this government which has been elected by the people out there who said to everyone enough is enough. We have been bashing our heads against the wall, talking to every government member who has flown in, driven in. They have been there for one day, and they think they know us and can walk away with just one answer from a person who might be visiting that community that day. That is what makes people think they have the answer. No, you do not, because any Aboriginal person you pull up, wherever, will give you whatever answer you want to hear so you can walk away feeling you have been consulted.
Madam Speaker, we have to think seriously about this problem we have in the Northern Territory, because it is costing our people’s lives.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I want to make one thing clear in this House: During my election - I want to get you straight, Delia ...
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable member, if you can direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms LEE: Okay, sorry about that. During my election, I have not once, or ever, bribed my electorate with the promise of alcohol. As a mother of four, I stopped drinking when my father died ...
Ms Lawrie: Good.
Ms LEE: I tell you that is good; that is the best decision I have ever made ...
Ms Lawrie: I am glad you did not promise grog.
Ms LEE: Whoa, good on you! But do not walk into this House and accuse me of something I have never done. I live, I cry with my family. I live on the same land as my family. I see the problems; I have grown up with it in my house. I do not need to hear it from anyone else. That is the whole reason why you are on the opposition, and we are over here, because the people voted us in, not you. Get that right. Okay?
One thing has to be settled in this House. The only reason why Labor was voted out - and I will get that straight out into the open because the world needs to see it, Indigenous people need to see it - was because we are here to stand up and represent them. We are not going to sit here and put our foot down on them. I am one of those people. I am part of them. I have grown up with them. English was never my first language.
You might think I am dumber than you; that is your thought, I do not care. The reason they put me here is because both my parents, especially my father, was the same as this old man right here next to me, Francis Xavier - a very high cultural leader.
My mother would not even sit there and question Alison Anderson or Bess Price. They are both too high a cultural leader as well. She knows her ground. I do not know about any other woman, but it is a disgrace. That is why you are put on that side.
That is my point, never walk into this House and accuse me of something I have not done. I told those people exactly what they needed to hear: The shires - get it out. We will go in there and fight for that. What has the SIHIP program delivered - refurbishments, housing. Were they up to standard?
Mr Kurrupuwu: No
Ms LEE: No, exactly. Look at Lajamanu, for instance, one of your growth towns. If you walk through that community there is rubbish all over the place. Go to every community - there are no jobs on the ground for our people. That is the reason why we are in here. Where are the jobs? You have Balanda - you want to talk about language, well Balanda, I am sure you know what Yolngu means. That is us mob, Balanda, that is you. Balanda are taking over our communities. Our leaders died. You have no idea - never accuse me.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, what we have here is the quintessential clash of ideologies. Never have I seen it in this House more starkly represented than in this debate.
The Leader of the Opposition said we have to continue these policies because we know what is good for you. That was the policy of the original European settlement of Australia. That, by the way, was the policy of extermination. That was the policy of assimilation and the policy of welfarism. It is all about, ‘Let’s control peoples’ lives because we know what is good for them’.
That ideology leads to the policies we have seen pumped out into these communities by this government. Woe betide you if you are the recipient of any of this state-run charity and have the audacity to question the wisdom of the state because they will come after you. Under their cloak of graciousness if you have the audacity to question them, clearly you must be some sort of heretic and they treat people who question them as heretics, they burn them at the stakes.
I have listened to the member for Arnhem have to reject an accusation that was levelled at her by the Leader of the Opposition. Why was that accusation levelled at her? Because she is one of the heretics who has the …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order Madam Speaker! There was no allegation levelled at anyone. The Matter of Public Importance is documented on the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: I would suggest he reads the Hansard of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution.
The member for Arafura, during and after the election campaign, was hounded by the people who see him as a heretic. His argument to resist this position today was simply this, and it was not a complicated argument, but it fundamentally demonstrates the other side of this ideological divide. It is that we are individuals as human beings and we can make decisions for ourselves.
I was particularly captivated by the observation of how this grog policy works - only black men can drink half-strength beer and only white men can drink full-strength beer.
Another country approached racism in that fashion. That country rejected that form of racism absolutely, completely and utterly. It was a form of racism. It was the most racist country in the world for a long time.
What I am hearing from the members on this side of the House is, ‘Well, you reckon you know about this stuff you fellows on the other side of the House? We live and breathe this stuff every single day of our lives. We see it in our communities.’ You reckon these folk do not know what they are talking about? They do not have doctorates but I can tell you that they have doctorates in the challenges of life and living under the blessings of an all-giving state. I can tell you they have learnt that lesson.
They are saying, ‘For God’s sake, start making us responsible. Allow us to make decisions and be responsible for the outcomes of those decisions.’
For them to stand up in this place and suggest it would be to have them branded by the all-giving, all-knowing charitable ones on the other side as heretics of the lowest order.
It is not a religion. Ideology should not be a religion but for the people on the other side it is. It is all they have. If you dare challenge it they will hound you, abuse, publicly attack you, and, as we have already seen in this House, defame you.
The comment of this government and what the Chief Minister has said is that people should make the decisions for themselves. I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and she said all of these communities have chosen not to have alcohol. That is entirely reflective of the comments of the Chief Minister on this topic because the Chief Minister has not said we are just going to open the pubs up in every community. I do not remember the Chief Minister ever saying that.
What he said is that we are going to listen to what Aboriginal people have to say in these remote areas. I would not be at all surprised that some, half, possibly most of those communities may say no. But guess what, that will be their choice.
If a community says they like some of the things that flow from the capacity to make a positive decision or a decision to enable full-strength liquor to be sold in their community, then they would like to make that choice. We live in a democracy but one could be forgiven for thinking that if you are an Aboriginal person living in a remote community on a land trust somewhere you should be deprived of democracy because ‘we know what is good for you!’.
I have seen for many years people knowing ‘what is good for’ Aboriginal people. The part that really irritates me about it most of all is that they turn up, spend one or maybe two years in those communities and, boom, they are back down to Sydney and Melbourne sitting there on Lygon Street, drinking their cappuccino saying, ‘Oh, you should see the terrific work I did for Aboriginal people in the bush. You have no idea how wonderful I am’. It is one massive ego trip. ‘I got my doctorate studying Aboriginal people.’ What, like zoo animals? Their nose pressed up to the glass saying, ‘Oh, look there is one’.
When are we going to start treating people like human beings and stop seeing the colour of their skin? It is all I have ever asked for in this House.
I know they are of Aboriginal descent but I also know they are individuals and have different opinions. I listened to the five members of Aboriginal extraction on this side of the House talking in private and there are differences in opinions. Why? Because they are human beings and that is what human beings have. But not so for the state charity runners on the other side of the House. They are a homogenous block. I get irritated, quite frankly, at having to identify people by race. We have to do it because that is the way the debate runs.
We talk about Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, I like to talk about individuals. The only reason I use that identifier is because it is necessary for the sake of the structure of the debate. That is where we have descended to.
That is life, but I realise my relationship with these people will be built not on their Aboriginality but on the personal relationship I have with them. I may end up close to some of them and I may not end up close to others.
It was how it was when I was the member for McDonnell. There were some Aboriginal people I
simply did not like. There were other Aboriginal people who I was very fond of and I realised very quickly that the handle ‘Aboriginal’ is not something you just land on a person and say, ‘that is it’. It is like an XF Falcon, there is an XF Falcon over there, they are all the same. Forget it. Humans are way too complicated for that.
To hear a person come into this Chamber and simply say, ‘For God’s sake, let us make some decisions amongst ourselves!’ and have that branded as some sort of heresy demonstrates how unimaginative the opposition position is and that the left of this country has basically been distilled to one thing only: massive, uncontrollable control freaks.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I would like to dismiss the member for Port Darwin’s debate because he stereotyped the Labor person.
Mr Elferink: Yes, I did.
Mr McCARTHY: He was a hypocrite. He used stereotyping to try to defend an argument.
Mr Elferink: No, I talked about your ideology.
Mr McCARTHY: That was hypocritical. That is the second time you let me down, member for Port Darwin. I like learning from you, but you have had a bad day today because that is ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr McCARTHY: ... two debates you have really let me down on, but I am sure you will pick the game up. I want to participate in this debate for what it is. It is a matter of public importance because the agenda has been set about alcohol in the bush, but this item talks about the re-introduction of full-strength beer.
I have joined the Northern Territory, I have joined the Indigenous community in Sydney, in northern New South Wales, in western New South Wales and the Northern Territory. I did not stay for a day, I do not sip lattes, I have shed blood, sweat and tears for over 33 years. I have raised my children with Indigenous people. I have raised my family and when I say blood, sweat and tears, I have fought with Indigenous people, worked with Indigenous people and mourned with Indigenous people. So I think I have a little street credibility to talk about this MPI, which is about the re-introduction of full-strength beer on the Tiwi Islands.
I have never been to an Indigenous social club. I have been a Barkly person for over 33 years. We lived in the bush, we lived on cattle stations, we worked for three months, we hit the roadhouse or town, partied hard for three days and three nights, swung out of the rafters, sung, danced, ran out of money, jumped in the Toyotas and went back to work for another three months. That was the way I dealt with alcohol.
That was the way I partied and I have never been to a social club, never lived on a big Aboriginal community, never understood what this is about. I was very fortunate, with the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues, to travel in the Northern Territory to look at a couple of these social clubs for my research. I am very lucky to do that, and we are travelling throughout the whole of the Territory doing this research.
The first one we went to was Kalkarindji and the next one was Nguiu, for all sorts of reasons. Both these places have clubs and Kalkarindji was very interesting. Kalkarindji, the club, had security on the door, great food, entertainment and mid-strength alcohol. There was no quota system, there were operating hours of the club. It was very well patronised. As a matter of fact, you felt the community vibe where people were getting prepared to go the club. They were organised to go to the club. You could set your watch by the club.
I was only there for three days and only went to the club once, so I am your classic whitefella that blew in and blew out, but I got the vibe that this was not just the day I was there. This was a community rhythm, people love that club, we talked about the club, they went to the club and they prepared and enjoyed their club and then they went home.
We did our research among the professionals, among the locals, among the blow-in, blow-out whitefellas, among whoever would talk to us and they made a clear distinction between when that club sold full-strength alcohol and when it did not. There was definitely a difference in the community life and the community safety. That was coming from all walks of life, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
We went to the club at Nguiu. I had a great time there, did my usual, crashed into the place, looked for the oldest people I could find, sat down with them, got a coke and started to learn about the life of Nguiu and the club. Those old boys were just fantastic - and didn’t we laugh and have a lot of fun? We talked a lot of politics, very quietly. They were whispering about politics, not me. It was interesting.
That club did not have any tucker. There was a band set up; I really wanted to jump up but I showed restraint. It did not have much entertainment going for it, but there was mid-strength alcohol and a quota system. I was told by many of the locals how to scam the quota system. You are only allowed six mid-strength beers, but there are a couple of really good ways to scam it. If you can scam - and I used to be able to scam really well - you can get much more alcohol than that. Then there was this permit system and blah blah blah; it was a whole different environment around alcohol that I discovered in Nguiu.
There was a common denominator in both of those places, and the member for Arnhem talked about it - the rubbish lying around; that community issue - not just rubbish. Anyone who has lived in Aboriginal communities and understands Aboriginal people knows what I am talking about. It is something we start to become desensitised about, but it is good to hear new members of this House raise it and talk about it. In the politics, the shire gets all the blame. Right? The shire was the whipping boy. The shire was to blame for all the ills, and it was worked as a political aspect, and worked really well. That is why you guys are on that side, and we are on this side. I accept that reality.
However, what I saw in both places in both clubs were similar challenges to where I choose to live. I thought it might be different, but I am glad I have been through an experience to see it was not. There was a common denominator: in both those places the employment programs are running at less than 30%, but the club was really well patronised. No one was late for the club, but the employment programs are running at less than 30%.
People were not going to work; they were not getting up and doing things. Their self-esteem, obviously, has dropped - and you know the story. You are able to craft an excuse about a government and reform, and you put all those planks together and created a bridge you walked across into government. However, the fact remains that in those communities they have similar problems to those in communities in the Barkly, where employment levels are really low, people are not going to work, kids are not going to school with 100% attendance, the community wellbeing is low, self-esteem is low, and there are issues.
We have to talk about that, and you guys now are going to create new policies around making sure that all turns around. There are plenty of jobs out there. Anyway, they were the dynamics.
The other thing about Nguiu was that I saw people preparing for the club. I sat on the verandah talking to a few locals and watched and I picked up the vibe. I knew what was happening there. Everyone was prepared for the club and the wave of people was going that way. I followed and we all ended up at the club. That is what this debate is about. We are able to talk about the club when it had full-strength alcohol, and the club when it did not have full-strength alcohol. That is the debate everyone is going to have. As the member for Arafura says, bring it on, and we are going to talk about it.
That is what we are doing here, and it is good to be able to talk about it without that ya-ya from the member for Port Darwin with all his ideology. What a hypocrite, trying to tell us his ideology is better than the ideology of a person who votes for Labor.
None of the clubs had a family-friendly culture. The locals told me in both places - at Kalkarindji and at Nguiu - families want to go to the club; kids want to go to the club. I said that if you are going to have families at the club you have to have a culture for families. There have to be things organised and things to do.
To tell you the truth, being a person that can party hard, I thought, ‘This is a great vibe’, and I had a lot of fun in both clubs. Imagine if we were not drinking XXXX Gold and we had green cans, would it be different?
You bet your bottom dollar it would! I defy anybody to tell me it would not be. That is the decision that will be made. I reckon it would be a different vibration all together; it would not be so family-friendly with green cans, but I reckon XXXX Gold is okay. Borroloola has gone through this transition and I will tell you about that another time.
We are talking about the reintroduction of full-strength alcohol. The conversation is out there because health workers, teachers, professionals and local people are able to tell the story of what it was like with full-strength alcohol and what it was like with mid-strength alcohol. They are making their decision, and that will factor in your debate.
The Chief Minister says he is going out to talk to everyone. He is going to have to put together some type of plebiscite or process to gather the community opinion – ‘Yes we do, no we don’t; here, not here; don’t bring that here; we are in for it’, whatever. He has taken on that challenge; he has taken on that debate. He has adopted the new Country Liberal Party ideology to champion what the member for Port Darwin talks about.
I was at football training at Nguiu. I went to two football training sessions. First was the local league, which is fabulous, and then I watched the Bombers train. That was amazing. I only talked to men and kids and there was a common theme among a number of the men, without me pre-empting anything, which was that these young people have to get off the grog but also the drugs.
I am from western Sydney and I will tell you a story about that one of these days, but, ‘They have to get off the drugs’. That was in the same sentence as alcohol. It comes perfectly naturally now wherever you go in Australia. I have three boys; I deal with the same challenges. Everyone talks about grog and drugs - they are together. These guys were telling me these young people have to get off the grog and the drugs and they have to train hard. It was all happening, it was fantastic, but there are still real concerns about grog and drugs.
The next day we sat in the club and watched the football team on the oval. Everyone was drinking XXXX Gold and it was a great time. It would be different if they were green cans; however, that will be decided by the people, as we are told.
This debate is around the reintroduction of full-strength in a place that has a history, baggage, that can talk about that debate, that can make the distinction, and all that will influence their decisions. The Chief Minister calls it a conversation: We are just having a conversation. At the moment that is all it is and it is starting off with a debate in parliament and so it should. The Chief Minister says we are going down that road and it will take a long time. Well I hope it does, because I see very real priorities for the Indigenous mob I have chosen to live and work with, and cry with, and raise my family with.
My priority is that we need to have the conversation about an employment program anywhere that is running at less than 30%, but politicians can bang on about there being no jobs. Politicians can exploit what they do not want to talk about.
Let us talk about that if we are going down the big, brave, new world of the member for Port Darwin. Let us talk about why employment programs ran at less than 30% in 2012. I can give you stories of the Barkly but, unfortunately, I heard the same stories in these other places we went to.
It is time to have the debate about how we deal with abuse of alcohol. If you want to live in Kings Cross no problems; Kings Cross is a red hot town, let me tell you. However, Kings Cross needs an incredible amount of services to deal with the human beings that fall off the wagon; that smash and crash and end up broken in pieces and society has to pick them up and put them back together. If you do not have those services then you will be in a world of pain. If you want to walk on the wild side, let us do it. However, ensure we have the conversation about how we plan the services to pick up all the broken people. At the moment the CLP have one mantra: ‘We are gunna do this; we are gunna do that’.
We need to have the conversation about poor school attendance. I am so disappointed you fellows threw us out of government because we had this really good extension of our policies to fuse. I am not going to tell you that story. We are keeping that to ourselves because you guys are going to have to learn the hard way.
I am really disappointed that we did not get the next term to consolidate the issues around youth. To concentrate on the Every Child, Every Day strategy, to concentrate on getting the grassroots level, the early childhood level, really solidified to produce those next generations.
We can have the wonderful conversation about grog; let us have the conversation about the low school attendance in the Northern Territory and how we have to really do some work on that. Like I said the other night, let us have the conversation about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder because for many people that is a new concept. Many people do not understand what that is about, and as I said in this House, we are lucky we have a project running in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. We need to put this out further and wider and make sure people understand that. They are just a few little areas I would like to work on as a member of this House before I can be bothered talking about grog.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker - I will be short, member for Nelson.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this on. She has been taught a lesson today. She will not learn, she will not listen; she has really but she will not show it. She was taught a lesson by my colleagues who told her how they feel and what they take from the community. You have a smiling face over there, Leader of the Opposition, but you heard what was said today and you know you have a challenge as Leader of the Opposition from a party who did not listen and has not listened to people from the bush. I know you have got that.
I do not want to pass over what happened in the election but I will reflect a bit. From where I stood when I was on that side fighting for these issues for a long period of time, I was out there listening to people. I heard the stories. The member for Barkly spoke in the last debate about housing and he spoke about numbers of houses, dates and so forth, saying the Housing minister has put something in his press release about dates and numbers, and that he will hold us to account. The whole SIHIP debate - for all of its failures such as spending $50m without lifting a hammer - you never heard us talking about the numbers of houses that did not get built, 750, 250, 1000 or whatever; you never heard that debate because that was not what it was about.
It was about the fact that people were disengaged from the process, they were not involved in building them and all those employment statistics run out through the SIHIP program were all false figures. You can move 50 people from one project to the next to the next to the next; you add them all up, they are all the same people.
Spread it how you like but that was the argument. You were not listening and people were not engaged; that is the argument about the shires. So many shires I have spoken about are a tarnished brand. It does not matter how many good people are there doing the right thing, they are a tarnished brand. You heard the examples here. People go straight to the point; they do not like the shires, they do not even listen to what the issue is about.
The whole argument in this can be underpinned by a principle of self-determination. Many people, commentators around the nation, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have spoken about how self-determination never worked. In my argument, self-determination was never tried. People make mistakes all the time. We all make mistakes in this Chamber, personally, professionally, politically. We live, we learn.
There might be some communities that fall over; there might be some that go strong. In some ways, it is a competitive environment, in others it is about people learning. It is the argument of self-determination, and communities, black or white, have to be able to do that for themselves. They have to be able to make the decisions. The whole principle, which I have argued on that side and before politics, is that self-determination was never tried. It was never given an opportunity because - forgive my language, this may be taken by some as offensive; it is not - but everyone is out there to try to help Johnny Blackfella get up but when he gets to a certain point they want to cut the legs from under him so he goes back down. Everyone wants to help but no one wants to see him up the top.
That is why in the corporate world, in the bureaucracy, particularly in Canberra, but in many of those elite professions aside from sport, you never see people reach that upper echelon. There might be one or two who break through but look at the public service of the Northern Territory. Twenty-two thousand staff roughly, 19 000 full-time equivalents. How many senior Indigenous leaders are in the public service in the Northern Territory?
A member: Not many.
Mr GILES: That is because everyone wants to help, and then they get their legs chopped off. That is how it is everywhere.
I think Tracker Tilmouth used to say, ‘It is all right to come up out on the balcony, but you are not allowed in through the front door’. That is what it is; it is about self-determination. In our direction on shires, which will be a fast process but done slowly for consultation purposes, not rushing things and make rash decisions without talking to people, it will be about giving that self-determination back while trying to build the governance and trying to build the financial security for people.
There is the real question - and I will shed some light on what some people have spoken to me about – do we need local government in a small jurisdiction? That happens to me all the time, particularly from a community aspect. I sit back and listen. There are many people on the Tiwis who have said that to me, and I sit and listen.
These thoughts will all go towards the development of a consultation paper by the regional governance working group I am putting together. That will be for all people to talk about and see, but these are things that come forward. We have to listen to those arguments.
It comes back to listening and that is why so many people joined the Country Liberals Party, because we were listening. That is why so many people voted for change, that is why people love to see the new houses being built in their community, like Wadeye in the seat of Daly, houses for Africa, houses for everyone, in Maningrida, houses, houses. You thought you would win the election because you were building houses. It was not about the houses.
I am not sure where this photo has come from, but this is reflective. It is a community house where there is a vinyl floor. For example, in a public house in Moulden when you need to fix the floor, you replace the whole floor. Because it is in an Aboriginal community, you just find the one broken tile and you replace that one. Second best. That is what it was about. You can build shiny new houses and that all works, but it is about second best. That is about the self-determining nature. When people are involved, change will happen. The idea of panel contracts for people out bush is a start; it is not the answer, it is a start.
Yesterday in the debate I provided some direction for all the candidates who want to run for Lingiari. The solution for Lingiari is: who wants to put in the most infrastructure, roads and bridges? I will go over again why roads and bridges are important.
Roads and bridges will open the Territory up; they will provide opportunities for economic advancement. They will start to build real jobs, not welfare jobs. Not government service jobs; they will build real jobs, where tourists turn up and you can take people fishing, shooting, hunting or whatever you might want to do. It will be the real jobs we need to create. I know the member for Arnhem knows what is going on in Ngukurr - massive opportunities there and I am supporting her. I am supporting all my colleagues by doing what I can with roads for those areas. I ask the federal government to come on board with me. I will provide whatever I can if you help me, because that is the solution.
You said before you wanted to have a debate about education. You were in government for 11 years, you got appalling NAPLAN results. It is not just because of the approach you take to the education system, it is about the whole lot. It is about self-determination governance, infrastructure and jobs. There is a saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ that blokes talk about from time to time in a joking sense, but from a community perspective, if you have a happy community all these other things will start to fall into place. You have to get to the core of dealing with the problem and part of that includes governance, ownership, listening and the leadership component; the other parts will flow from that. This argument is about alcohol.
Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to attack one of our new members of parliament. She has failed dismally by very short, sharp, and pointed speeches. Your attitude failed dismally. I have my opinions on alcohol too, but I know the voice of the member for Arafura is challenging my thoughts, because that is what his people want.
The other component of this debate is treating alcohol as a demand issue. All your responses have always been about supply, and that is what everyone always talks about: supply, prohibition, prohibition. It is a demand issue. You did not talk in your speech, member for Barkly, about welfare.
All members here, but particularly the member for Port Darwin, spoke about treating people equally. If you live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or anywhere and you are on the dole and you do not look for a job, you lose your money. I do not want to see people lose their money, but there needs to be a carrot-and-stick approach to all Australians, to encourage people to get a job.
If you paid me to sit down and do nothing all day - because I do not mind having a beer - I might drink beer. I have responsibility in my life; I have things to do, I have to earn a living. That is what provides that change. The real debate is about welfare. The real debate is about sit-down money; it always has been about sit-down money. Land tenure reform is part of an argument - that is a federal argument - but sit-down money is a major problem. You will not get people to turn up to your employment programs if you keep paying people to do nothing. That is the No 1 issue.
Where the member for Port Darwin spoke about ideological positions, he took it in a different context. However, the ideological position of Labor is that people should have that social welfare safety net that encourages people to do nothing, not protect people. Until that ideology is lost - and I hope politicians in Canberra, as this is a federal issue, recognise the voice of change in our party, whether our members are of Indigenous heritage or not. I hope they recognise the voice of change; that people want a Liberal perspective about how things are run in the Territory, in the bush and regional Australia, more than they want the Labor perspective, because the Labor perspective has killed middle Australia where most Aboriginal Australians live. Welfare is another major part of it.
I will sum up by saying that you did not listen. The Leader of the Opposition might have heard something in this speech. You have to start listening to be able to engage in the debate properly in this House to try to drive change. People want a bipartisan approach on a number of things - that will never happen. However, there is an opportunity for Labor to come forward now with generational change and to get a more educated debate happening in this Chamber where we can argue with one another rather than you guys being left behind.
You were left behind in 2008 when I walked into this Chamber and started arguing for exactly the same thing we are arguing for now - the same reasons that saw the member for Namatjira leave when she was the member for Macdonnell to come over here, without putting words in your mouth.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I was appalled and disgusted to see the Leader of the Opposition come in, lean over a microphone and speak very slowly to the member for Arafura - very patronising.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do that often in speeches to apply emphasis. I have been speech trained. I do it regularly, Alison. I know what you are trying to infer and that is offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please continue in a normal manner.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I feel there were racial undertones to that.
Ms Lawrie: Well, you are wrong, Alison, you are really wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms Lawrie: Member for Namatjira, you are wrong.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms Lawrie: Member for Namatjira, you are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: Do not come in here and accuse me of being racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: I was born and raised in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I ask that you ask the Opposition Leader to leave the Chamber. She is going directly against your word.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat! Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to ask the Leader of the Opposition to refer to my colleague by her electorate name, which she did not do on three occasions.
Ms Lawrie: I did.
Mr GILES: I also ask you to direct the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Lawrie: I have been called Delia a couple of times.
Mr GILES: It is a point of order. I also ask you to direct the Opposition Leader to adhere to what you say, otherwise leave the Chamber because when you call a point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, sit down please. Leader of the Opposition, if you are to speak, please direct your comments through the Chair. The same goes for the minister. Member for Namatjira, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of public importance because it affects our people.
If the Opposition Leader has not already realised the Indigenous people sitting on this side of the House were born and bred with the problem - not just alcoholism, but overcrowding, we have families who have suicided, and our children who are not just alcoholics, but are on ganja and other drugs, and we bury these kids; we cry for them. As I said in my speech on Tuesday, we go to their baptisms and their funerals. We do not see you coming to the funerals to bury our kids who have suicided through overdose of drugs.
Aboriginal people are the biggest debate issue in this parliament among people who do not understand where we come from. You might have lived in places for 30 years, you might have associated with Aboriginal people, but you are not Aboriginal. You need to start listening to the people who suffer due to the consequences of bad, failed policies. We know alcohol is a problem, but we also want people to decide for themselves. It is a choice as a human being.
Opposition Leader, you spoke about children born to mothers who drink alcohol. Do you think Francis Xavier does not care? He has 10 grandchildren. He is a grandfather. Do you think he does not care that pregnant women are drinking? He has buried relatives through suicides and overdose of drugs and alcohol. He buries them every day.
I go to what my colleague, the member for Braitling, said, it is about choice. It is about giving people the opportunity to decide. A couple of days ago I told our deputy leader to consult with people in the communities. That is exactly what the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory said - black people gave him the power to govern the Territory on behalf of all Territorians. That is why they put you on the other side, because they were sick of you deciding for them what you thought was fit for them. That is why they put a conservative government into power to govern for the whole Territory because they want to be human beings. They want to have choices.
Let me tell you about Aboriginal people in communities. Member for Barkly, you should know this. About five or six per cent of Indigenous people in every remote Aboriginal community are drinkers. Do you think that is the majority? Absolutely not! Who are the most powerful people on the communities? It is usually women, usually grandmothers. Do you think they are going to allow full-strength alcohol to be consumed on communities? Give them that choice; give them that opportunity to decide. You will find, through consultation, that most communities will say no. About 99.9% will say no, but on this side of the House we are giving that choice to people.
On the day he was elected, Terry Mills said he would give the power and the voice back to the Aboriginal people. That is exactly what he is doing. He is telling people they have the choice to say no. We are human beings just like you. We do not tell you that you cannot drink inside your house in Karama, Opposition Leader. We do not expect you to tell us what we should be doing in remote Aboriginal communities. Like I said, we do not see you at funerals. This is the first time in your life you have been to the communities to shake their hands, and you have the audacity to talk about Nigel Scullion. Nigel Scullion probably shook hands with many blackfellas long before you were born.
You might have been born and bred with them, but you did not see the real blackfellas in the communities in the last week.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please direct your comment through the Chair.
Ms Lawrie: You do not know my life.
Ms ANDERSON: Of course I do.
Ms Lawrie: No, you do not.
Ms ANDERSON: I would not want to say anything about it either.
Ms Lawrie: You do not know my life.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please direct your comments to the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Take the Gillen Club, for example. The member for Barkly said something about eating and a playground where there are kids, but does the Alice Springs Town Council or the government dictate to those people that, because there are children playing at the Gillen Club and mums and dads eating, you cannot sell full-strength beer inside the Gillen Club, or the Memo Club before it closed down?
I used to take my grannies in there. We do not dictate to those people what they should do and this government is about choice; it is about treating Aboriginal people as human beings, something you have never been able to do as the so-called lovers of black people. You have loved that to death, we want you to leave us alone now.
We have had enough of you. Aboriginal people told you that on voting day; that is why you are sitting over there. At the last election, that man sitting over there, the member for Nelson, denied you the Chief Minister’s position. This time, black people put you there, Opposition Leader, it suits you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am a little saddened by the tone of some of the debate because it is an important debate. I am a human being, I am not black or white in that sense. I have feelings for white people and Aboriginal people.
In fact, the reason I came to the Northern Territory was - I might have been a bit Utopi-istic. I was 19; I studied horticultural science. I felt that I could do something for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That may be outdated today but that is what I had in mind. The distinction between whether you are black or white does not help this debate. This debate is about human beings. It is about caring for one another and, if it gets to the point where we are debating this issue because we think someone is not the same as us then, unfortunately, that is not the way we should be going.
Aboriginal people should have the right, and I say that sincerely, over their own community. I listened to the member for Braitling and I support 99% of what he says. I have said similar things in parliament, especially about welfare.
I would have preferred this MPI to say, ‘the introduction of full employment and the dissolution of welfare’. When I was at Bathurst Island, I worked for the council and I will say one thing: do not get rid of councils. Maybe adjust them because councils are about the provision of essential services which do not have anything to do with traditional ownership. It is the right of each human being in that community to have essential services ...
A member: I am just telling you what people tell me.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. I was the works manager in the Nguiu Shire Council and we employed 107 men. We employed everyone we could until about 1978 when Gough Whitlam brought in unemployment benefits. Since then we have had generations of unemployed people and that has been one of the disasters for the welfare, not only of Aboriginal people, of other people as well.
The only other thing I would disagree with you over, member for Braitling, is that many Aboriginal people go up to a certain point and then get cut off. Sometimes that is Aboriginal people’s own fault and we call that in the Northern Territory ‘shame job’. I had a nephew who was an ACPO; he would not wear his uniform back into the community at Nguiu because it was a shame job. He could do the job well. He probably could have gone further but it was a shame job and that tall poppy syndrome in some places still exists, unfortunately. It is sad. It is not everywhere and it is disappearing, but it is still around. Sometimes that is a problem in itself, people advancing.
I agree that, regarding the shires - and I have said this before - their downfall was that they introduced a complicated, high-tech form of local government to fill pot holes, pick up rubbish, clean the parks that was so advanced that Aboriginal people were moved further away from having managerial control of their own communities.
If you are looking at reviewing shires you need to give the opportunity for Aboriginal people to take ownership of their shires. That idea on the big super shires was not even in the debate. I went to Bathurst Island in 1974 and worked there until 1981. In 1974 the club gave four cans of beer to each person. You bought it and it was full-strength beer. They were VBs in those days. I am not sure what they sell there now as full-strength, but in 1974 they had full-strength beer.
Drinking was certainly an issue, there is no doubt about it. There were ways to get more beer, people used to bring it in by boat, and many a person drowned on the way from Darwin to Bathurst Island. People tried to smuggle it in on planes, some people had permits. It has always been a problem on the island and you only have to look at the history or talk to the liquor commission to know it has been an issue.
I always felt it had some form of calming because people had full employment. If people had to turn up the next day for a job, they were less likely to get on the booze. If someone did not turn up, they would not be given the next day to work either. There was an incentive to make sure that even though you had been on the grog, you would turn up for work. The two work together. If you have no job you might as well get drunk anyway, because you have not got much to live for, so why not?
There is a lot of talk about what you are living for. If you are living in an overcrowded house, have not got a job, they are not putting any new houses in your community, what are you living for? Work gives people a reason to live. If you are taking that basic human value away, who blames people for getting drunk or going on ganja?
I totally agree. I have taken it up with Ms Macklin at the Palmerston mini-cabinet and I have spoken to her directly. I did not have much time, I said - and this is my version so other people might have a different idea – ‘You have to get rid of welfare. You have to give that money to the councils, top it up to a reasonable wage and say welfare is not available here. If you want some money, you go to the council and the council will get you a job.’
As long as the council is also funded with enough infrastructure and capital equipment to do that, it can be done. There is plenty of work in communities, plenty! Then if people want another job, perhaps they have to advance their education, apply for jobs elsewhere, but at least you give them the basic start in life, you give them a job. I agree totally, if you are the government and if you can convince the federal government ...
A member: I will try.
Mr WOOD: Okay, I am happy to support you, because it is an issue of education. I always keep saying, and getting in trouble for going back in the past, that my wife was born at Channel Point and spent the first years of her life going up and down the coast to Indian Island, round the Bynoe and down to Channel Point, over to Banacula, which is on the other side of the mouth of the Daly.
She went to Delissaville as it was called then, now Belyuen, and at nine years old, she went to Daly River Mission because her mother had leprosy and that was the only hospital available, otherwise they would have been split up and she would have gone to Croker Island.
She and her sisters all speak English extremely well and can all read and write well. They speak Ngangikurunggurr which is not their language but because they went to Daly River that is the language spoken there. They are trying to pick up their own language, which is Batjamalh. It was the old way of education and for some reason in the last 30 years we have discovered new ways of doing things, our academics have hold of the system and we have people who have poor literacy and numeracy and do not turn up for school.
Why does that not tell us something? Why is it I am old-fashioned if I say let us teach kids rote methods of learning times tables? Oh, no, you cannot do that, you have to have a little computer and it has to analyse what you are doing.
It might, but the fact is we have very low numeracy and literacy skills, not only out bush but I see kids - not Aboriginal kids - who cannot count the change in the shop working backwards. I have seen people in secondary school writing reports and I tell you, the writing is of the standard of someone in primary school. I just wonder. We had the academic revolution, but I am not sure it took us, in some cases, in the right direction.
I have no problem with the idea of people having the right to say whether alcohol should be on their community. You do not necessarily have to use the Tiwi Islands here, you could apply it anywhere. The concern I have is - and Paul Toohey raised it in his article, and I know from firsthand knowledge - you have to be very careful that influential people will not set the agenda.
I have seen it on Aboriginal communities. If you want to talk to a non-Aboriginal person who has lived a long time in this community, talk to Sister Anne Gardiner and ask her what her fears are. Within the local government at Bathurst Island, which did have elections - and it was a good council, do not get me wrong - people who wanted to be on the council somehow got on the council, if you know what I mean. The idea of a secret ballot did not happen. That is the danger I see.
Most women and people I call leaders - like Francis Xavier, who gave up smoking and drinking in 1983 as he told me - would be very concerned about the introduction of alcohol in some communities. You have to let Aboriginal people have their say, there is no doubt about it. I do not have any problem with that. However, let us not be fools and think there are people who will not use that leverage we might be giving them to start up a campaign to get what they want.
There are certainly men who have the ability to persuade - whether legally or illegally - to get what they want. That is the caution I have: by all means Aboriginal people should be allowed to have their say about those matters, but let us make sure that say is fair; it has not been influenced by people who have another agenda. Otherwise, I do not have a problem at all. That is their right, that is their land and, if they wish to make that decision, that is their decision. As long as it would not be influenced by vested interests, I do not have a problem.
About the tone of what I heard today - I know there are people here who do not get on well, but let us not believe that because I am of one colour and someone else is of another colour, I do not have respect or feelings for them. My wife is Aboriginal. I get a fair indication of the Aboriginal way of thinking from her. I love my wife and my sisters-in-law and my sisters and brothers who are not all Aboriginal. However, I do not look at them from that point of view. They are my fellow human beings.
I would be sad if what I heard today makes people bitter. I was talking to a priest the other day and he was telling me about someone - I do not know whether he is a philosopher or spiritual leader. He talked about the phases in which we should move in life. He talked about going from hostility to hospitality. It made me think about whether we have to approach life a little differently. Are we going to be hostile to one another for the rest of the four years, or are we going to work together in a hospitable manner to achieve better outcomes? That is the way it should be.
I hope that no matter what was said today we move on from it because it does not achieve anything. We need to look at these issues as human beings who pick up experience from those who come from a different background, but do not discard the views of people who also come from a different background. We all want the best for Northern Territory people, and we all want the best for the children of the Northern Territory. That is why it was called the Little Children Are Sacred report. That is what our responsibility is and we need to be careful with what we say. If we go down that path it would not be good. We should be talking about respect, love, and caring for other people no matter the colour of their skin.
Discussion concluded.
Mr GILES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, tomorrow evening there will be a rally throughout the streets of Darwin starting at 7 pm, a rally put on every year by Ruby Gaea called Reclaim the Night. I will be attending. I am looking forward to attending the rally of Reclaim the Night and am encouraging women to get out and join the rally. The rally is around the issue of women’s safety and calling for women to reclaim their safety. Reclaiming safety, obviously, with a name like Reclaim the Night, in public places.
I came into the Chamber and attempted to put things on the public record on the first day of sittings at the request of a woman who had felt violated by verbal abuse from you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand by what she has said to me. I have seen the statements of witnesses, and I saw what she lodged with the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
I hoped this House would let me table that information but I was shut down by numbers. I will not utter those words in this Chamber because they are too vile. However, I will not let this go either. If, for one minute, there is anyone in this House who thinks I will not continue to pursue ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If she wants to make an allegation against a member of this House she should do so by way of a substantiative motion. She should do so in a way where she produces some evidence, just a skerrick.
This attack on the member for Daly is unfounded, unsubstantiated, and she is prepared to use this place as a kangaroo court. If she continues in this vein, I send a signal now that this side of the House will gag her. Produce some evidence, produce something.
Ms LAWRIE: I would be quite happy to table in this House the complainant’s lodgement with the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I would table the information you have no doubt already seen …
Mr Elferink: Which does not have a name attached to it.
Ms LAWRIE: … which details what was said. I will table statutory declarations from two witnesses. If you are not going to use your powers when I seek leave to table, let me know now by all means. In the debate in adjournment, stand up and say if I seek leave to table that documentation you will grant me leave because I will not stop representing a woman who has had vile words used against her. Women are going to a rally to reclaim the night of personal safety. I have met with, spoken with, and have listened to a woman who had hideously vile words used against her.
You use your numbers to stop me from tabling information, but if you are genuine, you can stand up and say you will not prevent me from tabling that information. It will come through, I will not leave this be because there is a woman who has had vile words used against her.
I read very carefully the comments and adjournments by the member for Daly and he did not deny what he said. He did not know what was outlined so, therefore, he denied. There is a distinct difference. I am smart enough to know the distinct difference and so are many others.
I have been shown the Hansard of what the member for Daly has said and everyone can see through it. I wonder, has the Chief Minister shown the allegations, the words to the member for Daly? Have the members of the Country Liberal Party represented in the Chamber, have they been shown the words? Has there been a discussion? How do the women of the Country Liberal Party feel about the vile words used? Why are you preventing the tabling?
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Because you want the name of the person, even though the Northern Territory News in its editorial today pointed out that their reporter, who had interviewed the woman, found her highly credible.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: That you want to do a bit of the ‘let us intimidate, let us publically name and shame the woman’ - an Aboriginal woman, who was spoken to like that and who has said to me that it is too shameful for people to know it was she who received those words. I will continue to walk into this House and raise this matter from time-to-time; I will not let it go. Women should never be spoken to like that. It is grossly offensive and it is vile. I have sat with the woman. I have seen how traumatised she is. I have seen how deeply it has affected her. It is vile, and you sit there and are happy to defend a man who uses those vile words against a woman. Shame on you!
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in July this year we said goodbye to a Territory gentleman, Barry Stach, perhaps best known to the broader public as the Commodore at the Sailing Club. Barry was much more than that to those of us who had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him. Barry was farewelled at the Sailing Club in a very moving ceremony.
No higher compliments can be made of a person and be made as a testament of a person’s life than those that have been made of Barry by those who knew him best, and many people knew him best. That was one of the things that made Barry special. Barry was a friend to all who met him. He always had time for you, and when you spoke with him you had all his attention.
You knew you were special and the things you did were important to him. The only problem with being friends with Barry was that you had to share him and even then that was okay, because everyone should have the opportunity to spend time with Barry.
I was incredibly fortunate as the member for Fannie Bay to spend time with Barry, to work with him on one of his passions, the Darwin Sailing Club, and to help him deliver things to the club he loved and the people who are a part of that club and loved the place like he did.
I did not realise it at first, but my time with Barry was critical in shaping my approach to being a member of parliament, of being a local member, and understanding our community and how our community works. Barry was a mentor through both actions and character, and I am a better person for knowing Barry. I am not the only person who he left better for knowing him.
I have no doubt in saying that anyone who knew Barry would believe that if we could be even half the person he was, we would be twice the person we could ever hope to be. He did not live his life to be an example or a saint; he lived life fully. He was a rascal, he was a mentor, he was a raconteur and that is a word that does not get enough of a run nowadays.
The highlights of Barry’s life are many. He was born in Melbourne on 10 December 1945 and educated at Northcote High School and RMIT. He participated in national service, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam. He was in the Torquay Football Club Team of the Century and he was the winner of the Victorian long board surfing title in 1964. A goofy footer too, apparently; did surf to the left foot.
He met Janice at the Torquay Pub in 1971. He married Janice on 25 May 1979 and moved with her to Darwin in 1980. He was the project construction manager for Mindil Beach Casino, Tindal RAAF Base, and White Construction, Singapore. He was a lecturer at Charles Darwin University and a teacher at Palmerston High School.
At the Darwin Sailing Club he was a UTYA president for many years, the Vice Commodore for three years and the Commodore for 12 years. He was a Darwin to Ambon winner 1995, 1996 and 1997. He was an avid restorer of classic cars, a raconteur extraordinaire, and a vast font of knowledge on pretty much anything, and a fanatical South Melbourne Bloods supporter.
Barry is survived by his wife Janice, and we thank her for sharing him. She and Barry’s sister, Brenda, have people they wanted to thank – Mr John Wardill, for all the care and assistance he provided to Barry over the last few years; Dr Kanga; the staff of Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital; those at the Darwin Hospice for all the compassion and care they showed Barry in his final days. Also, thanks to Barry’s vintage and classic car club mates at the Qantas Hangar for their help and for giving Barry a circle of like-minded friends with whom to share his car passion.
To the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, Barry’s time in the armed services was very important to him and so the presence on the day of some black hats was much appreciated. Thanks to Taffy Evans and Roy Brandner who volunteered to sail Andromeda in its sail past at the funeral. To the minnow fleet, the next generation of potential world champions who also sailed in the convoy that day at the funeral, but thanks especially to all of Barry, Janice and Brenda’s family and friends in Darwin and around Australia for all the support and love they provided.
The pallbearers for the entrance were Glenn Hosking, Rick Browne, David Wilson, Steve Horvat, Ross Davis and Ashley Baum, and the honour party for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment lead by their Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Mick Bye, escorted the casket and carried Barry’s military service medals. The pallbearers after the service were from the Darwin Sailing Juniors who Barry helped in their formative years: Claire Wharton, Amy Nicholas, Luke Owen, Andrea Rice, Jamie Richardson and Thomas Winter.
I would like to finish by reading the words of the new Commodore, one of Barry’s best mates, Peter Bracken:
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I ask the opposition to clarify its position on a number of things. I hope members of the opposition might be able to do that in adjournment tonight.
On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 on Alice Springs radio 783 FM morning program, the member for Barkly was being interviewed and talked about a few things the reporter put to him. I will quote from the transcript:
The member for Barkly replied:
Later the same day in this House, the member for Fannie Bay, Mr Gunner, said, in relation to an interaction with the member for Port Darwin:
Madam Speaker, I would like the opposition to clarify what their position is, because we have the Leader of Government Business and the deputy opposition leader at odds about their position on what is and what is not a good time for Question Time. It would be very interesting if someone from the opposition could inform the government as to what they actually believe and do not believe. Perhaps they might like to get their stories together before they come into the House and start making statements in the House and on radio.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I I refer to the 2012 Smart Schools Awards website, which says:
I celebrate excellence in our schools with the announcement of the 2012 finalists in the Northern Territory Smart Schools Awards, featuring four Barkly schools. The Territory-wide winners were announced on 20 October at the special function for nominated school communities recognised as striving for excellence in the important work of preparing young people as future leaders in our community. I congratulate the principal, teachers, school support staff, parents and carers, and communities of four Barkly schools on their nominations as finalists in the 2012 Northern Territory Smart School Awards.
The Principal, Mark Phillips, at Alekarenge School was nominated for Excellence in Partnering, being for:
a measurable increase in student outcomes as a result of the school working in partnership with community organisations and industry
targeted use of resources, structures and processes to build organisational capacity
evidence of formalised partnership agreements.
The Principal, Ross Forbes, at Alpurrurulam School was nominated for Excellence in Innovation in Indigenous Education, being for:
a measurable increase in outcomes for Indigenous students that can be attributed to the school’s innovative practices, for example, attendance rates, NAPLAN results, the Northern Territory Certificate of Education, vocational education and training
The principal, Carolyn Kassis, at Epenarra School, was nominated for Excellence in Student Wellbeing and Special Needs, being for:
a measurable increase in qualitative and quantitative student outcomes for students with disabilities
I congratulate the 2012 winner in the Smart Schools Awards in the section ‘Excellence in Senior Secondary Outcomes’ which went to Barkly College. To the Principal, Erica Prosser, the staff, the school community, and the school support staff, congratulations on your great win.
This demonstrated:
a measurable increase in the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training achievements, such as the quality of results and the number of graduates which can be attributed to the school’s actions:
targeted use of resources, structures and processes to build organisational capacity and effective performance of people in key roles.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, again I find myself on my feet having to bat away a second attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to get into this House words that she says were uttered by the member for Daly.
I have, on two occasions, blocked this because those words - I am aware of what they are and I have seen the so-called evidence the Leader of the Opposition provided to the Chief Minister. They are indeed offensive words but were not attributed to any individual. The important component is that they are denied. They are abjectly and thoroughly denied by the member for Daly who said so in this House last night.
The strategy of this Leader of the Opposition is that once she can table this allegation in this House, those words will be reproduced in the media and trial by media can be held against the member for Daly.
The problem I have with that approach is, whilst the words are denied, and there is no substantive evidence given to this House, or to the Northern Territory News in support of the allegation made against the member for Daly, I would continue to argue that you have to deal with this by proportionality. The allegation levelled against the member for Daly, which is denied, is a substantial and grave one. Therefore, the quality of the evidence being used to challenge him should also be substantial, not a mere innuendo, not some words written anonymously on a piece of paper, and not some back door approach to try to get a trial by media happening.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to today’s editorial. There are several things I will say, the first being there is a comparison between the words alleged to have been used by the member for Daly and the former Labor member, Len Kiely. The editorial says:
The difference between this allegation and the former Labor minister and Peter Slipper is that those words are not denied. Particularly in the case of the former Labor minister, Len Kiely, those words were admitted. These words are denied so the challenge for this House, and for the Northern Territory News, is that we approach this with a sense of gravity.
The Northern Territory News has spoken to a woman. That woman has appeared to the reporter to be a credible witness. We only have the reporter’s word on that and, in fact, we only have the Northern Territory News editorial staff’s comment based on the opinion of a reporter, who has spoken to a witness. I urge that the complainant in this matter, whoever this is, if there is a complaint to be made, produces some evidence. What I will not accept is this House being used as a kangaroo court for a serious allegation for which there is, at this stage, no evidence available.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to go outside of this Chamber and make the same allegations in front of a television camera. Then provide that material, as it appears to have been provided to the Northern Territory News, in a fashion in which her name is put to that material. The Leader of the Opposition can stand up in front of a Northern Territory News reporter or in front of a news camera and make the same allegations. If she is prepared to do that, then the consequences of that will flow.
What this House should be asking for is some evidence, not anonymous bits of paper which have no names attached to them. Until such time as such evidence can be produced then, as far as I am concerned, and we on this side of the House are concerned, there is no reason why this House should be used as a vehicle to engender a case in the court of public opinion.
It concerns me that the Leader of the Opposition has now, on several occasions attempted to do this in this House, claiming some self-righteous contempt for the member for Daly. If that contempt was really felt, she would have been screaming it out during the election campaign or after the election campaign, but not using this place.
I do not remember her indignation for the former member of this House, Len Kiely. I do not recall her indignation when the Bob Collins matters were surrounding the government. I do not recall her indignation on any other number of levels. This is a political effort on the Leader of the Opposition’s part to stir up a story, but this is a man’s reputation we are dealing with. I ask that the members of this House remember that and that real evidence is required, even in the court of public opinion, for an allegation such as the one that has been pursued by the Leader of the Opposition.
I also speak in relation to an official statement I received from United Sikhs signed by Harjit Singh, the National Director, and Sukhwant Singh, the Director of National Legal Affairs, about an attack on a 26-year-old taxi driver attacked and injured in Darwin on 10 October. I have spoken to Mr Singh and advised him that the Northern Territory will not pass legislation, certainly not the Country Liberals government, which will identify people by race, cultural background, creed or religion. I have also advised Mr Singh that we will introduce legislation for mandatory sentencing for anyone who attacks another person in the workplace.
This policy in part was generated, or certainly highlighted, by the alleged attacks on taxi drivers just before the election in August this year. We will introduce into this House mandatory sentencing legislation to protect workers in the workplace, whether they be taxi drivers or other workers in any other workplace. If they suffer harm as a result of an aggravated assault, or an assault occasioning harm, then there will be a law that says that a person in the workplace will be protected. We consider the workplace to be a sacred place; it is a place where people make their bread and butter so they can support their families and support themselves. The workplace needs to be protected and I can assure Messrs Singh that we, as a Country Liberals government, take the workplace seriously for all people, no matter their nationality. I look forward to introducing that legislation into the House before Christmas this year.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have called this adjournment debate tonight the ‘Highlights from Durack School’, so please indulge me.
In Drysdale, there are five schools, four of those are primary schools and one is Palmerston Senior College, which also contains a special education centre. Of the four primary schools, three are public schools. I feel very privileged to have so many schools in my electorate, which serves a very large proportion of young Territorians living in Palmerston. The school I want to dedicate this adjournment speech to tonight, as I have already foreshadowed, is Durack Primary School, whose school values are respect, responsibility, and integrity, fine foundations on which to educate future generations of Territorians.
Durack Primary School was opened in 1998 and is named after Patrick Durack from the Durack family, who are arguably Australia’s most famous pastoralists. The school is predominantly made up of children from the suburb of Durack, and has a high number of students from Defence families. It currently has 395 students enrolled and experiences attendance rates of above 94 %. Teachers at Durack Primary School have been recognised for their individual expertise.
In 2010, teacher Simone Timms won the Australian Microsoft Teacher of the Year Award and, notably, ranked third in the world for this category, a remarkable commendation for her dedication and contribution to her profession. The year 2010 also saw teacher Jackie Edie receive a Northern Territory Green Teacher award.
Recently, 15 students contributed online to the National Youth Advisory Council. I am pleased to inform the House that two of the students participating in this council have been invited and will attend the Australian government’s 2012 Cyber Safety Summit in Melbourne today. I look forward to informing the House of the outcome of the student’s attendance at this summit.
Twenty-nine students at Durack Primary School volunteered to participate in the Australian maths competition. The students did exceptionally well. Overall, the school achieved one high distinction, representing the top 2 % of students, three distinctions, representing the top 15 % of students and 10 credits, representing the top 50 % of students. The student who achieved the high distinction has been invited to the Australian Mathematical Trust Annual Awards to receive a certificate.
Durack Primary School also actively takes part in a trial to collect data on students with disabilities. The school has recently had a boost to students joining the choir. This may very well have had something to do with the school’s success during the iconic BEAT Concert on 14 September of this year. The choir has become so popular that Mrs Robaye has since established two school choirs.
I was very pleased to participate in a special assembly held by the school on 21 September 2012 to celebrate the achievements of all students for participating in the fundraising spell-a-thon. Collectively, the school raised over $10 400. At this special assembly, individual students and classes were given prizes and rewards for working so hard to achieve their goals. I very much enjoyed presenting what looked like a mountain of goodies which were kindly donated by the local community and local businesses.
In closing my highlights of Durack Primary School, I thank the teachers, parents, staff and students of the school, who have welcomed me as their local member and involved me in the workings of their school. I look forward to continuing to build these relationships over the next four years.
In these first days of sittings in this Twelfth Assembly, we have heard from the Chief Minister and the Minister for Sport and Recreation about the Mills government’s commitment to sport and, indeed, tourism. I spoke in my maiden speech about the importance of safeguarding our unique Territory lifestyle and recreational opportunities.
Tonight, I express my support for Speedway as a sport that can be enjoyed by the whole family, and that contributes to the Northern Territory economy and to tourism. I remember the many occasions my family and our family friends attended the Speedway on a Saturday night with our picnic blankets in hand. It was loud, it was hectic, but it was fun and it was about families. It was about running down to the fence as the cars whizzed past with the hope of getting fresh mud sprayed on your face.
I am privileged to have Oliver Dennis, a very passionate and committed man, live in my electorate. It is through Mr Dennis that I have been able to tell this good news story. I thank Mr Dennis for his commitment to young Territorians and to the Speedway family. I first met Mr Dennis when doorknocking during the 2012 election campaign.
It was at that time he explained to me the way in which motor racing is giving young Territorians purpose and pride. It is keeping Territorians on the right track, a healthy track, and is instilling values in them that go well beyond the circuit. The juniors involved in Speedway care about their motorsports complex; they have taken personal ownership of that space and, therefore, take on the responsibility of its maintenance and upkeep. I was impressed by the dedication of these young people who have spent many hours of late regenerating the complex’s garden beds. I made sure that shortly following the election, I delivered a large pile of campaign posters to Mr Dennis for use as weed mats by the juniors in these garden beds.
In January of this year, the Territory held the Australian Junior Sedan Titles which was a great success. The event attracted 90 competitors between the age of 10 and 17 to the Territory. Needless to say, the participants brought along their families, friends and support teams from right around Australia. This is not to mention the 40 officials who also travelled to the Territory.
This month, Tennant Creek hosted the NT titles, which again saw participants, families and teammates from all over the country travel to Tennant Creek. I quote my constituent, Mr Dennis on his reflection of this event:
I was recently at Beaurepaires in Palmerston talking to Geoff Baronet, a hard-working small business owner who also lives and runs his business in Drysdale. Mr Baronet, like Mr Dennis, is involved in Speedway. Mr Baronet proudly informed me about the home-grown Speedway talent we have in Palmerston, in Drysdale. Both Mr Baronet and Mr Dennis’ sons, and at least one other young man as I can recall, have all worked very hard and will be attending the National Junior Motor Sports Championships in Mackay, Queensland in January 2013. I wish them the very best of luck and hope they bring home the title.
I will finish with a quote from Mr Dennis that I have paraphrased: kids in sport turn out to be good community members; it keeps them busy with maintenance of the vehicle, getting it prepared, and it keeps the kids off the streets.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not agree more.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk on two areas. First, I commend and bring to the attention of this House the organisers of the Coolalinga Rural Markets. The markets have been operating for over 30 years. They started out with just a handful of stallholders and people selling plants and some local produce. In the last 10 years, it has developed into a vibrant family-friendly community market with a diverse range of food, craft, and other locally-produced items such as chutneys and jams, craft, soap, and the famous laksa soup.
The markets are open every Saturday, come Wet Season or Dry Season and in between, from about 8 am to 1 pm throughout the year. They provide an invaluable community meeting place in the rural area, and are one of the few outlets where rural residents can purchase locally-produced and grown goods and products. In fact, the market has developed a significant reputation for certain products with many customers travelling some distance to access the goods, such as the the famous laksa soup, and the poultry, chickens, turkeys, ducklings, rabbits and guinea pigs that are available for sale.
During the Dry Season, the market struggles - in its previous and current locations - to accommodate an average of about 40 stalls. They had a limited undercover area and it was always full in the Wet Season, making it quite small and squeezy. Those who went outside, of course, had to brave the elements.
The market organisers operate as a not-for-profit organisation and any moneys they accumulate from stall fees in excess of the insurance costs, rental obligations and other expenses they donate to charity. The market supports and raises money for the Northern Territory Cancer Council and, in the last 12 months, has donated $2344, including money raised when the market hosted Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. They have made other donations to many worthwhile causes, mostly in the rural area. They donated $1000 to the Leukaemia Foundation. They donated to a family who had a very sick child, Rhiannon. They provided considerable assistance to her family of $1000 plus gift baskets sponsored by the stallholders to help ease the burden on that family. They provided some financial support to a quad bike accident victim from the rural area; provided a training defibrillator worth $655 to St John Ambulance; gave $1050 to PAWS, animal caring and welfare and gave $770 to a special children’s Christmas party. They also gave $1000 to the Queensland Flood Appeal.
Because of the growth of the markets and the expansion over the last 10 to 20 years in particular, there was a growing need to broaden the horizons. There were changes to the existing premises in the Coolalinga Shopping Centre. They were getting squeezed out and squeezed in by the weather and the popularity of the markets, so they made a decision to move to the big shed pavilion at the front of Freds Pass Reserve. This was a brave move. They did not know where they were going or what it was going to hold, but they drew up some large banners; they thought it out. They spoke with me, they spoke with the Litchfield Council, they also spoke with the Freds Pass Reserve Management Board and all were supportive.
The committee is hard-working. It is all voluntarily; there are no honorariums, no pay. I pay tribute to the committee under the careful guidance of Trish Ranger, Kevin Horner, Sandy Feasey, Jenny Crowley, Arthur Eggleston and Marianne McLaughlin. They are great markets. I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been to these markets, and I know many urban people come past the Berrimah Line or the Howard Springs lights to partake of the markets.
The new location at Freds Pass Reserve is only going to get bigger and better. It is a very family-friendly atmosphere and has great potential not only to host more produce - vegetables, fruit, herbs and things of that nature - but it has the potential to expand into a car boot sale. They are starting to talk that way already.
I wish them the very best. I was pleased and honoured to be asked to open the new market sites with Allan McKay, Mayor of Litchfield. I will be a regular visitor at these markets and I encourage the clerks at the table, who are nodding that they would love the Coolalinga Markets.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Presentation of the Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator
Presentation of the Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that it is my intention to present the Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator at Government House. I request all honourable members to assemble on the verandah of Government House at 11.30 am and accompany me to present the address.
A program has been distributed to all honourable members outlining the order of proceedings. There will be a group photograph after the presentation to the Administrator, for the historical record.
Ms LAWRIE: (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there was no advice to the opposition that the presentation of the Address-in-Reply to the Administrator would occur this morning.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst this is a matter for the Speaker’s office to communicate, I am certain our office had been in contact with the office of the leader of opposition business in the last week about this.
When I went through the business with the leader of opposition business some time ago, I said that we wanted to get the Addresses-in-Reply out of the way as quickly as possible. I had that conversation with the leader of opposition business with the purpose of getting it off the notice paper and getting the reply back to the Administrator as quickly as possible.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): The Leader of Government Business is correct. We did discuss the debating of the Address-in-Reply yesterday and finishing that as soon as possible; but we were never notified of parliamentary business ceasing between 11 am and 12 noon. It is perfectly reasonable for the notice to have been given the night before. This is normal practice. Notice is given at least the night before of the ceasing of parliamentary business.
Normally, this notice does not come from the Leader of Government Business; it comes from the Whip, which is the convention. There is no standing order about when notice is given but it is the convention that the Whip or the Speaker’s office advises. That did not occur. We will be going to the Administrator’s place; all we are saying is that notice would have been nice, especially of business in this House ceasing between 11 am and 12 noon.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if my office has been neglectful in not informing you properly of the suspension of the parliament to go to the Administrator’s office, I apologise. I am sure something of this nature will not happen again and you will receive correct and proper advice.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Leanyer Primary School students accompanied by their class teachers. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to you. I hope you enjoy your time in Parliament House, watching the parliament in operation.
Members: Hear, hear!
NOMINATION OF DEPUTY CHAIR OF COMMITTEES
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby nominate Ms Larisa Lee and Mrs Bess Price to act as Deputy Chair of Committees when requested to do so by the Speaker; given under my hand this 25th day of October 2012.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Presentation of Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator
Presentation of Address-in-Reply to Her Honour the Administrator
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that, accompanied by honourable members, I attended upon Her Honour the Administrator this day and presented her the Address-in-Reply to the speech Her Honour delivered on the occasion of the opening of the Twelfth Assembly and that Her Honour had been pleased to make the following reply:
- Madam Speaker, thank you for your Address-in-Reply which you have presented to me. It will afford me pleasure to convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty, the Queen through the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, the message of loyalty of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Australia to which the address gives expression.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Maningrida Middle School students accompanied by Mr Stuart Dwyer, Ms Helen Williams, Mrs Helen Wearing, Ms Noni Eather and Mr Terence Hayes. 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!
RAIL SAFETY (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 5)
(Serial 5)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Thank you, and welcome to all those students from Maningrida.
Madam Speaker, the bill I introduce today is a major national transport reform involving the Commonwealth, states and the Northern Territory. In late 2009, the Council of Australian Governments endorsed the recommendation by the Australian Transport Council to create a single national rail safety regulator. This move was to overcome the differences in regulation that resulted from states and territories inconsistently implementing nationally agreed reforms.
The primary focus of the new law is to develop improved productivity and safety to industry while minimising red tape. Reducing red tape for rail operators in the Territory involved in cross-border activities by having a single national regulator means operators will no longer have to apply for accreditation in each jurisdiction in which they operate, nor will they need to abide by several different laws or pay multiple fees for what is essentially the same activity. This is good news for rail operators as the move to a national regulator is expected to deliver savings in time and money through improved productivity.
The national regulator will be based in Adelaide. However, industry and the Territory community can be assured that a permanent staffing presence will be retained in the Territory. The national law is based on the previously agreed national model rail safety legislation which the Northern Territory implemented with very little variation.
Given this consistency, the implementation of the Rail Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2012 will result in minimal changes for operators on the Darwin to Tarcoola railway. There will, of course, be some changes to our existing rail laws, including clearly setting-out the manner in which rail transport operators must make an assessment of risks for the purpose of their safety management system. This greater clarity will improve regulatory efficiency and simplify the compliance process.
A requirement on the national regulator is to undertake a cost-benefit analysis when considering making a decision that might result in significant costs to an operator. This will provide additional protection to the operator who may otherwise experience a significant financial loss from a decision by the regulator.
The standard of training for rail safety workers will be improved by ensuring training is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Quality Training Framework. This will ensure nationally consistent, high-quality training and assessment services, but will not disadvantage operators in remote areas who do not have easy access to an approved training provider.
We are increasing penalties, both in fines - currently the maximum is 400 penalty units, that being equivalent to $56 400, whereas it is up to $3m under the national laws - and imprisonment. Currently there is a maximum of two years in the Territory whereas it is a maximum of five years under the national law.
These changes will contribute to a more robust rail industry with consistent laws throughout the country. The Northern Territory will retain its rail safety policy role and will, through representation on national committees, continue to ensure the needs of Territory industry and Territorians are maintained.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY BILL
(Serial 7)
(Serial 7)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to establish an independent Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority with executive powers for environmental assessment, and compliance and enforcement. The new authority will be known as the NT EPA.
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Authority Act established an Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, as an advisory body to government. Although this act was amended in 2010 to expand the powers of the EPA, the role remained limited to conducting research, inquiries and reviews on emerging and strategic issues, environmental incidents and decisions which affect ecologically sustainable development of the Territory. Environmental assessment and regulatory functions remained the responsibility of a government department. This dichotomy of roles created confusion in the community regarding regulatory responsibility.
More recently, the exercise of the assessment and regulatory functions by the mega Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport resulted in a perception of inefficiencies and unresponsiveness to industry.
During the 2012 election campaign, I committed to establishing a fully-functional, independent NT EPA with advisory, assessment, and regulatory functions. This commitment was driven by a desire to provide certainty, transparency, and efficiency of environmental assessment and regulatory functions to both industry and the community.
Today, I put forward the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Bill to deliver on this commitment. The bill establishes an independent NT EPA with comprehensive functions that will lead to:
enhanced efficiency and effectiveness of environmental assessment and regulation by bringing together advice on the legislative framework, transparent environmental assessment, and ongoing regulation of environmental matters
improved environmental assessment processes with a focus on timeliness and opportunities for streamlining the Territory and Commonwealth assessment processes
improved engagement with industry and development of clear environmental guidelines and standards
enhanced strategic approaches to environmental assessment with stronger links between planning and environmental assessment through membership of the NT EPA chairperson on the new Northern Territory planning commission and the membership of the Northern Territory planning commission chairperson on the NT EPA;
improved investigative compliance and enforcement powers through greater autonomy of the NT EPA.
The key elements of my election commitment were the independence and transparency of the new NT EPA. I will now outline to honourable members the significant provisions of the bill that deliver on these elements.
In summary, the bill ensures the new NT EPA will be independent and that decisions relating to the environment will be transparent by:
giving the NT EPA independent legal status
providing that the NT EPA and its members are not subject to ministerial direction
imposing reporting requirements on ministers in relation to advice and recommendations by the NT EPA
requiring appointment of members to the NT EPA by the Administrator having regard to specific criteria
enabling the NT EPA to make guidelines about administrative practices and procedures
requiring NT EPA members to disclose interests.
I will now turn to the bill in more detail.
Establishing the NT EPA as an independent statutory body means it is a separate legal entity from the Crown, able to sue and be sued, hold property and enter contracts. This gives the NT EPA real independence and identity.
To further ensure the NT EPA will operate independently, the bill specifically states the NT EPA and its members are not subject to ministerial direction when performing the NT EPA’s functions.
As the Environment minister, I can request that the NT EPA provides advice; I will not be able to provide direction as to the content of that advice. This was an important element of the previous EPA and is something I have ensured has been retained.
The changes I am proposing are not just a cosmetic exercise. The commitment I have made is for a strong, independent NT EPA with real powers to ensure development is undertaken in an environmentally responsible way, and this will be achieved through the bill.
An important element of this bill is the manner in which it imposes ministerial accountability for decisions not to adopt the NT EPA’s advice or recommendations. In the case of advice other than environmental assessment outcomes, the minister has six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice. Those reasons may be made public by the NT EPA. This is a practical solution to concerns regarding the delays by the previous government in responding to advice provided by the current EPA.
In respect to recommendations made in an environmental assessment report, we have taken this commitment to transparency one step further.
In conjunction with a series of other amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures designed to streamline processes which I will outline below, this bill amends the Environmental Assessment Act to require the minister for the Environment, or the responsible approving minister, to provide reasons to the Legislative Assembly as to why recommendations contained in an environmental assessment report are not being adopted.
Environmental assessment reports are designed to assist responsible ministers approve projects in the most environmentally sustainable manner possible. However, sometimes, there are other considerations and practical and pragmatic decisions that have to be made. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency about this part of the decision-making process has, to date, resulted in concerns in our community as to the efficacy of environmental assessments.
This amendment will address these community concerns and improve the transparency and accountability of ministers in the environmental assessment and project approval processes. At the same time, it provides confidence to industry that ministers can and will continue to give practical consideration to environmental assessment recommendations rather than being forced to apply a general rule that all recommendations are appropriate at the time.
Whilst these amendments will make ministers more transparent and accountable, the amendments also place additional and complementary responsibilities on the NT EPA to ensure its recommendations and reports are truly reflective of the triple bottom line approach to decision-making and support ecologically sustainable development. In other words, the NT EPA will have to get the balance right if its recommendations are to be followed.
These are important elements of the bill, but this is not all it does. The bill will repeal the existing Environment Protection Authority Act and, in doing so, will cause the current EPA board to be dissolved. Members of the new NT EPA board will be appointed by the Administrator having regard to the criteria set out in the bill. These criteria are more detailed than those specified in the existing legislation, and are designed to give greater guidance to the Administrator in making appointments.
The criteria include a general regard for the range of skills and knowledge required by the NT EPA to enable it to exercise its powers and perform it functions effectively.
Specific criteria are identified relating to environmental, legal and regulatory, and economic, social and business qualifications, skills knowledge and experience.
The Administrator may have regard to potential member’s skills, knowledge and experience relating to regional and Indigenous issues and working with the community.
These criteria will give industry and the community confidence that people with appropriate knowledge, skills and experience are giving advice and making recommendations to government.
We have all heard stories about independent authorities who start to act outside their areas of responsibility, or stop acting in the best interest of the community in the way they undertake their functions. I can assure honourable members that this cannot happen with the new NT EPA.
This bill includes provisions that specify when the office of a member becomes vacant. These are standard provisions and include where a member resigns, or their period of appointment has ended and they have not been reappointed. Where a person has been convicted of an indictable offence or sentenced to imprisonment for an offence, their appointment will be terminated automatically. This is because we do not believe it is in the public interest for members of the NT EPA to have been convicted of crimes.
The bill contains power for the Administrator to terminate appointments. These are fairly standard provisions and are based on what is in the public interest in relation to the members of the NT EPA.
The provisions include one important element to ensure the continued accountability of its members, that being the definition of misconduct. The bill provides that the Administrator may terminate the appointment of a member on the grounds of misconduct. Misconduct has been defined to include where a member is not acting in accordance with the objectives of the NT EPA or not fulfilling the duties of the NT EPA.
This is not another way of saying that the NT EPA has to act in the best interests of government or the appointment of members will be terminated; it is not an attempt to limit the independence of the NT EPA. I am confident that the NT EPA members will give the frank and fearless advice we expect from our independent environmental regulator.
What the provisions will do is provide the Administrator with the power to consider how the NT EPA is functioning and to make any necessary changes to its members to ensure the NT EPA acts in a manner consistent with what government, the community and industry expect from its environmental regulator.
I have been talking about termination provisions which are designed to give government the ability to act when something goes wrong, something I am sure honourable members would agree is a necessary, albeit unpleasant, consideration when governments establish independent authorities like the NT EPA.
I have appointed Dr William Freeland as the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Environmental Protection Agency within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to oversee the transition to the new NT EPA. Dr Freeland will also be the government’s nominee for the Chairperson of the NT EPA.
Dr Freeland brings a wealth of experience to the NT EPA, having worked in senior positions with the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission, and as a senior environmental consultant.
Dr Freeland began his career with the Parks and Wildlife Commission in 1983 having completed his PhD at the Universities of Chicago and Michigan, studying the behaviour and ecology of primates in Ugandan rainforests, which was followed by six years as an academic in the United States.
In 1992, Dr Freeland accepted a position with the Department of Environment and Heritage in Queensland but soon returned to the Territory.
By 1994, Dr Freeland held a Deputy Director position in the Parks and Wildlife Commission before being appointed as the Director of the Commission in 1998. Dr Freeland has worked for the past nine years as an environmental consultant in Darwin.
Dr Freeland’s skills, knowledge and experience make him eminently suitable to guide the transition to the new NT EPA and to perform the role of Chairperson of the NT EPA.
Dr Freeland’s nomination as Chairperson demonstrates this government’s commitment to making recommendations to the Administrator consistent with the criteria identified in the legislation.
An important element of my government’s election commitment is the improved integration of environmental and planning processes, particularly in the early stages of proposals. It is important to note that by including the Chair of the NT EPA as an ex officio member of the planning commission, and by including the Chair of the planning commission as an ex officio member of the NT EPA we are one step closer to this integration.
I expect that the dual roles of these chairs will bring greater certainty and confidence to business in the planning process without compromising the environment.
I stated earlier that members will need to meet criteria for appointment. While the criteria obviously do not apply to the Chair of the planning commission, who is appointed on other grounds, overall, the criteria for members have been designed to reflect the breadth of the new NT EPA’s functions. The functions of the NT EPA will be to:
provide advice to the minister
undertake environmental assessments
undertake functions associated with the management of waste and pollution, including compliance and enforcement.
As I noted earlier, on receipt of such advice the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment will have six months to consider the advice and respond in writing to the NT EPA, including reasons for any decision not to accept the advice.
Environmental assessment and regulatory functions will be undertaken by the NT EPA through the administration of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act, Part 7 of the Water Act which relates to waste discharge licences, and other environmental legislation as required. In exercising its powers and functions, the NT EPA will be expected to have regard to its objectives. The bill identifies the objectives of the NT EPA which are to:
promote ecologically sustainable development
protect the environment having regard to the need to enable ecologically sustainable development
promote effective waste management and waste minimisation strategies
enhance community and business confidence in the environmental protection regime of the Territory.
These objectives reflect the intent of government to establish a fully functional NT EPA aimed at providing government, the community and industry with appropriate advice on environmental issues and administration of the environmental protection function in the context of the growing and developing Territory.
The establishment of the NT EPA demonstrates this government’s commitment to providing certainty, transparency, and confidence to industry and the community in relation to environmental protection and ecologically sustainable development.
The NT EPA will assist industry progression of ecologically sustainable development, providing certainty and confidence in information and regulatory requirements and decision-making processes associated with environmental assessments and environmental licences.
The establishment of the new NT EPA does not create any additional regulatory burden for business as there will be no duplication of functions. Environmental assessment and compliance and enforcement functions under existing legislation will be transferred to the NT EPA. No new regulatory functions are being created.
Priorities for the new NT EPA include preparation of guidance material for industry and a review of environmental legislation to ensure the environmental protection regime for the Northern Territory should reflect industry and the community’s expectations.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill contains consequential amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures. It also contains consequential amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and regulations. These amendments will ensure the NT EPA will have the necessary legislative authority to undertake its functions.
I will turn first to the amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act and environmental assessment administrative procedures. These amendments are designed to give the NT EPA the power to make decisions in relation to when an environmental assessment is required, the level of environmental assessment that should be undertaken and the contents of any environmental assessment report. These amendments will streamline the environmental assessment process, improving efficiency and timeliness.
Once the NT EPA has completed an assessment report, the report will be provided, in this case, to me, and I will provide it to my appropriate colleague, the responsible minister for that proposal. A number of the amendments clarify my responsibilities in this area.
Because of the independence of the NT EPA and its new role in the assessment process, ministers will no longer be able to influence the outcome of an assessment report. A new power has therefore been included in the environmental assessment administrative procedures that will allow me to provide comments on the assessment report at the same time that I provide the report to the responsible minister.
In keeping with the commitment for transparency and accountability, any comments I make that are not in support of the assessment report must be tabled with a statement of reasons in the Legislative Assembly. This will apply regardless of the extent to which the responsible minister considers my comments in making his own decision.
I will now turn briefly to the amendments to the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act and regulations. These amendments are primarily administrative in nature. They affect the transfer of responsibilities for the functions under the act and regulations from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to the new NT EPA
A review of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act identified a small number of functions currently held by the minister that are more appropriately exercised by the NT EPA. These are powers in relation to the ability to require or accept a compliance plan and to enter into performance agreements. The transfer of these powers to the NT EPA is fitting with the role of the NT EPA, and will provide the NT EPA and businesses wishing to address non-compliance issues with access to options other than costly enforcement mechanisms.
I have retained the remaining ministerial powers under the act, such as those relating to the development and approval of environmental protection objectives, as, while I expect the NT EPA will provide me with advice in relation to these matters, the legislative nature of these matters makes it inappropriate for these powers to be exercised by the NT EPA.
There will be a need to amend the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act and the Water Act to give the NT EPA powers under these acts. These amendments will be pursued separately.
The consequential amendments I have outlined above are necessary to create the legislative framework to establish a fully functional and independent NT EPA. It will provide independent, transparent, and timely environmental assessments and regulatory functions of waste management and pollution control for the Northern Territory, and be more reflective of EPAs in other jurisdictions.
In keeping with its role as the environmental regulator, I anticipate the NT EPA will make recommendations for the further review and improvement of this legislation, and the environmental protection regime more broadly. With the Northern Territory poised for a period of significant expansion of industry both in urban and regional areas, it is critical that growth is managed in an efficient, sustainable, and transparent manner. As an independent NT EPA is the best way to achieve this, I look forward to receiving the NT EPA’s advice on a range of issues.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TOURISM NT BILL
(Serial 8)
(Serial 8)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is for an act to reconstitute Tourism NT as a commission. Tourism is a vital pillar to the Territory economy. As such, this government accords it top priority and is committed to revitalising tourism in the Territory. The commission is key to achieving this.
The commission will bring a new rigour and depth of expertise to growing tourism in the Northern Territory. The tourism industry in the Northern Territory looks to the government tourism body to set the marketing direction of the Territory. We will be identifying candidates with the skills and capacity to do just that, and maintain ongoing responsibility for agency performance to form the commission and give it real clout.
The chair designate of the commission is long-term Territorian and self-made businessman, Michael Bridge. Mr Bridge is the CEO of Airnorth and the Chair of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, a position he has held for the last seven years. He is a recipient of the National Australia Bank’s Medal for Management Innovation and, in 2008, was awarded the Australian Aviation Personality of the Year for his work in creating an industry-wide forum bringing together the 12 industry associations in an effort to find a consolidated voice.
Mr Bridge has a deep understanding of local issues and I am confident he will maximise the Territory’s economic and tourism potential. He is eminently qualified to lead the commission board and will be a very hands-on chairman, ensuring the board is proactive in its work and informed and independent in its thinking.
The board will liaise with industry as necessary to remain informed on tourism issues and opportunities and provide strategic and valuable advice to me. It will be a great asset in helping to encourage the whole-of-government approach to maximising links between tourism, recreation, events, urban development, and the natural environment.
Joining Mr Bridge on the commission will be Tony Mayell, head of the former Northern Territory Tourism Commission until 2001. He will be Executor Director Southern Region for the Department of the Chief Minister and CEO of Tourism NT based in Alice Springs. This appointment not only reinforces the whole-of-government approach we are taking to rebuild this important industry after years of neglect, it recognises the importance of Central Australia to tourism.
The commission will be drawn from the best in the industry in the Territory and nationally to ensure we have the best minds available to put tourism in the Territory back on track.
These people will have authority and responsibility for all major aspects of strategy and policy development and the consequent operational outcomes. What a contrast to the situation we have inherited.
The previous government put in place an advisory board, failed to fill its full complement of positions, and failed to give real responsibility. This argument is symptomatic of the neglect and disrespect the previous government accorded tourism and it must be brought to an end.
Lest any of my honourable colleagues are in doubt as to the importance of tourism in the Northern Territory, and of the task for which we seek to establish a commission, let me present a few facts about the people employed in it and the contribution it makes to the Northern Territory economy.
People employed directly due to tourism make up 11.6% of the Territory workforce, almost 50% higher than the national share of just 8%. Around one in eight employed Territorians has a job as a result of the tourism and hospitality sector.
The tourism industry is made up of nearly 700 businesses, including accommodation providers, attractions, tour and transport operators and vehicles and vessel hire companies. Approximately 10% of these are medium to large businesses with national or international operations. However, 90% of the industry is made up of sole traders - micro or small businesses owned and operated solely within the Northern Territory. Around 65% of the businesses are based in the Top End and 35% in Central Australia.
This volume of small business, combined with the Territory’s small population base, remote locations and other unique aspects means Tourism NT has traditionally played a stronger leadership role for the industry than most of its state and territory counterparts. The tourism industry relies on Tourism NT to set the marketing direction for the Territory. That is why it is so important to have the right structure and the right people driving it.
I turn now to the contribution tourism makes to the economy. On the previous government’s watch, tourism was allowed to decline for many years. However, as the Territory’s leading industry employer, a sector complementary to resources and a bridge between cultures, tourism is well placed to deliver maximum social benefits to the NT and to grow the value of the visitor economy in the Territory.
The total contribution tourism makes to the economy consists of both direct and indirect contributions. Many people do not think about the indirect and direct contributions. The indirect or flow-on effects of tourism demand include supply of goods and services provided by non-tourism industries to satisfy demand of industries directly supplying the visitors. Transport by air, sea and land generates the largest direct contribution followed by accommodation.
In all, tourism contributes an estimated $1.4bn in gross value-added product to the Northern Territory economy - $1.4bn. That is 8.5% compared to 5.3% nationally.
These are significant figures. How much might they improve if the decline in tourism could be arrested, even reversed? We must focus on driving demand for holidays and conventions - an area with a potentially high growth rate - through a strongly focused marketing campaign within our industry.
The new board of commissioners for Tourism NT will provide that expertise and focus. It will also be charged with delivering the benefits of tourism to all Territorians. This includes ensuring a focus on our regions and making that dreaded Berrimah Line a thing of the past. For tourism to fire in the Territory it has to fire in all parts of the Territory.
I am pleased, therefore, to present this bill to members. I am confident the commission will aid this government to re-regionalise the Northern Territory and establish other hubs of activity outside Darwin, provide strategic direction to ensure tourism is flourishing in all parts of the Northern Territory, preside over a professional restructure of Tourism NT and set a new marketing direction, and initiate regional harmony and esteem for an industry that matters to the whole of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the Leader of Government Business advised early yesterday that they will be seeking to pass this bill through all stages on urgency during these sittings.
We indicated to the Leader of Government Business that we would need a briefing before we could decide if we support this urgency, which is reasonable. Our shadow minister asked for a briefing before this bill was introduced and the motion debated in the Chamber. We were told we could not have that briefing until Friday.
We asked again for that briefing before this debate on urgency occurred and were told again we could not have that briefing until Friday. If you are not ready to brief us on the bill, we do not believe you are ready to pass it.
If you rush this you will bungle it. You have form already, minister for Tourism; you bungled the move of the department from Darwin to Alice Springs. If you rush this legislation you will bungle it, and if you are not ready to brief us on this legislation we do not believe you are ready to pass it.
Parliamentary process exists in this Chamber so mistakes can be avoided. The common procedure is to have the bill sit on the despatch box for at least a month so industry and others have a chance to comment on the detail in that bill.
If you are not ready to brief us, I do not believe you are ready to pass the bill and the details should be left on the table for others to have a chance to comment.
You cannot consult on the detail of this bill in one week.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are being a bit pre-emptive, Mr Gunner. You are arguing against the bill at the moment.
Mr GUNNER: I am arguing against the third notice which is the urgency motion.
Mr Elferink: It has not been moved yet. At the moment you are arguing against the bill.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Tourism NT Bill 2012 (Serial 8) passing through all stages on Thursday, 1 November 2012.
Mr Elferink: Now you can attack him for everything you are attacking him with.
Mr GUNNER: We know exactly where we are, member for Port Darwin. The Minister for Tourism did not know where he was because he did not jump to talk to his urgency motion.
As I said, if you are not ready to brief us on this bill, you are not ready to pass this bill, you will bungle it. Industry needs the time and the opportunity to comment on the detail in this bill. You already have form; you bungled moving tourism from Darwin to Alice Springs. We are approaching anything this minister does with caution because he already has form on bungling things and if you rush this bill, you will bungle it.
The industry needs a chance to comment on the detail in this bill and if you give them only one week, they will not have a chance. You need to talk to industry. Give them a chance to comment.
Tourism Top End should have a chance to comment, as should tourism operators around Katherine, the Jawoyn and tour operators in Arafura. What about joint management? Traditional owners, park rangers should have a chance to comment; so should the cruise ship industry.
The commission you want to establish will set the direction and strategy of tourism for the next four years. You want to rush it through in one week and not give tourism operators and industry an opportunity to comment on the commission you want to put in place.
You need to give people a chance to look at the detail in your bill and decide if that is what they want.
The parliamentary processes exist to avoid mistakes and if you rush this you will bungle it. You have form already, minister for Tourism, on bungling things in this area. You need to take the time, get it right and pass it in the next sittings, which is only a delay of three or four weeks, and consult properly with industry. That is not too much to ask.
If you cannot brief us on this bill before the urgency motion, then you are not ready to pass it and we cannot support urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support the urgency motion for very similar reasons to the ones I put forward yesterday. Standing Order 179 says:
- The Speaker may, on the application of the Chief Minister or a minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf, declare a bill to be an urgent bill if satisfied the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused.
I have yet to be shown that a bill to reconstitute the Tourism Commission that would be delayed one month, which is the normal process for bills in this House, would create hardship. That is what the ruling should be. Will the delay of this bill cause hardship?
I listened to the minister for Tourism’s second reading, but would you believe there was no explanation, as was done by the Chief Minister, of the clauses of this bill? There was no explanation as to, for example, the introduction of this bill; the establishment of a new constitution, the chief executive officer - that is what I would expect. We got a run-down on the broad advantages of tourism for the Northern Territory which is fine, but I look at second readings specifically to see what that second reading says about the bill. I did not hear any of that in relation to this.
This is a unicameral parliament and it is really important that we do not move away from processes unless it can be proven that needs to happen. That is what urgency is. We do not have any other scrutiny. We do not have an Upper House. We have a Chair of Committees, which is one of the most important areas of this parliament where we can scrutinise bills. That is the key. We scrutinise bills.
We are now being told the government is going to bring in a commission and we will have one week to look at the bill. You might say that is all right, it is only a little piece of paper like this. I am not in the industry but I would be asking the industry what its opinion is. If you take up what the Chief Minister has said, the industry goes right across the Territory. We should be asking all of the Territory involved in tourism what they think.
So, whether there are people near Robinson River, Borroloola, Uluru, Timber Creek or wherever, the question is whether they have an opportunity to say if this is good. I am not making any comments on whether it is good or bad, I am just saying we should not be slipping into the attitude, ‘Well we need it in a hurry because it is convenient’.
Urgency is about hardship. Urgency should only be used in very special cases. I understood the member for Port Darwin’s argument yesterday, which had merit because that was a slightly different case of a bill that sat in parliament for three months ago.
In general, I have to ask why? Compare this with a bill that said PAWA would not be able to discharge waste into Darwin Harbour because of a legal ruling that said their licence could potentially be invalid and we had to pass legislation urgently to allow that process to legally occur. Now, I regard that as urgent.
It would be a shame for a new government which espoused so many principles when it was in opposition to seem to drop those principles when in government. It would be a shame to say in the first week that we, all of a sudden, decided a bill for the Northern Territory Tourist Commission was urgent, that it would cause hardship - to whom? It might cause hardship to the industry because the industry might say, ‘Gee, we did not have a chance to look at that’; but that is not the hardship we are talking about which would give this legitimacy to be passed under the suspension of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I have nothing against the bill but the process is wrong. It is abuse of Standing Order 179. I do not know whether the Speaker can make a ruling, but if the Speaker makes a ruling that it does not fit the criteria for hardship, then this motion should be defeated. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there is an understanding from opposition that it is the clear intention of the government to establish a tourism commission. We understand the intention. The issue here is the matter of urgency.
We believe strongly this should be debated in the November sittings of parliament. We believe very strongly that a part of good government is the system we have in place where legislation sits on statute books for over a month.
We know there may be quirks of time every now and again where the period falls a day short and we do not have an issue with that. We have expressed that view in conversations between the Whip and the Leader of Government Business; where the time period is just a day short or when there is a ‘technical’ urgency on some legislation.
However, to rush this through on urgency during these sittings without consulting with the tourism industry sets the bar very low for this new government. It is one thing to treat this parliament, the members opposite and the Independent member with a degree of contempt by ignoring our genuine and grave concerns about urgency, but it is quite another thing to treat the industry with contempt.
Realistically, we all know that tourism, as an industry, is incredibly diverse. As the member for Nelson has pointed out, we have a vast geographical area in which tourism operates. I understand there are very exciting tourism opportunities in the Northern Territory. Have a look at what the Jawoyn are doing around their region, particularly in Nitmiluk.
A commission will set the policy going forward for the next four years. This legislation gives effect to the structure and the detail of the powers of the commission. Industry stakeholders will genuinely want to see that, to hear from government how that will operate, to put forward ideas and suggestions which may, or may not, materially change aspects of this, but which may come up with some value-added amendments. This is why we have the process of draft bills sitting on the books for over a month.
I know, having been there, that the people of the Tiwi Islands are genuinely engaged in tourism opportunities. There are businesses there making the most of those opportunities. They would have an expectation that if there is a structural or policy change within tourism they would be consulted.
The government wants to play politics on this. This is a little test of maturity. I am being genuine in saying no issue or urgency arises because, as the member for Nelson has pointed out, there would be no associated hardship. There is clearly no hardship, there is no particular timing required. Sometimes, we have had to put bills in the parliament on urgency to meet the deadlines of Commonwealth legislation and funding payments and things like that. I have never, in 10 years in this parliament, seen a bill like this come before the Chamber on urgency.
Mr Conlan: I know, because you did not do anything.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection of the member for Greatorex who said we never did anything. Well, that’s patently ridiculous ...
Mr Conlan: You did not! That is why the whole industry is in such despair.
Ms LAWRIE: ... thousands of bills, legislation was passed in 10 years.
Do not get down to such a base level on an important debate.
There is no hardship; we have not heard from the minister for Tourism as to why there is a need for urgency.
When the shadow spokesperson was advised of the legislation coming forward, he wanted a briefing and was told he could not have the briefing until Friday – tomorrow - after an urgency motion is debated. That is extraordinary.
I remind the Chief Minister that in the five-point action plan a key test was accountability. Where is the accountability in not allowing the industry, which will be affected by the structure, powers and ambit of the commission, to have a say?
If you ram this through today using your numbers - which you can and which, by the signs of arrogance and the mannerisms coming across the Chamber and the huffing and puffing of the member for Greatorex, you seem predisposed to do - you will send a clear signal to not just the tourism industry, but all other industries, that you will do what you want regardless of their views.
Is that the tone, the standard, and the bar you set in your early days of government? Do not make an albatross around your neck Chief Minister. Rein in Bungles, show your leadership, stand up and say, ‘We recognise this matter of urgency is without the consent of the opposition and the independent. We understand you want time to fully look at and consider the legislation because of the vast geographic areas of the Territory. You need time to consult properly with key stakeholders.’
We understand this is one of the three industries in your three-hub economy. It is crucial. Do not rush this through. Stand up and show some leadership.
You have a minister bungling, crashing through on urgency when there is no hardship. I too join with the member for Nelson in putting the question to the Speaker as to whether this can proceed on urgency because it is a breach of Standing Order 179 - Urgent Bills.
- The Speaker may, on application of the Chief Minister or a minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf, declare a bill to be an urgent bill if satisfied that the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused.
That is clear, Chief Minister. It is an application of the Chief Minister or minister on your behalf. You have Bungles over here but this comes down to you. The decision about whether to push through the numbers on urgency might literally come down to you.
Mr Mills: Or a minister.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it says, ‘or a minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf’. This one comes down to you. It is a test of your leadership. It is a test of whether you are going to be accountable to the tourism industry.
Whether we agree or not in the debate on the tourism commission in November remains to be seen. That is the November debate, after industry has had a chance to provide you with its frank feedback. That frank feedback may well be, ‘This is great, we love it. We love every bit of it’. Who knows?
Today, they do not know because they have not seen it. I will give you the tip, next week is not long enough for all those tourism enterprises across the Territory to see it, understand it, discuss it - we know that. Do not push this one through on urgency.
I ask the Speaker: is this a breach of standing orders?
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for Tourism for bringing this forward. It is an urgent matter. The 11 years of Labor saw tourism go down, down, down. If at any point in time it was urgent, it would be now. I am sure we announced some 12 months ago we were going to set up a tourism commission. Sure, the legislation was not there, but 12 months ago - you have had some time to think about it. It is not all at the last minute. You knew this was coming. This was part of our election platform. You are right, it was part of our three-hub economy and you should not be getting in the way.
You are like Labor red tape getting in the way of progress. It is interesting when you sit back and think about hardship. Now you are talking about hardship and the provisions of urgency. Let me tell you about hardship. Hardship is about the tourism industry suffering under your watch for 11 years, particularly the last four. If at any point this was urgent, the time is now.
We have not heard from the opposition spokesperson on tourism about any of this. We had the bumbling member for Fannie Bay try to string two words together then rush to get the Opposition Leader to save his bacon.
The hardship for the industry is now. It is interesting when you look at tourism over the last four years and the minister for Tourism who sat in this chair right here ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This debate has to deal fairly closely with the motion about urgency. If we drift too far away we will get into areas not relevant to the debate we are dealing with.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, if you could address the motion.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am addressing. I do not recall in the last three years of the previous government whether, under the kingmaker statue, tourism ever came up as an urgent matter. I do not remember the former Chief Minister talking about how urgent tourism is, how we need to rescue our economy in the Northern Territory. This is urgent. That is why we flagged it 12 months ago and that is why my colleague, the minister for Tourism, the member for Greatorex, is fighting for this.
That is what it is about. I was about to reflect on the previous Tourism minister. When you want to talk about what is urgent, let us have a look at the bungles of the former member for Arnhem, the former Minister for Tourism. Let us have a look at her portfolio ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is about relevance. It is normal to stick to the topic, especially when we are dealing with matters relating to debate on urgency. It should be relevant. That has happened before in this parliament and it should happen now.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Minister, if you could stick to the issue, which is addressing the motion, not what previous ministers may or may not have done.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am used to the Leader of the Opposition trying to gag debate, but here we have a new low. The previous Minister for Tourism had a portfolio of Local Government. Is it urgent that we fix local government? Change election? Yes, it is. Am I trying to take my time on this to bring people along because it is a different matter? Yes, because it affects so many people in the bush.
Aboriginal affairs is an urgent matter that my colleague, the minister for Aboriginal Advancement is following up. The previous Minister for Tourism had Family and Children’s Services prior to the member for Casuarina. That is an urgent matter we need to be working on ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. The motion is:
- ... that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Tourism NT Bill 2012 (Serial 8) passing through all stages on Thursday, 1 November 2012.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, if you could get to the point regarding the motion.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am building a case about urgency and talking about other portfolio areas of the previous Minister for Tourism and how she bungled those areas - FACS, Local Government, Aboriginal affairs. It is urgent that we fix all those portfolios, Tourism is just one of them. We all know there has been a downturn in tourism over a number of years, not to say that people in the industry have not been fighting hard against a badly performing Labor government. We released our platform 12 months ago. We are here for the long haul before Christmas to get this commission up and running. That is what we are fighting for.
The minister is prepared to offer a briefing to the opposition spokesperson and work together in partnership. You have a responsibility, as opposition, to recognise the platform we set 12 months ago and assist us to get our tourism policies through so we can start rebuilding tourism in the Northern Territory, rebuilding our economy, and rebuilding the broader Northern Territory. That is what it is about.
Madam Speaker, I fully support this motion by the minister for Tourism and congratulate him for bringing this into this Chamber.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the minister wants to pass legislation on urgency that will establish a new tourism commission and wants opposition support but will not provide me with a briefing on the legislation until Friday. This is not good enough. I ask again, as I did last night, what is the urgency, why the secrecy? More importantly, this legislation and his future tourism decision-making will impact on hundreds of Territory business - as the minister said, a $1.4bn industry.
Has the minister discussed this legislation with them and taken on board any of their suggestions, if any at all? How would the proposed tourism commission and transfer of tourism leadership to Alice Springs help us tap into the emerging tourism markets in China and India? These markets should be a key focus of our future plans and need to be discussed with the tourism professionals.
Indigenous tourism, which is very important to many people in the Territory, is one of our best tourism assets. Sadly, support for one of our most exciting and Territory-specific sectors, Indigenous tourism, I have been told is about to take a big hit to help fund the new arrangements. This will be a disgrace. Can the minister please state what arrangements he has made to consult with this important part of our tourism industry spread right across the Territory?
The incoming government says it supports the bush as its highest priority, but the new minister cannot help making derisory comments about too much strategy and focus on what he calls the ‘dreaming side’ of tourism. I was very offended by that yesterday.
I put this challenge to the minister: come clean on your vision for Territory tourism and your personal priorities. I am proud to shadow you in all you do, hold you to account for how you spend taxpayers’ money, and advocate as strongly as I can for the hard-working Territorians proudly investing in and developing a strong tourism industry.
The minister for Tourism should take a deep breath, stop ranting and raving, and do his job. He is a minister now and should focus on working with the people in the industry. Just remember, he is playing with the merits of his legislation which we can debate in the November sittings of the Legislative Assembly ...
Mr Conlan: Thank you for your general leeway there.
Mr VOWLES: Well, you were not here last night, mate.
Mr Conlan: Well, it is the same speech. Thanks a lot.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, now to bring some rationale to this debate. I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say about the hardship issue, but I want to set the stage for this debate so people can understand what is going on.
This policy was announced during the election campaign so - and I hear the shadow Tourism minister uses the word ‘secret’, to suggest we are secretly sneaking in on our tippy toes, a little mask around our faces with a swag over our back with this bill in it and we are going to drop it on the table and hope nobody notices. What nonsense. Did we talk to the tourism industry? Yes. Did I talk to the tourism industry? Absolutely. I was not even the shadow Tourism minister, but I travelled with the then shadow Tourism minister and we met with tourist operators, particularly in Alice Springs, and they thought it was a positive idea. Saying this is furtive, secret or sneaky is hardly a rational position to take. We trumpeted this from the rafters as our policy. No one was under any illusions as to what the CLP’s policy was prior to the election.
That is setting the stage for this. Now let’s talk about the hardship issue. Anyone would realise - and we heard questions on this today from the members opposite - that this causes some hardship to those people who work in the department and the members opposite said, ‘Oh there is concern, there is uncertainty’. Surely, by allowing this to pass on urgency we are dealing with their hardship in a way that would provide them with certainty.
Well I will come to the next part because the leader of opposition business said - and I heard it reiterated by the shadow Tourism minister - ‘Oh, you have not been able to supply us with a briefing’. That is fine, but when I spoke to the leader of opposition business about this over a week ago, he said, ‘I understand what you are doing.’ That puts the ball in his court. If he has a problem with urgency, he can talk to me about it and we can negotiate an outcome. If we cannot negotiate an outcome we do it on the numbers.
Have I been visited by the leader of opposition business? No I have not, because the leader of opposition business understands the business of this House and is an accommodating fellow, a gentleman, and he understands a reasonable and rational argument. The problem for the leader of opposition business is that his leader says to him quite regularly, ‘Oh don’t give them that, don’t let them do that’. So when I get an assurance from the leader of opposition business he then tells his leader ‘this is what they want’ and she says, ‘oh no, do not do that, do not give them that at all’. What happens then ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is misleading the House because there was never a conversation like that between the member for Fannie Bay and me. In all conversations he agreed urgency was ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the problem I have, Madam Speaker ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the Leader of the Opposition has claimed that you have misrepresented her.
Mr ELFERINK: If she wants to accuse me of that I have thicker skin. She knows she can do it by way of substantive motion - either that or she withdraws it. You can instruct her to withdraw it; it is water off a duck’s back to me.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the statement please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw it, but I speculate, because any person with a rational world view, who gets agreement from the Leader of Opposition ..,
Ms Lawrie: You did not get agreement.
Mr ELFERINK: I did!
Ms Lawrie: You did not!
Mr ELFERINK: Anyone who receives agreement from the leader of the opposition business ...
Ms Lawrie: You are verballing again - that is twice in two days.
Mr ELFERINK: Three times if you are going to make that argument. The fact is, you keep tearing him another one, and he has to say, ‘Oh, John, look’. He did not even do that this time. He did it yesterday on the issue of the timing of General Business Day. Finally, I said to him, ‘No, you are going to stick to the arrangements we had in place.’ Those arrangements were cemented in this place by way of motion.
If he had a problem with the urgency motion, the courteous thing would have been to say, ‘We are going to resist urgency’. That did not occur.
He is sick of doing the bidding of the Leader of the Opposition, which is resist, resist, resist, for political reasons only. That shows the management and leadership style of the Leader of the Opposition because it is clearly abrasive, politically driven, and is not in any way considered for the true and careful operation of this House. Nothing in the last week would have stopped the Leader of the Opposition coming around to this side of the House …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. This is all about verballing by the Leader of Government Business. If he is seeking clarity, the leader of opposition business said, ‘No urgency’, and argued against it. If you accept his views, you would say no urgency.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that; that was really useful. If he wanted to resist, he could have come around to the Chamber any time. However, he chose simply to run the fight here on the floor of parliament.
He gave me no indication, yet was given good forewarning of this, this would become a fight. I am happy to have the fight on the floor of the Chamber if needs be, but do not suggest for a second that it is not the case of the Leader of the Opposition riding her leader of opposition business and saying, ‘Just fight them on everything’. It is the nature of the Leader of the Opposition to be in a state of perpetual battle. She wants to drag everyone else in this place to that place of perpetual battle. That is her world view because that is the nature of the way she wants things done.
We seek urgency because we need to settle this quickly for the sake of the people in the industry who have suffered badly under this government’s administration of tourism, and for the good administration of a good policy that needs to be brought on quickly to deal with the hardship issues faced by those people employed in this field.
Let us settle this down. There is no secrecy in what we have done. We have offered those briefings on the Friday. There was no complaint about the briefings being offered on the Friday until they came into this House today. They have tried to set a trap. The trap, once again, has blown up in their faces, because they are still too busy being political rather than actually caring about the necessary outcomes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I want to add to this debate that I am so disappointed in the member for Port Darwin. For our new members in this House in the first week of parliamentary sittings, they are probably in the space I was in four years ago where you have to learn quickly. Member for Port Darwin, I learnt a lot from you. I learnt, I watched, and I studied, because he is an experienced operator in this House.
I will share a couple of things he taught me: One, he said to me as a minister, ‘Do not dare come into this House with a story of just trust me’. He linked that with the reason - because we are talking about legislative instruments, we are talking about laws in the Northern Territory, and he said very clearly time and time again, ‘How dare you come into this House asking for any deviation from process with just trust me. That was the full-on dramatics of the member for Port Darwin. As we all know, he is very gifted with language and can craft spin in very clever ways.
However, he has disappointed me totally because he is on the other side. He is the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory and he is using spin and an argument of, ‘Just trust me. Pass it today and we will tell you about it tomorrow.’
That is incredible and I do not accept the drop in standards. Therefore, the debate on the other side has deteriorated to a point where we should all question this. I am backing the members on our side who have spoken against this, and the member for Nelson who highlighted the parliamentary process around how laws are passed in the Northern Territory. Do not deviate from that. Member for Port Darwin, I am very disappointed.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader talks about sending a clear signal. We are sending a clear signal to the industry: we give a damn. This industry was left wailing for far too long by a previous Tourism minister who was absolutely, who could not mobilise herself to do anything about an industry in decline.
We have spoken widely to the tourism industry over a number of months. The member for Braitling alluded to about 12 months. It has been longer than that; it has been about 18 months. We have spoken to industry operators up and down the Northern Territory about a relocation of the tourism HQ and reconstituting a tourism commission. This has been met with a large amount of support. So much so that we took it to the election and have subsequently brought this bill to the House. There has been plenty of discussion with industry. The consultation has been far and wide ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: ... I am talking about the consultation with the industry about reconstituting the Northern Territory Tourism Commission, which is exactly what the bill is about.
It is about the Northern Territory Tourism Commission. The bill is very simple. It is about establishing a board of directors, essentially, a board of commissioners who will have some clout to make marketing and policy decisions to set the future direction of tourism for the Northern Territory. It is pretty simple. If you guys do not get it, I feel sorry for you. That is why the Northern Territory tourism industry is in such decline.
It is not up to us to convince you of this. We do not owe you anything. You guys are over there for a reason. You were sent over there because you did nothing about tourism. People far and wide, right across the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory, put you over there for this very reason.
All you want to do is what Labor does - put up a blockage. Let us put another road block up, another stumbling block. Let us consult with every single man and his dog until the cows come home and we will never get anything done. That is exactly what you do. Another report. One person says, ‘I do not really like the look of that report’. ‘Okay, let’s send it back out for further consultation and perhaps we will do a review of the report.’
Those days are over. We are getting on with this. This is happening. We are going to take control of the tourism industry and put tourism back in the hands of tourist operators and make it the powerhouse industry it once was. If it was left in your hands, which it was for 11 years - we all know the state of it.
It is haemorrhaging. Member for Nelson, if you want to talk about hardship I am telling you, this is hardship. Not only do we have an industry haemorrhaging, we have staff across the Northern Territory in this industry. and working in Tourism NT, who need some certainty about the future of their industry. That is what it is about; that is exactly what it is about. Okay?
It is simple. It is going to happen; this is a government direction, it is government policy, it is no secret. Even the Labor candidate for Greatorex, Mr Rowan Foley, said in a public debate in Alice Springs on 7 August 2012 that it is a good idea. We are doing it!
As for the briefing, member for Johnston, what is the point of having one until you have heard the second reading speech? Even I know that, mate. We have introduced it now, you can have it tomorrow, then you can figure it out and come back with your argument. Hopefully, you may be able to string together another debate rather than the one you have already used twice. You had no questions in the House on this, you never wandered over and talked to me about this, and you have had one speech which you regurgitated twice - an absolute disgrace. Why don’t you get off your backside and take tourism seriously?
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 14 Noes 9
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Ms Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley Mr Wood
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Our Housing Prices
Our Housing Prices
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the great Australian dream is to own your own home. This has been the aspiration and inspiration that has motivated millions of workers. Unfortunately, many Territorians now find that this dream has turned into more of a nightmare, for home ownership rates are falling as housing prices soar beyond the reach of many low- and middle-income families.
Houses and apartments are now too expensive for too many Territorians. The Australian Property Monitors reported in the September quarter 2012, the median price for a house sold in Darwin increased by 1.7% to $610 592, while nationally the median prices were unchanged. In the June quarter 2012, the median price for a unit sold in Darwin increased by 8.1% to $406 099 – this is the highest quarterly increase of all the capital cities.
Housing is special. It is not merely about bricks and mortar. It is cement which anchors a community’s social wellbeing. Housing is the foundation which encourages individuals and families to feel an integral part of their community.
Those with their own houses are generally more likely to be stable and have long-term employment prospects. Owning one’s own home engenders a feeling of financial security for a person or for a family, a feeling of comfort that cannot be experienced in a rental property.
Like my colleague, the Minister for Housing, I have heard stories from constituents, including those with young families who have been forced to abandon the Territory, not because they wanted to but because they could not afford to live here. Just last week, and I know my colleague the Housing minister, has also raised this, we were made aware of a young family in Palmerston who were told their rent was going up by $200 a week to $800 a week. The family are not highly paid. They may now have to leave the Northern Territory even though they love living here.
My government is committed to taking action and addressing the high cost of living and we cannot afford to keep losing our young Territorians. We must stem the population drain.
As a result of this, local businesses are struggling to attract and retain staff because it costs too much to rent and live in the Northern Territory. The worker group most in demand, the low- and medium-skilled, are the least best placed to be able to afford Territory housing costs. It would be misleading to say this problem can be fixed overnight. Like many very serious problems, it will take time, money and a focused government plan.
Those very detailed plans of my government will be designed to walk the fine line between pushing housing prices down and hurting people currently in the market; between allowing home prices to continue to rise and denying our young people the opportunity of fulfilling the great Australian dream.
The member for Brennan yesterday mentioned the double-edged sword of high housing costs. The dilemma is how to help those in genuine need to afford their own home or simply to be able to rent accommodation, for we must be conscious of the sacrifices made by those who have already bought into this hyper-market.
Government must take this into consideration and ensure these homeowners do not end up with negative equity in their purchases.
The previous government’s programs were conceived with good intentions but were poorly considered. Or, it is possible that, like so many other issues, the previous government simply took its eye off the ball. These programs were designed to help people into housing who needed a hand, and they did. However, at the same time they pushed up the price of houses.
Under the constrained land release environment and the shared equity schemes the previous government had in place, My New Home, HOMESTART, and HOMESTART Extra, people have access not only to new homes, but also to existing properties that have been lived in. Most people who took up these schemes bought existing dwellings. In fact, 93% of people bought existing dwellings. That is correct, these programs simply encouraged Territorians to buy existing properties which had been lived in. Encouraging more buyers into a tight market and equipping them with greater purchasing power could only lead to high prices.
It beggars belief that knowing these statistics the previous government continued to flood the market with more purchasers and give them more money. That is right, these existing programs increased the pool of people who could buy, and also increased their buying capacity.
Unfortunately, though, instead of pulling back these programs, it would appear the previous government could not admit they got it wrong. So, they continued to prop up and, therefore, reinforce their failing programs.
We are having a thorough look at these programs and we will be making changes. We have no choice but to increase the affordable housing supply. That is the essential difference between the two approaches. Ours will target the land and housing supply. We are going to concentrate our initiatives on increasing the supply of affordable housing. In the coming weeks, we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy designed to do just that. The programs we will put in place will be carefully designed to increase housing supply. The one thing Territorians can be assured of is we will stabilise the housing market and will help those who need a helping hand.
In contrast to our plans for action, consider the previous government’s inaction. In Alice Springs, for example, there is a huge parcel of land south of the Gap proposed for subdivision. Despite money being provided in Budget 2011-12, the site is still largely undeveloped. Services and the road have been built to the boundary, but it stops there. The previous government has dithered its way to a standstill. Apparently, it was unable to finalise a design and a plan so contractors sit idle and blocks are not developed.
Unfortunately, in this case it is not a lack of money that prevented the infrastructure being constructed by government to ease the housing crisis; it was the lack of will of the previous government. It is one thing where incompetence of a government embarrasses a government; it is a very different matter when the flow-on effects of this incompetence have the ability to destroy small businesses.
Someone has to stump up the investment capital to make such projects work. Let us not forget all the subcontractors who might have been involved. This bureaucratic inaction has the potential to directly impact hard-working family livelihoods.
Yesterday, the Minister for Housing spoke of our promise to build 2000 affordable and industry homes across the Territory over the next four years. That plan is called Real Housing for Growth. As the minister said, it is primarily aimed at retaining and attracting skilled workers to the Territory. This program will attract developers and/or investors to build, own and manage new housing. Government may potentially contribute land and there will be a competitive process to identify participants.
Unlike the previous government’s inaction, we will play a hands-on role to ensure there are no bureaucratic impediments to investment. The government plans will provide head leases on the dwellings for up to 15 years and they will be leased to key workers including much-needed apprentices, the service industry’s young families and others currently being squeezed out of the rental market. If we can attract and keep apprentices and encourage them to make their futures in the Territory then we will, no doubt, have one of the strongest arguments for statehood.
Our Real Housing for Growth will see rent for eligible tenants discounted by 30% of the median market rent in the area. This discount should be the catalyst for employers to be able to lure the workers they need. Not everyone can afford to buy their own home. It is here where public housing steps up to the line.
Public housing is exactly that; it helps Territorians on low incomes strive to reach their potential to make a contribution and to share the benefits of our community.
The eligibility criteria for public housing is quite extensive and includes: homelessness, medical issues, disability, women and children escaping domestic violence, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people facing numerous complex issues. Other criteria include circumstances where there has been private rental market discrimination or exclusion, and where children might be at risk, including their parents and caregivers.
The waiting list is the best indicator of the demand for public housing, and a recent review of urban public housing waiting lists found general applications had declined and priority applications had increased significantly. This has contributed to a 12% increase in waiting lists from 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Yesterday, the Minister for Housing mentioned it was estimated that the demand for public housing will continue to grow. He pointed out the strongest growth was likely to be in single person households and involved couples and families without children. Data shows 69% of applicants seek two or less bedrooms, while 27% seek three bedrooms and 4% seek four bedrooms.
This growth in demand for smaller properties is an Australia-wide phenomenon. Some believe it is a reflection of the ever busy lives we lead, but the growth in demand for smaller properties probably also reflects growth in the number of older people seeking public housing. Needless to say, an increase in the number of single parent families and single person households will also be affecting those statistics.
These social aspects of public housing present challenges to the management of the public housing portfolio. This is important for without a well-managed and cared for asset base we will have little hope of caring for those people most in need - generally, those seeking public housing. Unfortunately, our public housing portfolio fails to meet the needs of those changing demographics of the Territory - smaller households, single parent families and single person households.
In relation to public housing, there are more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in around 5000 dwellings, and 40 000 people living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings.
Like much infrastructure, the urban public housing stock is ageing, with the average age being 28 years. A concerning 50% of the stock is between 20 and 29 years old; 21% of the stock is 30 to 39 years old, and 12% is more than 40 years old. Many of these old and inappropriate properties are no longer suited to contemporary public housing requirements; with age comes more expensive repairs and maintenance. This increased cost of repairs and maintenance is concerning not simply because of the cost of materials, the big cost is the need for tradespeople to do the work.
The member for Brennan has pointed out that the program of modifying dwellings to suit the needs of tenants as they age is also costly. All new dwellings will be built in such a way to ensure they are suitable for well into the future.
The accommodations of tomorrow will have to include wider doorways and wider corridors as many tenants will need access for wheelchairs or walking aids. This farsightedness will have to extend to hobless showers and dwellings on one level. This will, of course, include a stipulation that there are no steps leading up into the building.
The challenges are extensive and will only be met by proper long-term planning. While such new designs may meet the specific needs of tenants, they will also provide the flexibility to adapt to these changing demographics.
Whether we like it or not, it is probable that we will have to provide more public housing in the future, not less. To achieve this outcome with acceptable and affordable budget parameters we will have to ensure public housing asset management strategy is not considered in isolation.
There must be a greater range of choice for public housing tenants. In addition, there must be more appropriate environmental standards and, for the sake of the tenants, the accommodations must be more efficient. We want to keep the cost of services down for public housing tenants.
As I pointed out earlier, the cost of repairs and maintenance will be fundamental considerations of our strategies. New public housing properties will be designed to minimise the need, as much as possible, for repairs or maintenance. The designs of the future must also seek to encourage the development of a community spirit. It will be increasingly important that public housing tenants feel they are part of a caring group, and housing design can help play an important role in this.
We will help the housing sector adapt and grow. This will not be easy nor will it be achieved overnight.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw to your attention the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells, please!
There is a quorum present.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, this will not be easy nor will it be achieved overnight and there are significant challenges, not least will be the strength of the Territory finances. Without a solid fiscal position we cannot care for ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells!
There is a quorum present.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, without a solid fiscal position we cannot even begin to care for the less fortunate people in our community. It really is where the kindness of governments begins and ends. We will direct all our energies towards helping Territorians realise that dream of owning their own home and we will do our part to ensure rents are affordable.
While we have so many challenges in the urban areas, we must not forget those challenges in the remote areas. The people of remote communities have the same aspirations as other Territorians. I said I will govern for the whole Territory, not just one part of it.
I have listened to the wonderful first speeches of my parliamentary colleagues. The burning desire of Aboriginal people in the bush to be recognised as having these same aspirations has been reinforced to me.
We must listen to our fellow Territorians in the bush and give them a proper say in their own lives, including decisions relating to their housing. But with this comes responsibility. As with all arms of government, we must find ways to bring down the unacceptable costs of building remote housing. Put simply, we must become more efficient.
The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing has delivered that great Australian dream to thousands of families. More than 700 homes have been built and there have been more than 2490 refurbishments and rebuilds under the partnership agreement.
By the end of September, more than 3000 families were living in new or improved housing. The problem, though, has been, at what cost? The opportunity costs of that waste have been lost dreams for so many others. My challenge for my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Advancement, is to reduce administrative overheads and do more with less.
We are working to improve the management of remote housing in the Northern Territory. We are targeting 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds by June of next year.
The government has commenced discussions to ensure there is improved opportunity for local Indigenous workers.
Our remote housing plan will deliver better outcomes. We are aiming to involve local communities and residents in these programs, and by doing so, reduce inefficiencies and bureaucracy
I move that the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is quite extraordinary that the statement by the Chief Minister starts off talking about the great Australian dream of owning your own home and the benefits people derive in their family from owning their own home, when the only housing policy articulated by government is ‘2000 rentals’.
This is not a policy for ownership, a policy for rentals, so the bizarre hypocrisy at the start of the statement is not lost on this side of the House. Further, it is not lost because one of his first actions as Chief Minister was to axe a housing finance assistance scheme in the Northern Territory called My New Home which was a scheme for home ownership. It was to give Australian Territorians the leg-up into their dream, that great Australian dream of owning your own home.
We had 1000 Territorians registered and in the queue with TIO, waiting for their chance at housing finance approval, who were shattered by the decision of the Chief Minister Terry Mills. Terry Mills, there are 1000 families out there who will not be confused by your spin. They know who made the decision to shatter their dream to own their own home.
You might find this an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth; you might be quite happy with your lot in life owning your own home, and you might be in the financial position to help your children have a leg-up into home ownership, but there are many families who do not have the same fortunate circumstances. They were the ones who felt, and still feel, the impact of the global financial crisis which the Chief Minister told us in parliament yesterday is over.
The global financial crisis is not over, you were wrong in that as well. You were wrong in scrapping and axing the My New Home scheme and in saying the global financial crisis is over. It is very real and very present in the lending decisions being made by our financial institutions. I will step out one of the consequences in pretty simple terms, in the hope that someone in the government might understand what I am saying.
Prior to the global financial crisis hitting, banks would loan sometimes up to 95% of the mortgage. With mortgage brokers pushing and shoving, sometimes you would get above 95% of the mortgage. What occurred with the global financial crisis is that lending practices changed. They reset the bar on how much they were prepared to lend for finance, so when it came to the residential home finance scenario they shifted to providing no greater than 80%. The family or the individual had to have a 20% deposit.
The days when you could get your 5% deposit and get a leg-up into your home financing based on your income, based on whether or not you could afford to service your mortgage, abruptly changed as a result of the global financial crisis. Through no fault of their own, the family or individual who had been saving and still held down their jobs or job, had their home budget under control so they knew how much of a mortgage they could service, experienced this abrupt change
As a result of that change, fewer people were able to go to a builder and say, ‘build me a house’ in that great new suburb of Bellamack, Johnston, Zuccoli or Muirhead. They cannot do that because they do not have a 20% deposit. The home ownership dream slipped away from them, not through any fault of their own but as a consequence of the real impact here in the Territory of the global financial crisis.
It might be news to the Chief Minister who thinks the global financial crisis is over, but the financial institutions have not readjusted that changed lending criterion. They require a 20% deposit. The My New Home Scheme was designed for a second mortgage to be carried by the government for that 20% deposit, so that people could - if they met the normal commercial lending criteria assessments by TIO - they could get the money required to purchase a new construction. That was one of the criteria of the My New Home Scheme. It was for new construction, not existing stock. It also provided for a 10% deposit into a purchase-off-the-plan unit development.
Another result of the global financial crisis and the change in lending practices is that developers used to be able to go to the bank and finance their unit developments based on the book of the developer of anywhere between 40% to 60% - sometimes higher - of presales. The global financial crisis hit and the banks changed their lending criteria to developers, so presales for units are now required at 100%.
Listen to the developers, Chief Minister. Meet with the Urban Development Institute of Australia, NT branch, or push yourself out of your comfort zone and meet with the Property Council and ask them what that has done to the residential property development market in unit developments.
It meant that the cranes came off the skyline because they could not achieve 100% in presales. It is a very high bar to set - too high. While some people see the wisdom in buying off the plan, many want to see a building under construction, or at least having commenced construction, before they feel confident enough to buy off the plan. There is a cohort of people who are looking to purchase who are not confident at all about buying off the plan and will buy a newly constructed unit.
My New Home covered the consequences of the global financial crisis and the change to the financial lending criteria that was impacting on the residential property market across the Northern Territory. We have the land to supply.
You do not have to believe me, ask the Master Builders Association which, in a media conference, told the entire media pack, ‘We do not have a problem with land supply across Darwin and Palmerston; there are seven suburbs being developed’. It is not a land supply issue anymore, it is a housing finance issue; a unit development finance issue. That is the brake on new stock. That is the brake on stock stimulus.
We found the right product for the right circumstance in the right market, and the action of the CLP was to axe it without listening to the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, the Urban Developers Institute of Australia Northern Territory branch, the Property Council, or the actual developers who are developing land.
When we were creating the My New Home and HOMESTART Extra - and HOMESTART Extra is different and I have noticed in debate the government is starting to confuse the two, and I will distinguish between them in a moment - policy and engaging with all the stakeholder and industry groups, it became very clear that the developers had land ready to bring forward, and bring the lots into supply. However, they could not do that without the home financing - the buyers lined up to bring forward those lots.
Talk to CIC about its development at Palmerston University. They were ready to bring forward lots. Bellamack could bring forward lots, the couple of subdivisions in Johnston could bring forward lots. Muirhead has stages they could bring forward. Therefore, it is not land supply, it is financing. Not one thing in this statement before the House deals with financing for home ownership.
You are trapping people into rental with your policy. Your policy is about 2000 rentals at 30% below market price.
One wonders - and I could be suspicious at times of things announced by the CLP, and I am trying not to be suspicious about that figure 2000. Let me think: 2000 rentals subsidised through government schemes. How does that ring a bell? Oh, I know, NRAS.
The federal government NRAS scheme has 2000 rentals earmarked for the Northern Territory. It is currently sitting in the hands of Ethan. Pretty confident that Brendan O’Connor, the federal Housing minister, is going to make a decision at some stage to put those 2000 back out into the full market to ensure other developers have a crack at that. So, if other developers have a crack at that, that will free up those NRAS rentals and we will see construction.
I try not to be suspicious and think the CLP is going to claim what is a federal government scheme, and use their promise of 30% and reduce it down to 10% as a top-up, because that would be an outright, misleading furphy. I am not allowed to use the word ‘lie’ so I will not use it. It would be another broken promise.
Interesting! Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. I am a little suspicious because I saw the new Minister for Housing proudly standing in front of the village at Parap proclaiming the new stock into the housing market when he had nothing whatsoever to do with that project other than turn up at the press conference. The project was a Labor project through and through. He turned up at the press conference to claim it.
Let us face it, they are getting a bit of form on this one. The minister for Sport was out today claiming the new squash courts at Marrara - a $4m grant from the Labor government constructed under Labor, opened and used when Labor was in government. That is okay, just claim away because we will call you out on every single moment of it. You will be seen to be the shallow person you are.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask you to ask the Opposition Leader to withdraw that unparliamentary comment about one of my colleagues.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
The hypocrisy of leading with the statement of the great Australian dream of home ownership is interesting when their actions have been to shatter the dreams of Territorians by axing their only housing finance assistance scheme which was designed for home ownership via new constructions. We call it stimulus - a stimulus of stock - and I note the statement completely ignores the stock stimulus programs of Buildstart and BuildBonus where Territorians were given cash grants to build new stock.
This is an inconvenient truth for you. Minister for Housing, or an inconvenient truth for the Chief Minister. Let us pretend thousands of new homes and units were not built under Buildstart and BuildBonus. Let us bury our heads in the sand and leave that one out of the statement. It does you no good at all and you lack any credibility when you have a blinkered view of what you will and will not say about housing.
What can we see in this document that has any aspect of detail? We see the promise of 2000 rentals at 30% below market. The affordable housing rental company currently has $50m from the 2012-13 budget to build stock at 20% below market. Will they be claiming the affordable housing rental company stock, the affordable housing rental company that is in a joint venture with the Land Development Corporation - all the work we set up, all of the work we funded through a Labor budget, the budget that seems to shock the member for Araluen?
Will you rip that $50m out as a savings measure and be behind the eight-ball on this promise, or will you try to claim our work?
It is interesting because there is no detail on the 2000 stock, no detail on where, when, or with whom. You say you will go into private partnership - you have no other way of doing it, so that is bleeding obvious - but with whom? The whom will be a question I will continue to pose because there is scant reference to a competitive process. It does not explain what the competitive process is.
Again, I do not want to be too suspicious. I do not want to be so suspicious as to think they might be doing some dodgy deals with a couple of mates to ensure that support during the election campaign is repaid. I will not be that suspicious. That could not possibly happen in this day and age even though there is ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would recommend, as member for Braitling, that if the Opposition Leader wants to make some claim she does it by substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not made any claims. I am saying I am not being suspicious.
Mr GILES: You have made some terrible inferences and are trying to play dirty politics. If you want to put this on the table, make a substantive motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Just asking questions Too much for you Gilesy?. Pressing a few buttons, mate? Am I getting too close to you?
Mr GILES: No, all of this stuff about you and the election. You like to point at this and that. Make a substantive motion. Put your money where your mouth is. The Court of Disputed Returns, take it there.
Ms LAWRIE: You doth protest too much. You walked into that one, Gilesy.
Mr GILES: I know exactly what you guys are up to.
Ms LAWRIE: I wait for the detail.
Mr Giles: I know how you did it in Barkly. We will bring that one up later.
Ms LAWRIE: I wait for the detail on competitive process. What will be the competitive process? There is mention that the government may - curious use of the word may - provide Crown land. They do not say Crown land, they say government land. I point out that it is Crown land. This sense of arrogance - we own, we control - already pervades through the statements of this government. It is Crown land, it is land owned by the people of the Northern Territory.
There is a reference that you may provide government land, that is, you may provide Crown land. If so, what land, through what process? What is the competitive process, where will this occur, and in what time frame will this occur, because evidently we will have 2000 new dwellings within the four years.
Two thousand will not get you there, we know that. You have already axed the home ownership part, ignoring the fact that the home lending criteria of the banks and institutions has not changed.
I heard that mortgage brokers approached the new government about the My New Home scheme. The mortgage brokers said, ‘Look we get that you do not like the last thing because it was Labor’s, we get that you were on the record as saying it is too risky to have 100% of the loan sitting out there, 20% carried by and underwritten by the CEO of housing. They said, ‘If you move it to 5% and rename it, you’ve got us. As mortgage brokers we are in, we will do it’.
That would be resetting it to where the mortgage brokers were previously. So I have been waiting for the renamed, rebranded, rebadged 5% deposit. It has not appeared.
They care so little about the dire need for housing in the Territory but they would not even do the political spin trick by renaming, rebadging and shifting the goal post just so slightly to 5% required deposit.
The arrogance is unbelievable. You will not listen to industry, the construction experts, the Master Builders who are the expert developers, the Urban Development Institute of Australia who sell the stock, the Real Estate Institute who understand the development, the Property Council; you will not listen to any of them and you would not listen to the mortgage brokers when they pitched a sensible idea to you of rebranding, renaming and adjusting slightly. This is incredible arrogance so early in the new government, it is almost overwhelming.
Talk to the Master Builders and others out there, the land supply is not in crisis in Darwin and Palmerston because of the seven suburbs and AZRI needs to be developed further. I note that the Minister for Housing has been railing against - and the member for Braitling joined in - the incompetence of the Labor government because they built the services and the road to the edge of the Kilgariff subdivision. Please get a briefing from industry! That is what everyone does. That is what happens.
The Crown develops to the edge of the subdivision, you put the subdivision up for direct sale into the market place, auction, you choose your range, choose your process, and the developer pays for the infrastructure within the subdivision, that is what happens everywhere.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Perhaps the Opposition Leader could clarify why there was $3.5m in the budget 18 months ago to do the headworks into the block.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, the railing is out of ignorance. Listen to the developers! Then again, if I was a developer I would tell you guys to pay for the lot because you are going to make a bigger profit if you convince an ignorant government to stump up what no government stumps up anywhere. Why wouldn’t you? Maybe you have been talking to a couple of developers who have been telling you to get in there and pay for all the infrastructure inside the suburb.
In relation to $3.5m, it is not unusual to do the trunk road. We did the trunk road right across. All the other infrastructure you are railing about not being built is what the developers build. I do not know why I am giving you a lesson in how to develop land but I am so frustrated with your stupidity about how you have approached housing stock stimulus in the Territory that I feel like giving you a few tips on behalf of Territorians.
Mr Giles: Highest rents in the country under Labor.
Ms LAWRIE: I wanted to have the opportunity to check out the Batten Road site at Marrara. The Batten Road site - curious it did not appear in the statement, yet it is housing stock. It was completely missing from the statement.
There are 270 dwellings, short-stay workers’ accommodation, contracts with Ausco Modular. They do this construction, they are highly experienced, they have the DA being lodged either tomorrow or Monday, so where is this new government on the 270 dwellings sitting on a 9 ha site capable of going to a yield of about 600. Where are you on that? Hands off the wheel, silent.
We have 270 dwellings at what they call ‘stay-over’ in Darwin being developed by Ausco, signed-off by the Labor government, a short-stay workers’ accommodation village, exactly what industry needs but I doubt you would know that because I have not seen any evidence yet that you are meeting with or listening to industry. There is no mention of it whatsoever in a statement on housing.
No mention of the potential yield of up to 600 coming out of that site; zero, zip, pretend it is not there. I am not pretending it is not there. I looked at the site. It is remediated, grassed, irrigated; it is ready to go. It will be opening next year because that is how good, efficient and capable Ausco Modular is.
Then we go to the discussion about the need for changes to eligibility for public housing. Bring that on! I look forward to seeing the detail on your changes to eligibility for public housing. There is no mention of additional public housing stock or how you would fund additional public housing stock - because that is fundamentally what the government needs to do - no mention of that. No, you are talking about changing the eligibility. Is that code for cutting the waiting list by removing people’s eligibility? Is that what that code is for? Time will tell, we will see the details. We will see the how many families you evict from public housing.
Then there is this curious part of the statement that talks about the repairs and maintenance requirements for public housing stock. The light is shining, you need to repair and maintain public housing stock.
We have repairs and maintenance in the Territory Housing budget. I went to the election with a commitment of tipping an additional $4m into the R&M program across the urban public housing stock, but you know what? There is not a cent in the CLP commitments.
That is okay, we will see what they are going to do to repair and maintain the public housing stock, which is ageing. Public housing stock ages: the light has gone on there. The curious thing about that is, if I were suspicious, I would think that was code for, ‘Here we go, they are going to start selling off public housing stock again’, because that is what the previous CLP government did.
It sold off thousands of public housing stock. We had to put a stop to the sale because there was no real replenishment program. As they were selling they were not building new stock. They were just selling stock and the waiting lists were coming under greater and greater pressure. We stopped the sales and went into a program of building new stock.
We built new senior-villages and we have land set aside across Palmerston east for a range of public housing dwellings from duplexes, triplexes to single dwellings. It will be interesting to see what happens to that new stock-creation program. There is no detail in this statement though, just a bit of a hint, a bit of a suspicion that they will go into selling off the old stock that needs to be repaired and maintained.
I have a constituent who is happy for me to talk about their story publically because they were in an old public housing dwelling and it was very run down. After lots of pushing and argy-bargy with the department, finally they had it assessed and there was an agreed scope of works. I will not go into the palaver about how the family was mucked around in the move, the crates, etcetera. This is very current. They moved out and when they came to move back in, the agreed scope of works had not been done.
There were things on the scope of works that were agreed needed to be repaired and maintained. Bearing in mind the department went to the expense of moving the family out and putting them into another tenancy.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask whether this was a SIHIP house under your administration? That was quite prevalent right across the Territory, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: He will get his chance. They moved them out. They went to the expense of moving them out. This is a family who, for years, needed the R&M and, then, they finally got it - you beauty, agreed scope of works. They moved them out and then moved them back in. Lo and behold, quite a few things on the agreed scope of works had not been done. The laundry had not been done; the external painting had not been done.
Minister, you might want to meet the family. I will take you there and introduce you to the family and they can take you through the documentation from Housing which showed the agreed scope of works and what magically fell off that scope of works. They asked me in their correspondence if it was because of the election and the change of government.
I am not a suspicious person. I do not want to suggest for a minute that there could be a political reason why the scope of works changed. I will be asking the Minister for Housing to look into this matter and come back with a fulsome response as to why the scope of works changed after the department went to the expense of moving the entire family out. It was the chance to go in and do the renovations.
Good luck with your ambitious repair and maintenance project. I hope, though, it is not code for selling off public housing stock. I really hope it is not. You are going to walk into the ‘changed criteria for eligibility’ trap; you may walk into the ‘sell off public housing stock’ trap, and you will become known as the worst Housing minister ever. If you want to be a good Housing minister, do not walk into those two traps too easily. That is a little tip from someone who is passionate about public housing.
In what you need to ensure you have affordable housing, I will remind the Chamber the Labor government was the first government in the Territory’s history that set aside 15% of Crown land turn-off in all new subdivisions for affordable and public housing. What had happened previously is governments would turn them off to developers.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the member for Barkly and the members of parliament. If you want to create the stock, you need to create the land and the lots to create the stock. Setting aside 15% of all subdivisions has enabled us to do that, and will enable you, Minister for Housing, to proceed to continue with the development of the affordable housing rental you have ambitiously identified - the 2000. That is where your Crown land is - that 15% of land set aside. It will also enable you to continue the construction of new public housing, of new stock, as you are changing the eligibility of the public housing criteria.
I have pointed out my suspicions. I hope they do not bear fruit because they would be ripping off Territorians. I pointed out that axing My New Home is ludicrous. You could pick up the mortgage brokers suggestion and make it a 5% deposit requirement, not the full 20% - just offer 15%. Or you could do what you have been doing all along, which is ignore everyone and go ahead with what you think.
I know the member for Braitling will rail against the SIHIP program because that has been his raison d’tre, and why should he change? He is not going to change. He has trouble adjusting to the transition, I guess, of thinking he is now a minister. I do not know what it is.
Anyway, thank you for pointing out in the statement how much has been delivered to date through SIHIP. It is impressive. Literally, we have thousands of Territorians across remote areas of the Northern Territory in new and refurbished housing as a result of the Labor government agreements to provide SIHIP. Thank you also for pointing out what is currently in the forward works program for the SIHIP program and the numbers of new housing and refurbishments that have been agreed to and signed off between the federal Labor government and the Territory Labor government.
I was curious about where the new homes for the homelands and outstations promised by the CLP in the election campaign are? They are not in the statement. Yet, this is a housing statement. This is a real housing for growth statement.
How do you completely leave out the outstations and homelands when you promised new housing? You did not just promise the refurbishments we had committed to, you matched that. You said, ‘Yes, we will refurbish but we will also provide new housing on the homelands’. Perhaps you can explain in your response to the statement, minister Chandler. Where is the housing committed to for the outstations and homelands, because it is completely missing from this statement?
All in all, I have to rate it as a 2.5 out of 10. I thought yesterday’s was pretty bad. I probably would have rated yesterday’s at about a 4, but this one has come down. Can you guys do a little more homework, a bit more research, find a little more grunt, get some vision, remind yourselves what your promises were and try to put some detail onto them. I look forward to the next statement because I have enjoyed the last two. Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do my best to obey my mother and not lower myself to that level of bitterness.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the House and respond to the Chief Minister’s housing statement. In doing so, it would be very easy to remind Territorians that the situation we are now in - from fiscal imbalance through to the high cost of living, the high cost of housing, the high cost of rent - has not just appeared in the last eight weeks.
We had a Labor government in the Northern Territory for the last 11 years. It has been described in this House as a set of crocodile jaws - that is what we have seen with the overspending of this government. The crocodile jaws of the cost of living going through the roof, and the cost of housing.
However, I will not lower myself to the standard delivered by the Opposition Leader. As at the Media Awards a couple of weeks ago, there was a level of bitterness in her speech. By all standards it was a very jovial set of awards for the media, everyone was in a good mood, yet the Opposition Leader delivered a speech which put everyone in the room back in their seats. The level of bitterness in that speech was remarkable.
It would be very easy to point out the failures of the previous government on so many different levels; however, I thank the Opposition Leader for pointing out what is the bleeding obvious in so many areas.
She spoke about taking the high road, the high principles of talking about statistics and so forth. The first thing she told me was there were 1000 applicants for the HOMESTART schemes. In fact, as of 19 September 2012, there were 105 applications in progress. Sixty-four had been approved in principle, ten pending settlement, and all of those will be honoured.
One hundred and five applications is a little different to 1000. If this is how wrong she gets her numbers, no wonder the budget in the Northern Territory is so out of whack.
You heard the Chief Minister describe the initiatives of this government - that we will concentrate our efforts on increasing the supply of affordable housing. Rather than go over the bad news of the last 11 years, how about we be a little positive and start to talk about the solutions?
We have identified the problems through the help of very active departmental figures, our own research, our own knowledge and yes, through talking to industry. Industry told us the biggest stumbling block for them developing in the last few years was the way government would get in the way rather than assist business in jumping ahead. For the Opposition Leader to allege that we do not speak with business and industry is so wrong.
I found the figures the Chief Minister quoted for September median house and unit prices very unsettling. Let me put it into context for you. The median price of a house sold in Darwin in the September quarter was $610 592. That is more than $0.5m. The median price of a unit sold in Darwin in the June quarter was $406 099, just under $0.5m. I then looked at the Northern Territory public sector salary rates for a few of the essential workers we are trying to retain in the Northern Territory and wondered how on earth they would ever afford a $0.5m property.
To clarify this, I went online last night and entered information into the ANZ Bank loan repayment calculator. I selected an ANZ fixed home loan for three years with an interest rate of 5.54%. I then selected the fortnightly repayment options on a proposed loan amount of $0.5m. The fortnightly repayment came back at a staggering $1420.63. How on earth can an assistant teacher with a starting salary of $41 586 or a classroom teacher with a starting salary of $62 017 afford to meet those repayments and maintain a household?
Aboriginal health workers, enrolled nurses and social workers with starting salaries of $39 678, $49 546 and $41 200 respectively are in the same boat as the other professions mentioned above. These positions represent low- and middle-income workers you and I rely on to provide services important to maintain our social fabric. They represent our children who have been squeezed out of the rental market and have no choice other than to live at home with mum and dad or seek greener pastures elsewhere, as so many have done in the last few years.
It is a known fact that while housing prices have strengthened strongly since 2012, rents have also increased significantly. Within a very tight rental market, every time a rental property is open for inspection there are at least 20 people looking over it but only one applicant will be successful.
Only two weeks ago I asked a real estate agent how the market is and how things were going. He explained to me that he was getting two or three people walking through an open house for sale. By comparison, he was getting 70 to 80 coming through houses for rent. Again, there will be only one successful applicant.
Worse, rents are high. Under Labor’s watch, the Northern Territory became the housing rent capital of Australia. A friend recently told me his five children have left the Territory because they cannot afford to live here. His daughter, a nurse, who previously worked at the Royal Darwin Hospital, was particularly upset at having to leave the Territory because she could not afford the rental prices.
She told her father she could not envisage the time where she could realise her dreams of owning a home in her home town. She is now working in Perth and living in the home she purchased in recent years. This is another nurse the Territory has lost. Another friend told me her parents are now living on the Gold Coast where they are paying half the rent they were in Darwin. Her children desperately miss their grandparents, and she also misses the support they provided her as a working mother.
I restate the Chief Minister’s words and reassure Territorians: we will take action to keep families together and deliver on new affordable housing.
For Territorians the housing market is tough at all levels. Potential homeowners hoping to secure a loan are dealing with banks that have maintained conservative lending criteria since the global financial crisis. There is also a lack of no- or low-deposit finance requirements for mortgage insurance, where loan-to-valuation ratios exceed 80% and requirements for developers to achieve higher levels or pre-sales are up to 100% before releasing construction finance.
These figures are impacting on the delivery of new houses in the Territory, and on the ability of prospective homebuyers to save a deposit. Home ownership is increasingly out of reach, particularly for young Territorians and those on low or middle incomes.
I have often said if you are on a fly-in fly-out contract, maybe have a good job at a mine earning $120 000 a year you could, perhaps, afford the market in the Northern Territory. But how does the young lady or the young man who is serving coffee at Gloria Jean’s or the Doughnut King afford the market in Darwin? Families are forced to stay together, not because they love each other but because they cannot afford to move apart. Businesses are purchasing homes for their employees to live in because they cannot get affordable housing in Darwin. This is a result of the bad management of the last 11 years.
As the Chief Minister stated, the previous government’s shared equity schemes led to 93% of the buyers purchasing existing dwellings rather than new ones. This has done nothing to change the supply and demand economics.
In the coming weeks we will be announcing a comprehensive housing strategy designed to do just that. The programs we will put in place will be carefully designed to increase housing supply; and the one thing Territorians can be assured of is, we will take action.
In my previous speech I described how a strong and expensive housing market is one measure of a booming economy and, consequentially, strong employment. The downside, of course, is that as housing prices rise the community finds it increasingly difficult to afford home ownership. Proper planning several years ago might have eased the pain of the current very high prices.
I recall arguing when I first came into this House in 2008 that, for the previous three years there had been no new land released in the Palmerston area. I heard the then Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition, say they needed around 300 to 380 new blocks of land a year to keep up with demand. We soon learnt that should have been 1700 a year, and we have yet to see that being realised. In the last four years that has not been realised, and so further and further we have squeezed the market to the point where the average person cannot afford to buy or rent a home in what we would consider standard circumstances.
I have spoken of our plan to free up more brownfield land for development and regeneration and how this government will accelerate the release of surplus public sector land. We will work with developers to unlock land to progress development; we will create conditions that support local economic growth and remove barriers which prevent local businesses from employing staff, and get the Territory building new and reasonably priced homes.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, our government’s Real Housing for Growth plan will see the construction of 2000 affordable and industry homes across the Territory over the next four years.
This week has seen the Homelessness Summit under way. It has been two years since the previous summit. In the past, the responsibility for homelessness was split between two ministers, and two agencies, creating challenges of its own when negotiating the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. The Chief Minister has put in place commonsense administrative arrangements and placed responsibility for homelessness under one minister, and one agency, that being Housing.
As the Minister for Housing, I have a particular interest in understanding the complexity of homelessness and the work taking place across the Territory to support those who are homeless. The recent release of the revised 2001 and 2006 Census data using the new Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of homelessness, shows that homelessness in the Northern Territory is the highest in the country. Of the 791 people per 10 000 considered homeless in 2006, 665 were understood to be living in severely overcrowded situations, the majority of whom are residents of remote communities.
I previously spoke of public housing and how it provides homes at below market rents for more than 11 000 people living in urban areas in more than 5000 dwellings, and more than 40 000 living in remote areas in around 4900 dwellings. The statistics demonstrate that in remote dwellings there is an average of more than eight people in every remote dwelling. In certain areas - those I have been witness to, such as on Elcho Island when we drove past a home in which there was evidence of up to 40 people living in it.
I visited the school and heard how difficult it was, in some circumstances, to get children in remote areas to go to school. They are living in a house with up to 40 people. Their sleeping shift might not start until 3 am or 4 am and, then, a couple of hours later, people are trying to drag them off to school. Statistics can be skewed sometimes. Whilst on average we have eight in every dwelling, we know of many circumstances where there are many more.
Although the new ABS definition changes the way we measure homelessness, the remote figures above underscore the need for homelessness support in the Territory and the need to look at the innovative ways to deliver housing in the bush, including home ownership. The overwhelming majority of housing in the bush is public housing. We need to be smarter to redress the balance of public to private housing in a manner that also grows our local economies.
This government recognises that homelessness is not a stand-alone issue and is influenced by the wider housing sector. That is why we are providing our Real Housing for Growth plan which guarantees to help lever in new investment, removing the planning and financial barriers that are holding back the housing market, and developing a clear direction to help increase the supply of all forms of housing owned or rented, public or private.
The Territory government will also continue to support the first NT affordable housing company, Venture Housing. More detail on the support that will be provided to Venture Housing will be included in the comprehensive housing plan.
As I previously stated, there are significant challenges, and the state of the government budget will require some innovative solutions that do not increase the size and extent of the deficit. As the Chief Minister rightly pointed out, it is a delicate balance to stabilise the housing market and ensure homebuyers who bought in the overstimulated housing market do not end up with negative equity.
Rest assured, this government is determined to work to address both the short-term symptoms and the long-term causes. We are prepared to put in place the required reforms to increase the supply of affordable housing. This will not be easy. We have heard it in this House many times before when we were talking about complex issues - this cannot happen overnight.
However, unlike the previous government which rushed in a scheme weeks before an election, our plan will be well-considered, will work with industry, and ensure we have the right methodology so we can afford to provide additional housing to help with affordability in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his talk on this very important issue. I fully concur that we are going through a period where it is very difficult, especially for young people, to afford to live in a house or even rent a house. However, I do not think the solutions are simple.
One of the problems with this document - and I thank the Chief Minister for bringing it on - is that it has very few bricks and mortar, if I can use the pun. It is a little like a book with the introduction but not the rest of the novel.
It might be coming and I appreciate that, but the problem we have is, it has been put forward and we do not have something from the government to get our teeth into. Here are some of the issues the government needs to look at. I do not think it is as simple as people make it out to be.
Mr McCarthy: Do not call it puff piece, Gerry, whatever you do.
Mr WOOD: No, I will not do that.
We know it is very difficult for many people to buy a home or rent a house. My daughter is in that boat at the moment. She rents a house in Palmerston, she has three kids, and it is not easy for her to keep her head above water. One of the issues that is sometimes missed - before I get into more details - is the social impact on families that comes from higher mortgages and higher rents
Where two parents are forced to work and have to send kids to childcare, there is not enough emphasis placed on the long-term effect of that on our society. We look at kids today on the street who are pinching cars, we have kids who get into trouble later in life - many of these things stem from an unstable background.
I have probably mentioned this before, I visited a prison in Ohio about six years ago called West Central Therapeutic Centre. It is a different kind of prison. People could voluntarily go there to see if they could turn their lives around. At the end of my visit, six of the men in the prison sat down in front of me and said why they were there.
All of them had broken homes. They either had parents working all the time, they never saw their parents, or the parents were dysfunctional when it came to running the family. They had other problems such as drugs and alcohol.
You wonder whether we have a society which basically requires two parts of a family to work long hours to achieve what we would hope to be the norm for Australians - the ability to own their own home.
This is an important area. It is not as easy to fix as people make it out to be. I will put forward some of my ideas.
The key to affordable housing is affordable land. If you have an artificially restricted land bank and no competition, you will continue to have high prices for land. If land is cheap then you have some money for a house. If land is expensive you have less money for a house and, in fact, may not be able to afford the house. You might have to live in a tin shed, which people in the rural area have done for a long time.
I asked someone recently how much an 800 m2 block in Coolalinga cost. They said $320 000 for 800 m2. A young person then says, ‘Well, the house is going to cost me 250’, so they have to find about $570 000. You certainly will not earn that on one income, you will not be able to pay for that, you will need two incomes at least and they will have to be fairly good incomes.
The reality is there is very little affordable land. Part of the problem is that the previous government did not release enough land some years ago and it got behind. Because it got behind, land prices went up. In the rural area, in one year prices of land went up $100 000 in twelve months. The average price of a 2 ha block of land in the rural area in about 2006 was $100 000. In one year it shot up to $200 000. There was a great spike in the price of land.
We have to do something about making more land available so there is competition. This government is a private enterprise government and will say you cannot release too much land because people’s land values will decrease. But if you do not do something about it - because many people have made good money out of what I call an artificial spike in the price of land - then we are never going to get anywhere.
That same argument about having too much land on the market, unfortunately, came from the Labor Party when it was in government. I remember, when I said that there needs to be more land available, the then minister said it would affect the market. I felt that was strange coming from a Labor Party whose main concern should have been to make sure there was adequate and affordable land for families so they could afford to build a house.
We are where we are today and the question is: how do we turn that around? I tell anyone who wants to know that perhaps they need to talk to the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff, John Coleman. Up until the change of government, John Coleman was the CEO of the Land Development Corporation, a new body associated with the same corporation that has been developing industrial land in the East Arm Port but now had a job to develop residential land. It is developing Zuccoli.
One of the concepts - and I hope John can let me know if I am wrong - was that the government, through the Land Development Corporation, was trying to find out the real cost of turning off a block of land in Palmerston because there are a whole range of issues; it is not simple.
He was trying to see what the cost was and if the private developers were putting the price of land up to such an extent that there was an artificial price which did not reflect the cost of developing that land. If we are going to debate turning off lots of land, we need to stop and think about how much it will cost.
I do not know what people looked at when Zuccoli was being built: the sewerage works, the water, the storm water and, in some cases now, recycling water. There is the required kerb and guttering. In some cases, especially in Zuccoli, there are erosion controls because it is quite steep and difficult engineering designs are required. Plans have to be drawn up and, on top of that you have the headworks.
In the Northern Territory, the taxpayer pays for the headworks. In some other states, I am not sure that occurs. But the Territory government, which is us as taxpayers, pays for the infrastructure that goes to that subdivision. If it needs a big sewerage line, a new set of sewage ponds to cover the extra waste, a bigger power line, a bigger water line or a new water tower, the government pays for that.
They are all costs we pay through our taxes. The cost of the land does not reflect that. It reflects owning the infrastructure that is within that subdivision. Then the developer puts a margin on it. What John Coleman and the Land Development Corporation were trying to do was see whether the margin private developers were putting on was reasonable or was contributing to land prices that were making it harder to have affordable land and housing.
I do not know what stage that is up to, but I hope that people who are debating this could find out from John Coleman. Perhaps the Land Development Corporation could report back to this parliament on that because it would provide an important foundation for people who want to debate this issue.
Then if you have affordable land, there is a discussion about affordable housing. Housing is very expensive in Darwin. People talk about how expensive it is in the remote areas and I know there has been a lot of discussion about the cost of SIHIP housing, but today there are many more requirements and this area needs debate.
In the Top End, not so much in the Centre, you need a house that is cyclone proof. Today you must build a house that is five-, six- or seven-star energy efficient. It has to be designed by an engineer. Other regulations add to the cost. It is not just the case of putting up four walls and a roof and those costs need to be investigated. I have had reports, and I hope the engineers do not come down too hard on me, that local engineers over-design houses in the Top End. If that is the case, what does that extra over-design mean when it comes to the cost of a house?
I was talking to someone the other day who is building a small addition to a shop near me. I looked at the amount of steel in the floor. He said a company designed this and it will never blow away. It was a huge amount of concrete and steel. If the government is looking at trying to make houses more affordable, there needs to be a real investigation into all the elements of a house to see if we can reduce some of those costs. Are we over-designing houses? All those design features you put into a house, such as five-star efficiency, whether it is cyclone proof - all those things add to the cost.
Of course, we have those features for good reasons, but if we want to have affordable housing then we need to look at those things as well.
What about the cost of other regulations? There are local government regulations, regulations from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, when you have zoning, when you have applications for waivers, such as when you might want to have the house slightly closer to a fence line. All those things add to the cost. I am interested in what detail the Minister for Housing will bring in, but I am also interested to see whether there is an investigation to see whether some of those costs are adding to the cost of a house. Maybe there are areas where we could have reductions.
Also, the cost of labour. In the Top End labour is short because you now have INPEX. You have a big company taking labour away from local jobs; you have to bring people from elsewhere. I have met local people who have lost workers. I was at the brickworks in Humpty Doo the other day and the owner had lost two or three people just like that. His forklift driver had gone, his truck driver had gone. Why? Because they went to INPEX and he could not afford to keep up. He could not pay that amount.
It is the same with people who build the houses. If they are losing staff to INPEX, the only way to keep them is to match the wages. They match the wages in building the house so you as the purchaser will have to pay for those extra wages. That is an extra cost; it makes the house less affordable. These issues need to be looked at.
There is the issue of where you are going to release more land. I know the Chief Minister said we would look over the rural area and people have said there is plenty of land. It is not quite as simple as that, and planning is about doing it the right way.
I have shown people this original CLP document from 1990. Its concept was to have a series of areas and, basically, the concept is still the same in the more recent 2010 document planning for greater Darwin. The concept was to have a number of cities around the harbour, where the harbour was the centre and the whole area was divided up into rural, Defence, environment, and industrial areas. That concept is really good.
When we say there is plenty of land out there, let us make sure we stick to the plan. Otherwise you get what I call ‘the north of the Brisbane line’ development. I travelled from Brisbane to Maryborough a few years ago and I saw development that was higgledy-piggledy. It did not seem to have any reason. There were little blocks, big blocks; they were all mixed up together, and compared to our rural area it was a disaster. At least someone in the rural area has made sure we have kept some sense in our planning.
The member for Goyder and I are passionate about making sure that when government talks about releasing land, it does not see the rural area as a cheap option. There are options, and Weddell has not been spoken about today. It is a bit like Kilgariff. They have both been designed in similar ways and much work has gone into them. I went past Kilgariff the other day; I had a look. The member for Braitling is dead right; there is a pipe and a bit of work done along the fence line, and a new road is being put in, but that is about it. The scrub is still there; it has not been developed.
Weddell is probably further away in the sense of infrastructure, but the planning side of it is well advanced. It would be good to see what the government thinks of those two new developments, because Weddell will probably take 50 000 to 60 000 people. If that could be developed, obviously, you can get more land. Instead of looking at the rural area as a place for cheap development, let the rural area develop according to the plans the member for Goyder and I put out, which have an emphasis on developing the rural centres and allowing the areas around that to stay rural.
The member for Araluen spoke today about Education housing. There is land in Humpty Doo. I know what she is talking about because I was at the Taminmin College Council a couple of weeks ago. There is not enough housing for teachers, even for Taminmin, at Humpty Doo. People live in town, they do not want to travel 50 km to school each day.
There is land available that neither government has really used. There has been one duplex built in Humpty Doo on government land in 20 years. I blame both governments for not investing in places like Humpty Doo. There is an opportunity to build houses there for teachers so they can walk down the road to school. I would like to see that as something the government will look at. However, there are other constraints. There are constraints about native title and wet areas. We have to realise it is not always that simple.
I congratulate the government for at least saying it will tackle some of these issues; it is going to put houses there. However, I want to hear a little more about where it is going to do it, and how it will do it. I will be very interested when this plan comes out.
I said before, there are options that could be developed straightaway. There is land near the new prison where water and power go right past. I am very happy, Minister for Housing, for you to come out and I will show you some of the advantages of 1 ha blocks - which is one of my favourite topics.
You do not have to use kerbs and guttering, you can use rural roads. You do not need storm water drainage; you just need power, a bitumen road and access to water. That can all be done there for a reasonable price, and that land could be developed. I get so annoyed when I hear about the houses at Eaton which could have been put on 1 ha blocks and offered to people at a reasonable price. When you look at suburban blocks there is much more detail required. However, there are opportunities still for ...
Mr Chandler: How many blocks, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: At least 100 blocks. There is also land south of Wallaby Holtze Road. It backs onto the new bicycle path. That land is available for smaller blocks and could be sold to a developer. I would not call that affordable housing land because it is a bit tricky, but I would love to show you that land. It has some problems and has to have access from Temple Terrace. However, it is not so much an affordable housing subdivision - because there will be some expenses - as another option for semi-rural zoning, maybe of 0.4 ha which might be slightly more built-up.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member has an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly. Minister, I am happy to show you some of those areas. I do not care which government is in power, I would love to work with you to give young people a chance. People forget the problem in the rural area is that much of the land is private, and those private developers are hanging on to that land. There is a development at Girraween Lagoon by a very good developer. However, he will not sell 80 blocks of land and put them out in one year. He will sell 10, maybe 20, over the next two years. The price will stay somewhere between $300 000 and probably $450 000 for a 1 ha block, because that is the price people are paying for land in the rural area.
We have an opportunity, because the government owns the land, to at least, with conditions, sell some of its own land at a reasonable price. That is the negotiation we have to talk about. You do not want to hit the market too hard, I understand that, but you can sell the land with covenants, such as, ‘we will give you a cheaper block of land, but if you sell it within five years you pay us back a certain amount of money’. There are ways of ensuring you do not affect the market but allow young people to come in.
There are other issues, other options. The other option is the community land trust. I have mentioned this before - in America they have community land trusts. There is one community land trust that is trying to get off the ground in Australia called the Waratah Community Land Trust, and I will read from their document:
- A community land trust is a pioneering housing model developed in the USA in which the land is removed from the market and held by the community land trust. Homeowners can buy or rent their homes while securing full rights of use of the land by 99-year renewable inheritable ground leases.
That is similar in some ways to what is trying to occur on Aboriginal communities. It basically means a person will manage this large parcel of land - it can be a private person or a government - they will lease you a parcel of land and you can build your house on that block of land. You pay a certain amount every month for the lease, or every year. You put all your money into the house and pay a lease arrangement. This encourages private ownership. The only other restriction is that you cannot sell the land and make a big profit on it because the idea is to allow people to enter the market. I am interested in talking to the minister about land trusts as a reasonable option.
Part of the Chief Minister’s statement talks about public housing. When you are in opposition it is easy to knock the government. Public housing is a difficult area and I would rather more emphasis be placed on trying to get people to buy their own houses. It is an issue with Aboriginal land where most people live in public housing. I will get onto that in a minute.
How do you increase the number of public houses? On one hand you have a scheme which says, ‘Well, we would like to sell all those public houses. If you have lived in them long enough we will give you the opportunity’, which takes houses out of the market. This argument was given in parliament as the reason you had longer waiting lists - housing numbers had dropped.
It is a difficult area. I get people every now and then who want a house, they are pensioners who cannot get a house and the waiting list is long. I have known people to have died before getting onto the waiting list. I am unsure how you solve that. Some heads together may help.
The funny thing from my point of view is that Foxy can build a pile of accommodation for asylum seekers just like that. A workers’ camp near Karama will put 250 units there like that, but why can we not sometimes do that for people who cannot afford to live in a house - urgent accommodation - and give it to an organisation like St Vincent de Paul? Perhaps use Berrimah prison when it is empty.
Are there ways we can help people, at least in the short term, to get some accommodation? Foxy can do it for asylum seekers, the previous government commenced a worker’s camp in Karama, and they are doing it like that - in 12 months there will be 250 people living there. Why can we not do that in cases of urgency? We need to think outside the square and be a little braver.
It is a big issue in Aboriginal communities. I was on the Council of Territory Cooperation. We have four Aboriginal people here. I would love them to be part of the conversation about how we get people to own a house. The member for Arafura might be able to tell me how many houses are privately owned on Bathurst Island. Not many. There are not many private houses anywhere on Aboriginal land. My wife would like to build a house on her land. It is an Aboriginal land trust. You have to get a surveyor, then you have to get agreement with the Aboriginal land trust for a lease and it becomes complicated.
Some communities do not want leases, some communities want 40-year leases, some communities only want 10-year leases, and some communities want 99-year leases. I do not know where it is all going because there are some communities where the leases have run out and there are public houses there.
We need to look at where we are with Aboriginal housing from the public perspective. Where are we in allowing Aboriginal people to have their own private houses? Someone said today, surely we have the right as Australians to own our homes. But there are difficulties on Aboriginal land that need to be sorted through. It has been going for ages. We need to see if we can make some headway through those difficult areas because Indigenous people should have the right to buy a house, but look how many have one. There are not many privately owned houses on Aboriginal land.
That needs to be looked at. Do not forget we have this issue of growth towns. I do not know where the debate is now. I have always felt that one of the sad things about the growth town discussion is that those middle-sized towns like Barunga, Beswick, Nauiyu, Palumpa, Peppimenarti and Santa Teresa are left out of the new homes. They can have refurbishments, but they cannot have new houses. There needs to be a lot of discussion about that. Just because some places have been given a growth town label, why should that mean communities like Nauiyu, which always built good houses and looked after them, have had only one house built in the last 10 years?
This is part of the total debate. We cannot afford just to have public housing; we have to bring Aboriginal people into the mainstream and give them a chance to have a choice so they can have good housing.
I welcome the statement by the minister because it raises the issues. It does not have much in it, to be fair. It tells you the bad things the previous government did. In three or four years I can probably tell you what bad things you mob did. I would rather get away from all that and work constructively because that is what we should be trying to do. It is an issue.
It is about families. I get back to the basics. As I said before, if families have to struggle, if families have to have 40 people in a house, if mum and dad are working so hard they can hardly see their kids in the evening, that is not helping the social fabric of our society. This is a very fundamental issue. It is not just about the bricks and mortar and it is not just about housing. The one thing missing in this statement is that it is about a home, and there is a vast different between a home and a house. That is what we should be concentrating on because there is no place like home, member for Brennan.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome this important statement from the Chief Minister on what is an important issue to every Territorian, or every Australian for that matter, whether they live in Darwin, Alice, Nhulunbuy, one of our growth towns, or any of those places in between, including our homelands.
On the crucial issue of home ownership, the Chief Minister said in this important statement that low- to medium-skilled workers is the group having the most difficulty getting into the housing market. We can add to that our homelands people and our remote communities, which the member for Nelson has just highlighted. I agree with the Chief Minister. We want these people to have access to housing and we want to keep Territorians in the Territory. There is no doubt they are critical if we are to maximise the economic growth opportunities that lie ahead.
We want to provide the opportunity for the thousands of apprentices and trainees supported by Labor to have their own homes and to be able to work in the jobs they want to do and the jobs we need them to do to continue to grow the Territory. We had a plan to help these people get off the rental roundabout and the government, after much dithering, has scrapped it despite the scheme’s overwhelming popularity and, sadly, with no other plan to replace it.
My New Home was a scheme to help Territorians get off the rental roundabout and buy a new home up to the value of $750 000. My New Home was a no-deposit scheme with no mortgage insurance, an innovative scheme which attracted a huge number of inquiries, most of which translated into applications, because those trying to break into the market recognised that this was an important and excellent opportunity, but that window of opportunity has now been closed.
The CLP has scrapped this scheme despite its overwhelming popularity. It would have helped thousands of Territorians become homeowners. It would have stimulated housing construction and with it, of course, jobs, training opportunities, procurement opportunities for the supply chain, but those opportunities are gone and, with it, the opportunity to see the freeing up of rental properties.
What of HOMESTART Extra, another initiative of the Labor government? We are proud of the assistance we have given to low- to middle-income earners to help them realise the dream of home ownership. Since 2004, HOMESTART has helped approximately 1500 people become homeowners - singles, couples and families all wanting to put down firm roots in the Territory and raise their families here.
We changed the scheme to make it more accessible and effective for Territorians, including a change to the shared equity scheme that allows between a 50% to 99% share of the property, little or no deposit, no lenders’ mortgage insurance, up to a 35-year loan term, no application fee, and $15 000 for assistance - effectively an interest-free loan. This attractive and accessible scheme helped more people become homeowners.
The Labor government was mindful of a very important area, one which would ensure people on lower wages working in important parts of the economy, such as tourism, retail, services and so on, could access rental properties. Tourism is, and always has been, a key part of the Territory’s economy and one which Labor grew during its 11 years in government.
Again, I eagerly await the release of the details on how the new CLP government plans to deliver the 2000 affordable rental properties promised in its first 100 days plan issued before the election, flagging these new affordable rental properties as something it would act on immediately. Two months into the CLP’s term we have heard nothing of how this promise will be delivered.
The Labor government set up Venture Housing Company, the Northern Territory’s affordable housing rental company, and this was an exciting new start for the Northern Territory. The redevelopment in Parap was the first cab off the rank with 35 affordable rental properties. I know from my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, this was an important part of his 2008 election campaign, and one which he, and Labor, delivered on.
I want to highlight that we made significant commitments in the budget for more affordable rental properties in the growing city of Palmerston, and I hope the government continues with our plans. My first job in the Northern Territory was at the Palmerston high school, or Driver High School as it was then. I was there in 1987 and I can hardly believe when I go there now how phenomenal the growth has been. In 1987, Palmerston was predominantly Housing Commission properties, but today it is a diverse and beautiful city with a really diverse mix of housing.
I turn to public housing. One thing I agree with the Chief Minister about is that public housing is important. It is vital to ensure we maintain the integrity of the stock, not only for the residents, surrounding neighbours and the broader community, but to ensure we can deliver the most cost-effective system possible.
I stand in this Chamber flabbergasted to hear the government has no plan about how to improve public housing and spends the opportunity in this important statement to talk merely about cost-effective design principles. I want to know, as do other members on this side of the House and, indeed, Territorians, what the government plans to do with ageing complexes such as Wirrina in Parap, which was redeveloped, as I have already mentioned into a contemporary complex under Labor.
We had a plan and we were delivering on that plan. I encourage the government to look at it closely and act quickly, not to dither, but to look at what can be done to regenerate public housing. The Labor government had committed to the redevelopment of Tomaris Court, Kurringal Flats and Shiers Street. These are all prime locations that host ageing complexes where we were going to deliver an important regeneration and modernisation of housing.
It would have included public, private and affordable housing for Territorians. I cannot impress strongly enough on this new government that they must act, they cannot dither, they cannot get bogged down in a blame game, they must step up to their responsibility to meet the needs of public housing and they must step up to their election commitments.
Public housing, or lack of it, in the town of Nhulunbuy is of huge concern. We have one of the longest, in fact, probably the longest waiting list in the Northern Territory for public housing tenants. There is a shortage of government employee housing. However, we have seen some fantastic ventures with traditional owners developing estates, which are delivering and will deliver long into the future, housing returns for traditional owners. It is incredibly complicated with the town existing on a special purpose lease, and whilst those leases were renewed last year for a further 42 years, as we all know from the media today there are some real issues around the certainty of the future of that town.
Regardless, we need the Chief Minister to step up to the plate and fight for the largest company in the Northern Territory. It is not just about a mining company, it is about a very important regional area. I remain optimistic that the place will continue and, with it, we need to see the government investing in housing for both public tenants and government employee housing.
I now turn to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing - NPARIH is the acronym - of which the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Indigenous Program is a very important part. As I represent a bush electorate, it is a program I am very familiar with and one which is very important to Indigenous Territorians. Clearly, it is not so important to the Chief Minister, given that it gets little more than a cursory mention at the end of his contribution, with almost grudging recognition that the program - the biggest remote Indigenous housing program in the history of the Territory and the nation - has been delivered.
The Labor government was proud to negotiate with the Australian government the $1.7bn 10-year program which will - and which is, there is no doubt about that - transform the lives of Indigenous Territorians. There is no denying the program got off to a rough start - we know that, it has been well documented - but we worked hard with the Commonwealth to ensure we were delivering a program and getting the results we needed to see.
As a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I also had the opportunity to visit places outside my electorate to see new and refurbished housing, and to see the things which were working well, as well as the things which, as we all know, were problematic.
The Council of Territory Cooperation added a layer of scrutiny to the program and SIHIP featured in many recommendations made to the government. I acknowledge the hard work of one of our most senior public servants, Ken Davies, who led the initial review of SIHIP when it became apparent there were issues in the early stages - a review he conducted on behalf of the Territory, with his Commonwealth counterpart, to be able to identify a better path forward.
I am so pleased the Chief Minister saw fit not to sack Mr Davies as he did other CEOs because, clearly, he recognised Mr Davies’ efforts as the CEO of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Regional Services - a portfolio with the biggest reforms in government, including managing SIHIP. His efforts were outstanding and I have no doubt he will continue to serve this new government well.
Today I stand in this Chamber proud of what has been life changing for over 3000 remote Indigenous families now living in new or improved ...
Ms Anderson: Absolutely disgraceful!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker …
Ms Anderson: Not one house south of Elliott
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Namatjira!
Ms WALKER: This comes from the member for Namatjira who thinks the program can be delivered without bureaucrats - she is sacking them. She sacked the one independent person at arm’s length who has delivered frank and fearless advice …
Ms Anderson: That rubbished you and your government.
Ms WALKER: Do I have the call here, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira! Order!
Ms Anderson: Rubbished your government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira! Please be quiet.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the member opposite - who is most insistent on interjecting; she will have her moment to talk shortly - seems to think describing reports as airy-fairy, accusing people of being in la la land, is sufficient without recognising that what needs to be fixed here is the bureaucracy. You cannot get through this without the bureaucrats; there have to be public servants involved in this program delivery. I will be the first to say there needs to be improvements, and we look forward to seeing how the members on the other side are going to do this.
Under SIHIP, 700 new homes and almost 2500 refurbishments and rebuilds have been completed.
Having watched the roll-out of the program at Galiwinku which started not long after I became the member, I cannot tell you how frustrating it was in the first 18 months with people contacting me frustrated, heading into cyclone season, wanting to know when this new housing was going to be delivered. The biggest issue in getting that program off the ground was securing land tenure. I was repeatedly told that you cannot invest taxpayer dollars from the government into housing programs where there is no tenure over the assets going in there.
To their credit, the traditional owners at Galiwinku worked hard to resolve their issues and to see, eventually, 40-year leases put in place. I cannot wait to see that same point reached for the community of Yirrkala which, like others, is desperate to see new and refurbished houses to address the overcrowding issues and everything that goes with it.
Where you have overcrowding you have difficulties in getting children to school, family dysfunction, places which have been neglected for so long - for decades under a CLP government and under previous federal governments. The underinvestment cannot be underestimated and, with it, the sheer volume of work needed to address this imbalance.
We all know the reality is that the funding available cannot fix everything at once. I wish it could. When I visited Santa Teresa with the Council of Territory Cooperation - recognising that whilst the refurbishments were occurring at that community there were no extra beds delivered, no extra space made and, therefore, the overcrowding was not addressed. As a member of parliament, it is incredibly frustrating when you see some communities benefiting and others not.
I can only hope in the 10-year commitment going forward with the federal government to continue this program, we will continue to address the needs of those communities yet to receive the benefits. The official opening of the program at Galiwinku was in June, I believe.
I cannot tell you how pleasing it was for me, along with members of that community, to see 90 new houses and 70 or more rebuilds and refurbishments. When I go there now I go out to that subdivision and see families that are proud and happy, and each person has their own little spot; their own home. There is growing community pride coming as people are establishing gardens; keeping their places tidy, and are very proud and obviously very happy to see this program has been delivered. They waited for it for a couple of years, but it has come.
That is not to say all the housing issues at Galiwinku, Maningrida or Groote Eylandt have been resolved. However, it has gone a long way to beginning to meet the needs.
The new government made considerable efforts to talk down NPARIH whenever it had a chance, to find fault and criticise, often to score cheap political points. Now the responsibility of delivery of this program lies firmly in its hands. It will, hopefully, now appreciate the incredible efforts that have gone into achieving the delivery of this massive housing program, which is changing lives for the better. The hard work and dedication of the remote housing team in the new Department of Housing continues under the leadership of Andrew Kirkman and his efforts must be acknowledged and commended.
Andrew, along with Ken Davies, made numerous appearances before the Council of Territory Cooperation to provide information, to answer questions, as well as supporting our visits out to those communities where SIHIP was happening.
I also want to acknowledge the other public servants supporting the remote housing programs even though in some sectors they have had nothing but scorn heaped upon them. We are incredibly proud of what has been achieved so far, and we hope the new government stands firm to continue this important program.
It will discover, as we did in government, there are some big challenges in delivering this program: managing the logistics and costs of working in remote communities; delivering the critically important training and employment opportunities for residents in those communities, not only for the life of the project, but to equip people with skills which will take them forward and be able to take those jobs on - all those in repairs and maintenance - so we do not need to see non-Indigenous contractors flying into these communities.
I look forward to seeing the new government negotiating the tenure with landowners and their statutory representatives via the land councils. This housing program was one it spent much time talking down and I genuinely wish the new government success in its continued delivery along with the continuous improvements which governments, regardless of political persuasion, must find.
It was disappointing that the Chief Minister made no reference to housing on the 500 or so homelands and outstations for the 10 000 Territorians who live on the traditional clan estates of their ancestors. While, before the election, the CLP was big on talk, it was pretty thin on details about support for the homelands. Its somewhat thin policy document does not state exactly what its commitment is, other than $5200 will be allocated per occupied dwelling on the basis that it is the principal place of residence.
I know that the people of the Laynhapuy Homelands are very keen and anxious to know how this program will work; how that funding will be delivered and administered; what input homelands residents will have; what say they will have in the repairs and maintenance program for their homes; how that will feed into the homelands resource agency and then on into – you cannot escape it – the bureaucracy of the government.
I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister or the Housing minister and I am sure the Minister for Indigenous Advancement will have a big role to play in this, and so she should. I am sure the member for Barkly also wants to know what their plans are to support housing on homelands and, importantly, how they will support the building of new homes on homelands. We have always known that homelands are continuing to grow. Perhaps, I should elaborate, just say within …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to standing order 77, I move that the member have an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Barkly.
If I can speak for my electorate, I know that the Laynhapuy Homelands and the Marthakal Homelands continue to grow. They are strong places; this is where people want to raise their families. Many of these places have schools and they see these places as culturally strong, strong in law, healthy places and they want to know what support they can expect from government.
They need to be able to grow their communities and have new houses there. We look forward to hearing what the new government’s plan is in supporting residents to realise that aspiration to have new houses built on their homelands, whether that be through some kind of public housing model - that is difficult given that these estates are recognised as private estates - or whether, as the member for Nelson has suggested, private home ownership.
I want to turn finally to social housing. I am hoping that the new government continues the work we did with the non-government sector to deliver housing for people faced with homelessness. In recent years, working with the Australian government and the non-government sectors, we delivered around 450 extra beds for those most in need. This included accommodation for homeless people, families escaping domestic violence, and affordable housing and supported care for people seeking medical treatment.
As shadow minister for Housing, I am trying to meet with key stakeholders, as I am across all my areas of shadow responsibility. I made it a priority to meet with NT Shelter and I thank Toni Vine Bromley for meeting with me early in September. As the peak body which advocates for appropriate and affordable housing for all Territorians, NT Shelter takes an active role in lobbying government and key stakeholders. I am not sure whether relevant ministers have had the opportunity to meet with NT Shelter; Toni did tell me she had made contact with the Housing minister’s office so …
Mr Tollner: A couple of meetings.
Ms WALKER: You have had a couple of meetings? That is very good to hear.
I know they have been seeking those meetings so I am really pleased to hear they are happening. It is vital for you to engage with NT Shelter and other NGOs involved in this area. I hope you do not disband the Homelessness and Housing Advisory Group. I hope you maintain the level of funding the Labor government committed to NT Shelter. It represents a broad range of important non-government organisations that provide housing and support and, in turn, provide very valuable advice to government.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I look forward to holding the new government to account. I look forward to seeing its overdue plan for how it will deliver these 2000 new homes. I especially look forward to hearing how it will deliver housing in the bush, to communities as well as homelands. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this important statement before the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I also take great delight in participating in a debate about a very important topic in the Northern Territory. It comes with a sense of irony though, because how things change so quickly! I remember presenting ministerial statements to this House myself and with colleagues when we were in government, to the absolute bile and vitriol from members who were the opposition then, particularly the member for Greatorex. But we continued with that debate, we did it with rational thinking and integrity, and those guys in those days did not quite rise to the occasion and continued that line of approach. Here they are today bringing it on.
The Leader of the Opposition marked the ministerial statement and it was scored down. Unfortunately, it only scored 2.5 out of 10. You have a very experienced parliamentarian, ex-minister and Deputy Chief Minister in the Leader of the Opposition, and really the mark of character is to take it on the chin. Take the criticism and then turn that into a positive.
If the Chief Minister has been marked down on this one, let me give him a bit of advice - being an ex-school teacher - with the staff and the public sector, go back to the whiteboard upstairs and start off with a scaffold of what, where, when and how. If you use that scaffold of what, where, when and how and put land release and housing and those substantive concepts into that scaffold, then you may be looking at a score well over five next time you bring this statement back to the house.
It also coincided with a very aggressive Question Time with a dorothy dixer element today, which was hell-bent on trying to slag off the previous government over land use, planning and housing. It was a string of dixer questions that tried to create a strategy and then followed up with this statement.
Being an ex-minister for Lands and Planning, I would like to talk about a few of those issues. To start with, I fought very hard for the sub-division at Kilgariff in Alice Springs and the Labor Caucus and Labor Cabinet supported it. I have advised the member for Braitling, the Minister for Infrastructure, that the only blocker in that project was the NT general election in 2012.
When an election is called the government goes into caretaker mode so that project slowed down. The reality now for the project of Kilgariff is that the CLP, with its cuts to the public sector and the sacking of one of the key players, the fantastic and the dynamic CEO of Lands and Planning, David Ritchie, has put fear into and scattered the department well and truly.
There will definitely be a job of trust when the CLP government has to build that trust with the department to get that project back up and running. I will talk a little more about Kilgariff. When we went into caretaker mode and I went back to fight for the seat of Barkly, there was a legacy of 2000 units approved in the CBD of Darwin and Palmerston with 4000 lots of land approved and under construction in the greater Darwin area.
There was a subdivision in Katherine with land for sale, a subdivision in Tennant Creek with all the land sold, and a fantastic building program going on. Kilgariff was under way, not to mention the other suburbs that were stepping up out of the ground, such as Muirhead, Bellamack, Johnston, Stages 1 and 2, and Zuccoli. Mitchell is in the pipeline and there are private developments at Coolalinga, University Heights, Durack and do not forget Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
That was a very proud moment for me to leave the seat of power and return to fight for the seat of Barkly, knowing that Labor’s land release program was well and truly under way and still in the most difficult of all times.
The Chief Minister has put himself on the record as saying the global financial crisis is over. That was a very brave statement. I would be very cautious in my approach as the Northern Territory government, because the crisis is well and truly not over. When it hit in 2008, the Treasurer and other members on this side outlined the limitations brought to the land and the housing sectors - real limitations where the money just stopped; it was not available. Developments were ready to go, but they could not secure those very important pre-sales because the boundaries had shifted considerably with the tightening of global money markets. That was a reality.
The CLP opposition whinged, whined, and barked about that for four years. That was its rhetoric. Unfortunately, I see in this statement and what I heard in Question Time today, it has taken that rhetoric into government. You want to drop that quick, ladies and gentlemen, because it is of no use now.
The ball is in your court and you are delivering, so get positive about it and start to acknowledge the great work done under Labor, because you have inherited some really good opportunities. You have inherited a time in the Northern Territory where it is booming, and you will see this stuff roll out. You can claim it in media events; you can spin it any way you like because, from this side, it is all about growing the Territory, and if you do not do it properly, you will be judged accordingly. Those members opposite know the reality of that, being politicians.
However, let us talk about Question Time and some of the quotes I have written down here from the Housing minister, ‘What we will do’, and that lovely quote he used, ‘lots of plots’. That is great lingo. Last night we debated a very important topic on alcohol reform, and it was all about ‘gunna’ do this, and ‘gunna’ do that and ‘this statement brings to the House what we will do’.
However, subsequent speakers have all commented on the fact that it lacks substance and needs to have a bit of meat on the bone to tell Territorians exactly what you will do. You have a very good framework to base off, because much of this work has been done.
I encourage the Chief Minister, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to get the department to give a presentation of the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, because I was involved in that, as were my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues. We worked hard; it was a massive body of work. It definitely goes way above and beyond the old dusty 20-year plan of the CLP.
It brings the greater Darwin area into focus for what is the capital of northern Australia during one of the fastest growing periods you will see in the history of the Northern Territory. That plan is superb, and it will give you the base level to work off in your deliberations about good planning and how to work off the evidence-based research that created the plan.
The Chief Minister made a brilliant statement. It was a couple of years ago now. I cannot put a finger on the time, but it was in one of those classic slag-offs of the government and all the rhetoric around what the government was not doing. He said, ‘I flew into Darwin the other day. I was on a QantasLink flight and as I looked down, I saw all that land out there, and this government’ - he was talking about the previous Labor government ‘cannot deliver, and cannot do that. All that land out there.’
I was the Lands and Planning minister, and it was a great experience to work with experts in the department and discover, not only good planning, but the realities of delivering land. The member for Nelson has given members in this House, over many years, that story. I participated in those lessons as well. When you are talking about delivering land, as in the Chief Minister’s statement, or the current Minister for Housing with his ‘lots of plots out there’ and ‘we’ll get this right’, then you really have to look at the constraints. The constraints are very complex; there are many of them.
For members opposite, particularly the new members of the CLP, I would like to start with native title. The CLP makes no mention of it in the statement. In Question Time today Borroloola was quoted. Well, lo and behold, the last time the Chief Minister was in Borroloola he jumped out of the plane with two television crews behind him, pulled the biggest stunt with a media show, and let me tell you, member for Braitling, that got votes for me in the election. I have to thank the Chief Minister for that stunt and trying to breach the respect and trust of the people on the ground.
Borroloola was raised as an example in Question Time today. Borroloola is ready for development. Borroloola will develop, but there is a very sensitive issue around native title and recognising the traditional owners of that land and doing business with those traditional owners.
I live in Tennant Creek and can give you examples. Native title as a constraint, forget it. Native title is an opportunity. The previous government had just negotiated a capacity for 200 lots with the native titleholders. On those 200 lots, we have released 54 lots of serviced land and both multiple dwelling and single dwelling homes are under construction. This will increase the capacity, the economics, and the community development of that town substantially.
Another example of good governance and the Labor government negotiating with traditional owners was the Barkly Work Camp. It is state of the art, the jewel in the crown of the new era of thinking - a whole new take on Corrections that, if continued as a policy, will help keep people out of prison.
As the member of Port Darwin tells the public, we will need to keep Berrimah. The whole idea is a new order in community corrections. The new regional work camps, the Katherine prison farm are to keep people out of the Darwin Correctional Centre. I cannot go into that today because that is not really relevant.
We wanted to site the Barkly Work Camp in a particular spot and, because of the constraints around land in that spot, we moved it. We negotiated with two different groups of native titleholders - not one but two. We succeeded in the first negotiation and then we had to tell them we were really sorry, that land had too many constraints. It would not be financially viable for us to do it there. We then wanted to put it elsewhere, we went into negotiations with a whole new native title group, and we secured the second one.
That is an example from Tennant Creek, but make sure you members on the other side take a big interest in the new planning commission and the new Environmental Protection Agency and speak up for the native titleholders. If you go down the road we went down in Tennant Creek you will achieve real community development. If you go on the historical road of the Country Liberal Party you will end up locked in litigation and court for decades. Learn from those mistakes and you will be a very good government.
We get into some pragmatic areas when somebody looking out the plane window over the greater Darwin area says, ‘Look at all that land down there; that the previous Labor government could not develop. They could not release it.’
Think about some of the concepts like biting insect zones, flood zones, storm surge zones, waterlogged land, land belonging to the Commonwealth for Defence, private land, land with constraints around noise attenuation from the airport, land preserved for future transport corridors and heritage areas. That is a shortlist of some of the constraints you deal with when you are talking about the release of land in the greater Darwin area.
Do not forget this statement did not talk about the Territory’s newest city opportunity at Weddell. It did not talk about what the previous government did in supporting the INPEX development and ensuring those important head services the member for Nelson talked about - roads and water and power going straight past. You do not want to talk about that in a statement about future planning and creating affordable housing. That is why you scored 2.5 out of 10.
You can go back and write a few more paragraphs around Weddell and talk about what, when, where and how, because that is the real jewel in the crown of creating the harbour city, that is all well and truly documented in the previous government’s Greater Darwin Land Use Plan.
The member for Nelson talked about head services and the provision of land, and that is an expensive job. You have a bit of a team together; you have the member for Braitling as the Minister for Infrastructure, the Chief Minister as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and the member for Brennan as the Housing minister. You will have to work closely together on this because it is a team effort that delivers serviced land. When you guys get your boots dusty, kick a few ant beds, see what happens on the ground and talk to the developers, then you will see that the biggest challenge is providing serviced land. The land service costs are the bottom line before you go anywhere near the developer and the on-costs that are added.
Regarding the member for Nelson’s point about the Land Development Corporation, that is exactly what we were doing in the previous government. We made a joint venture in Zuccoli. It is under construction; it has an incredible capacity; it is being developed according to the new principles of urban development. Have a look at it; talk to those people and you will see all the challenges associated with delivering serviced land. There we are talking about Crown land. As the member for Nelson pointed out, there are taxpayer-funded needs for servicing that land to get it on to the market where you can then start to do business with the developer.
Do not forget my advice about land release - take it or leave it. However, regarding your new planning commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, I am very interested in exploring how that legislative instrument will change the nature of how land release is done in the Territory. Be aware that the environment needs to be protected. You need to ask the questions about that for any new land development coming online. When we get away from Crown land we do not dismiss those requirements; we just move them into the developer community.
The member for Brennan, the Housing minister, and the Chief Minister talked about the subtleties of how we are going to work with developers and do this business quicker, faster and cheaper. Be aware - this is what I talked about the other day - developers are about making profits and you have to be able to strike a balance as the government of the day will be held accountable.
Go out there and do your best, use the experts in the department. Be careful you do not lose too much corporate knowledge. I was extremely saddened when David Ritchie departed as the CEO. He taught me so much; he is a brilliant bloke and a great operator. Be careful of the loss of that corporate knowledge because when you go walking in the developer community, the private sector community, you will need every trick in the book up your sleeve. They are very astute people. They are very intelligent people, but they are profit-driven and you need to be top-line negotiators to make sure you achieve the best results.
That leads me to Kilgariff and the member for Braitling. I talked about the project stalling because of the election but now you guys will get it back on track. The previous Labor government and I fought hard for that for Alice Springs. I fought hard for Katherine, I fought for Tennant Creek and I also took great delight in the developments around the greater Darwin area, but it is your job now. We put $10.5m into it, but you have to sell it to a developer now because the government does not continue to build homes.
You have to bring a developer on line. We started the search in the market place but, unfortunately, in Alice Springs there did not seem to be the capacity or the will to develop Kilgariff, although at the time it was the clear principle of the Northern Territory Labor government, to make sure locals got that work. We were trying to do that, but we had a backup plan to use the Land Development Corporation.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Johnston and I thank the members for their support.
The backup plan for Kilgariff was that the Land Development Corporation was definitely interested, but you are in charge now. You will be running the show. The Land Development Corporation has some excellent experience in the joint venture they are conducting in Zuccoli. They have a proven track record in the delivery of industrial land.
If we move them into residential land they might be your key in Kilgariff, but make sure you go back with your land use planning and talk to the demographers. The demographers will give you the predictions and unfortunately Alice Springs is not growing quickly. I suppose the member for Greatorex, the Minister for Tourism, should take a bit of responsibility for this when he supported that negative advertising campaign in Alice Springs that went viral globally and sent the message that Alice Springs is a ‘no go’ zone.
We argued in this House about that and we recommended to you not to do that because that was dangerous territory. However, those negative stories went out globally, and having to deal with that is one thing. The demographers have shown that Alice Springs needs growth and I am interested in the plans from the new government about how you will grow Alice Springs because you do not create lots of service land to watch the weeds grow.
It is the old supply and demand and you have a perfect opportunity. We planned for the first cut of Kilgariff as 140 lots, but there is a capacity in that area of over 3000 lots and it is creative country there. We also looked at innovative ways to deliver affordable housing for Alice Springs and Central Australia. That is where I went the extra step with the developers and the joint venture companies we were working with. I said it is not just about serviced land, it is about housing infrastructure.
We should be looking at alternative building products and the debate you need to have in the Territory is about smaller lot sizes. The member for Brennan uses the rhetoric of a person with a middle income. People cannot expect to have an 800 square metre block and $400 000 home. I could not afford it and still cannot afford it. I had to work my way up. It is a natural progression of renting, to buying a unit, to a moderate home or whatever. You need to start that journey and not overlay too many big expectations on everyone to expect 800 m2 of land with a $400 000 house. That is not attainable for many Australians. We have to work with those contingencies and do our best.
In Kilgariff we were talking, not only about serviced land, but about alternative building materials and smaller footprints.
There is one other debate I would like you guys to continue in Alice Springs that I took up and received a lot of criticism for - I got hammered actually - but I kept it on the table, particularly with the Planning For the Futures Forum in Alice Springs, and that was about building height regulations in the town. It is a tough debate, but I hope the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment with his new planning commission and his new Environmental Protection Agency, will continue the debate. The debate for Alice Springs is a good one.
There are antisocial issues in the town. If you look at the town, with all respect, it is a planning nightmare. The principles of modern urbanism show that if you create nooks, crannies, dead ends and areas that attract antisocial behaviour, that are hotspots, that are dark, sheltered, not visible, then you attract problems. The principles of new urbanism now say that if you can create active street frontages, if you can create elevated environments that offer passive surveillance and you start to energise central business districts with people, they are your best security because naturally, people are looking, they are living, they are interacting and others are not welcome to come in and behave in an antisocial way.
However, the battering I took in Alice Springs was, ‘Don’t you come down and preach that. We are not building anything over three storeys, and you get back to Tennant Creek.’ So I said to them, ‘Well, if I can find a five or six-storey development, I will take it from Alice Springs and bring it back to Tennant Creek, because we will welcome it.’
The principles of modern urbanism need to be applied in Alice Springs, Darwin, Palmerston, or wherever. There are some very good agencies which were created by the Labor government - stakeholders and advisory groups - that are able to educate a government about this. Make good use of those brilliant minds and those ministers working together out in the field getting some dust on their boots and losing that rhetoric of an opposition, because you are now in government and you are now driving the dozer, in charge of the excavator, and you have to protect the mangroves and the environment in all the development. You enjoy the ride, because I tell you I did, every step of the way. It was fascinating.
There are a couple of points I also want to comment on from a media statement of the Department of Infrastructure which says the
- Department of Infrastructure contracts delivery of houses for communities.
Peter Chandler has told the NT parliament a new system of contract panels has been set up.
Well, good on you, member for Brennan, that it is great. You know what? I will put on the record I want to take the credit, because I did it! Under the Labor government, I did it! I worked tirelessly with the Department of Construction and Infrastructure which was fully involved in this, and we went over hurdle after hurdle. We jumped them all.
It is all about taking those commercial contracts and creating gangs of local people in remote communities to do the work. My mantra around it for government when they showed me all the constraints was: Guess what? The locals are not going to ring the ABC. They are not going to ring the member for Braitling to get on the radio and write to The Australian and stir up merry hell that blocks everything, that creates all this negative politics around it. The locals will do the repairs and refurbishments in their own time, at their own pace, in the life of the community.
This is what I call the community rhythm. Government understood that. They said, ‘That is a bit weird, mate’. I said, ‘Listen, believe me, I live in the bush. I know no one will ring the ABC and complain. No one will go and bag out the government and rubbish us and try to drag us down with all this negative rhetoric because we are going to be doing it.’
The Department of Construction and Infrastructure worked tirelessly to put that together and I congratulate the Minister for Housing for putting it out there, spinning it out in that media world you used to criticise, because this is a good thing. Well done! I look forward to seeing the results of that in the Barkly.
I will give a little advice. I should not give too much advice they tell me. However, this is about Territorians. Public Housing - I am running out of time. I am sorry I am going to keep my time. Public Housing: the statement concentrates a lot on infrastructure. I will give you a tip. The secret is ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an additional 10 minutes to continue.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has already had his 10 minutes.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Braitling. That is why I am rushing through this.
Concentrate on tenancy management; that is what it is all about, mate. We have put in place, as the previous government, some excellent initiatives in education and awareness for tenants in tenancy security. Be careful of the budget cuts and the economic rationalism; they will go there first. For the member for Braitling, the dynamic new Transport minister, watch out for budget cuts to the Transport Safety Officers because that is a brilliant program. It should be extended to Alice Springs. That is where I was heading with it next. The economic rationalists up there on the fifth floor will be putting a knife into things like that really quickly.
Regarding remote housing - and it was discussed by the member for Nhulunbuy – fantastic: 934 new houses, 2950 refurbishments. However, the big mistake you made in your statement was - and the member for Braitling will be freaking out about this - you have put down a date, a year, and a number. Then, we can just drag you all through The Australian, and the ABC and Channel 9, and whoever else will listen to us, and bag you out for the next couple of years. I will use all your Hansard; I will just change the names to protect the innocent. I will quote it, I will plagiarise it every step of the way and drag you through the media.
At the end of the day, that is SIHIP; that is what we negotiated with the Commonwealth government. Do it better; good luck. I look forward to it because it is the kids of the future who will have an outcome. Watch out for The Australian though because we will have to do some business down there.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, before I start, I will pay a compliment to the member for Barkly. Normally, he comes into this House and rattles on like a crazy, leftie ex-chalkie. No one really listens, we just put up with Hector for the sake of putting up with Hector. However, his talk about modern urbanisation around environmental guidelines in the Alice Springs CBD was probably the best contribution I have heard him make. It is a pity that during his tenure as minister in the previous government he was not prepared to work through some of those issues with the members of parliament from Alice Springs. I would have been very supportive of looking at raising the height restrictions in Alice Springs above three stories. It is important to get better, modern urbanisation and also to get more people living in town. That completely supports the development of the town.
It was very funny walking into this Chamber today, and reflecting this afternoon, thinking about our introduction the other day and the speech by the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, chastising you in a funny way about your support of the Phantom. I was thinking today about the Phantom being purple. I happen to have a purple tie on today. I looked around our wing meeting this morning and my colleague to the left, Mr Tollner, the member for Fong Lim, has purple on today. My colleague, the member for Namatjira, has some purple on, and the member for Arnhem has some purple on her shoes and a purple iPhone. We have some colour with the member for Brennan, minister Chandler, and the member for Drysdale is all in purple. I thought, ‘Gee, we are really supporting the Phantom’.
I did not really want to talk about it, but then I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk. The member for Nhulunbuy, who sat here for four years and did not say a word, today talked about homelands and SIHIP and had all the answers in the world. I thought: there is the biggest phantom in the room, the ghost who walks. She had nothing to say for four years, but the ghost has walked into our parliament today and spoken about things she never had the guts to speak about when she was on this side of the Chamber.
We issued our homelands policy in the lead-up to the election to support people on the homelands. We who supported reforms to the Indigenous housing program known as the failed SIHIP program. We fought for reforms, for change in Aboriginal communities and rural and remote areas across the Northern Territory, not these guys. These guys blew the budget, removed all forms of service delivery, took jobs away, took the cultural independence of local governance away from Indigenous Territorians. However, the member for Nhulunbuy says, ‘We will hold you to account’. I might get someone to look through the Hansard and see what she has said in four years. Boo! Maybe it is the ghost who walks.
Madam Speaker, I know you are a Phantom fan and I appreciate that; however, we have two phantoms now. We have the comical phantom and then we have the hilarious phantom from Nhulunbuy. We have John Paul Young; Hector the Road Safety Cat; Phantom, the Ghost who Walks. We are really filling the place up. Do not worry, member for Johnston, we will come up with a name for you soon too in all forms of fun.
I listened to what the member for Barkly said about modern urbanisation. My ears pricked up a bit when he misled the House about the 140 lots he was planning for Kilgariff. My understanding is it was only 70 lots. He can mislead the House if he wants, but my understanding was it was only 70. The point is, there are no lots developed.
He spoke about a planning forum in Alice Springs. That was in June 2008. People who were interested gathered around in a room at the Crowne Plaza in Alice Springs and spoke about the future of town planning, suburb development, land release, housing lots, blah blah blah, and the Labor government was going to do something about it. Well, here we are today and there has been no land released. You have to ask what they did.
We have the three Ds - debt, deficit and Delia. They are the common things that have really brought this Territory government, under the former administration, to disrepute because of the financial mismanagement. It is up to the Country Liberals once again to fix it up. People always talk about how recessions or bad economic times come in cycles. They do come in cycles. Every time Labor gets in, the economy, the fiscal management component of a government structure, goes down.
Then the Liberals get in and we fix it up again. It will go down when Labor gets in and we will fix it. You just have to look Hawke and Keating then Howard. Then look at Rudd and Gillard; they brought it down. It will be up to Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey to lift it up again. This is the cycle of economies within a government context. The Liberals fix it, Labor ruin it. That is the cycle we are in at the moment.
It is the same in the area of housing. We saw poor elements of land release, poor elements of planning, high-cost conditions of housing and rentals, and now we are in a position where, as my colleague the Minister for Housing said, people are leaving the Territory and it is up to us to fix it. It is another heavy burden we have to carry and we will come back to fix.
I will focus my component of this speech on Central Australia because I know the Chief Minister, in his statement, and the Minister for Housing have concentrated on a broader Territory-wide view, so I will look at this from an Alice Springs perspective, particularly around the Kilgariff subdivision.
I have a copy of the presentation undertaken by Opus that was delivered at that presentation in the Crowne Plaza in June 2008. That presentation went through a number of options, including further development of Larapinta, joining up Sterling Heights and Albrecht Drive. It went through Mt Johns subdivision, potential around Undoolya, South Sadadeen and what is commonly referred to as the AZRI Alice Springs Airport area, also known as Kilgariff.
Let us look at what progress has been made on these subdivisions over the last few years. That was in 2008, and here we are more than six years later in the latter half of 2012. What action did we see from the previous government in addressing affordable housing issues, or district housing issues in Alice Springs, apart from putting out glossy brochures and little PowerPoint flyers? Not a bad PowerPoint flyer but putting those out, you cannot really live under this. I suppose you could, there are a few pages; you could stick some together and sleep under that.
Very little has been done towards the growing need for housing in Alice Springs. There are about 25 lots in Mt Johns Stage 1, 40 lots in Sterling Heights, 33 lots in Ridges Estates. Eleven years. Anyone who is a mathematician add that up - eleven years. We release of land of at least 50 lots per year. For example, I understand that the next stage of Mt Johns has a capacity to turn off 40 blocks in a pretty rapid time frame, if you wanted to make that happen. That is high-cost land.
I will turn my attention to Kilgariff. Why is this site still largely undeveloped? Why is the design of Kilgariff yet to be finalised? We heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about Kilgariff, but fly down there next time you visit in six months, drive from the airport into Alice Springs; you will go past the gate where all the headworks have stopped. We have this little beautiful farmland, cows growing, an intersection going into it just at the start of the fence, but nothing. We have right hand turn lanes to go in, left hand turn lanes, but just for cows.
Stage 1 headworks, which began in March 2011, some three years after the forum with a value of $10m, was initiated by the previous government but that was a very slow delivery time frame. This had formed part of the money put into the budget, programmed in, revoted out, programmed in, revoted out, programmed in, revoted out.
The Stage 1 headworks were delivered by the department of Infrastructure in three contract packages, for those who would like to know. The work included connecting roadworks with the new intersection and essential services, including sewers, electricity and water supply. Nearly 20 months later these Stage 1 works are only now nearing completion.
Stage 2 enabling works is the next stage in opening up the new subdivision. For this, we have been waiting for government action since early 2011. Budget Paper No 4 listed an allocation of $3.5m as a revote, and I spoke about the revote. In other words, $3.5m had been on the program since 2011-12 and the early stages of the planning for that budget which would have gone back to 2010 and even now remains unspent, when there is a housing crisis and house prices are blowing out.
You only have to look at the December 2011 quarterly house and unit sale statistics provided to me by LJ Hooker. They show that in the year ending 2004, the average price was $254 834 and in 2011 that has doubled to $491 695. The average unit price has gone from $163 707 in 2004 to $356 993 in 2011. Prices have more than doubled for units and just under doubled for houses. That is in a seven year period.
You really have to ask what the previous government did and how much it cared because that has completely blown out and made it unaffordable for many Territorians, particularly Central Australians.
The Country Liberals government, being in since the evening of 25 August, has taken decisive action to get work moving. Officers from the Department of Infrastructure under my direction are now working closely with colleagues in the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to scope out Stage 2 enabling works. There have already been meetings held and things are progressing at a rapid pace.
Stage 2 works will include a new spine road into the heart of the site as well as key drainage and essential services works. These works will go out to tender early next year and will provide opportunities for local contractors to win valuable work. These Stage 2 works are expected to be completed as early as possible in 2013.
I walked into the department after being made the Minister for Infrastructure and said to the CEO, ‘I want to get this Kilgariff stuff happening, find out where the blockages were’. The blockages were inertia. The blockages were a lazy Labor government. Immediately we had meetings with officers between the two departments of Infrastructure and Lands, Planning and the Environment. Immediately an action plan has been put into place. I have arranged for a meeting between me, the Mayor of Alice Springs and senior Infrastructure officials to start working on the design concept plans before they go to tender to make sure we get things in the right pattern.
Things are moving. It is like the debate today on urgency and the Minister for Tourism wanting things to happen because we are going to drive the economy. We will drive it for the benefit of all Territorians.
I look forward to working with the Chief Minister, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to ensure that the next phase of constructing serviced allotments will be timely and cost-effective. It is not going to be a case where we blow the budget out like Labor would do with the three Ds: debt, deficit and Delia. This will be for us, a cost-effective and timely service delivery model; delivering housing opportunities through land availability in the suburb of Kilgariff. I have already asked the Department of Infrastructure to investigate opportunities around further development in Larapinta Valley.
This housing at Kilgariff has an opportunity of providing some 2500 lots in the combination of AZRI and Alice Springs Airport land. This will provide housing for thousands of people as the town of Alice Springs grows, as well as providing commercial and recreational space. It will not be like Labor, where it is just a pretty brochure, it will get Alice Springs pumping - and I say that deliberately.
We are talking about economic drivers in the town of Alice Springs in Central Australia. The Kilgariff subdivision does not just create an opportunity for the successful tenderer to put in the spine road, it creates opportunities for all the other land servicing work, for the builders who will want to build, for the NRAS opportunities that we will work towards that Labor could not do over the last term of government. It will mean landscapers have more landscaping to do, the gravel companies, the concreting companies, the builders, the roofies, the chippies, the sparkies - everyone will have more to do. It will get our town pumping. That is just the first part into getting our economy growing vibrantly. I really look forward to it.
Part of my contribution to this debate tonight was to talk about Kilgariff. I will leave the rest of my contribution to a later date, but I wanted to let the House know that as soon as I became Minister for Infrastructure, I directed the department to get on with Kilgariff. I am working closely with the Chief Minister as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. We are getting down to business and rolling up our sleeves, releasing land in Alice Springs. We are ensuring supply is in front of demand in a new greenfield site which represents significant opportunities.
Madam Speaker, I move that this debate be concluded at a later date.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Introduction of Full-Strength Beer to the
Tiwi Islands
Introduction of Full-Strength Beer to the
Tiwi Islands
Madam SPEAKER: This morning I received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance:
The reintroduction of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands.
Yours sincerely,
Delia Lawrie MLA,
Leader of the Opposition
Is this matter of public importance supported? The matter is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this definite matter of public importance, that is, the member for Arafura’s election promise to reintroduce full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands.
We heard during the election campaign, both in Arafura and other bush electorates, that Country Liberals’ candidates were promising support for the return of full-strength grog to bush communities. Frankly, we were unsure this was Country Liberals’ policy and a firm commitment endorsed by the party. This was especially so, given the Country Liberals’ gushing endorsement of Mal Brough’s intervention, including the alcohol controls and blue prohibition signs at the entrances to Aboriginal land and living areas across the Northern Territory.
Earlier this month, the NT News jumped on this story, reporting how the Country Liberals had quietly campaigned supporting the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands. Then we had the odd experience of reading a letter to the editor of the NT News in the name of the member for Arafura, denying the suggestion he supported the return of full-strength grog to his home community. This was no part of his election campaign, he said. However, a video interview with the member for Arafura proved quite unequivocal - yes, by his own admission the member for Arafura had said this was a part of his campaign.
We have heard this promise also featured in the campaign for the seat of Arnhem, particularly on Groote Eylandt. More recently, we have seen the Chief Minister come out of the closet, once again, bringing the Queensland Liberals’ template of government to the Territory, supporting drinking clubs and local plebiscites in our bush towns on the return of full-strength grog - those same communities which are wrestling with poverty, poor living conditions, poor school attendance, and limited employment opportunities for local people.
Let us return our focus to what is important in the Territory. Territory Labor has heard the message from the bush about local government reform and frustration with the consequences of decades of neglect only now being seriously addressed through our partnership agreements with the Commonwealth. As Opposition Leader, I am taking my team to the bush to hear the grief, and reconnect with those who are unhappy with us.
One of my recent trips was to the Tiwi Islands, accompanied by my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy. This gave us a great opportunity to not only hear about education, youth programs, local government issues and healthcare provisions, but also to hear directly from community members and community workers about the angst and consequences of the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands.
We met a great range of people: local government leaders, mothers, grannies, youth workers, people with a long-term perspective on the Tiwi life and the key issues affecting Tiwi families. We met with senior traditional owners, and women, in particular, are distressed at the prospect of another debate about the return of full-strength grog. Those wanting to feed their grog habits have found new powerful allies and they expect to be rewarded for their support of the Country Liberals at the recent elections. The Tiwi women are concerned about how a final decision will be made, whose voices will prevail, and who speaks for the children.
Yesterday, the member for Braitling spoke about his support for cultural governance. I would welcome any of the Indigenous members of the government putting on the record how cultural governance will work in their planned plebiscite on the return of grog and establishment of drinking clubs. How will different views be considered and where will the balance of power lie in making a final decision? Who will take account of the risks to children, who will advocate for those children, and who will listen?
Yesterday, the member for Braitling also praised Senator Scullion for his support in the NT election campaign. Hopefully, Senator Scullion used his travelling time with the member for Braitling to tell him that any plebiscite in our bush towns, if conducted properly, would tell you they do not want alcohol back. This is Senator Scullion’s perspective on this issue as reported by the ABC News website on 9 October.
I note the Chief Minister has spoken before about the dignity of taking responsibility. I take it this is what underpins his thinking on the issue and his support for plebiscites on more grog for our bush communities.
Let us talk about decision-making. We have a framework providing a forum for community discussion, consideration of evidence, local opinion and expert opinion and, ultimately, an independent decision by the NT Liquor Commission. Now, under the Stronger Futures framework endorsed by the Country Liberals colleagues in our national capital, the Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs, not wanting to see the massive investment in addressing Indigenous disadvantage cut off at the knees, also has a role in approving alcohol management plans in prescribed alcohol areas.
Community consultation, consideration of evidence and independent adjudication has been a framework that has supported over 90 communities across the Territory firmly rejecting alcohol in the interest of community, family and individual wellbeing. Where drinking clubs have been established, we have often seen these become not family-friendly social clubs, but swill houses and centres of political power within a community built around access to grog. We see extraordinary alcohol consumption, often capped, but relentlessly ever present with regular drinking above harmful levels becoming part of the day-to-day life of those communities. An insidious co-dependency has emerged as the clubs produce income through the sale of alcohol and proceeds are used to endow favoured projects.
This is a key risk Senator Scullion has also warned of. At Nguiu, or Wurrumiyanga, the name traditional owners prefer for the township of Nguiu, there has been a well-documented history of alcohol-related harm, particularly domestic violence and other assaults. This is a sad history which leads directly to the 2006 decision to ban heavy beer at the Nguiu Social Club. Let us be very clear about that history. That decision was a direct result of a community conversation, consideration of the evidence and, notably, proper attention to the needs of those without a strong voice, the children and youth of the Tiwi Islands.
An important consideration leading to that critical decision was the work of our thoughtful Northern Territory Coroner, Greg Cavanagh SM, and his 1999 inquest relating to youth suicide on the Tiwi Islands. In particular, Coroner Cavanagh found the embedded culture of daily drinking at Nguiu, particularly by men, was directly linked to unacceptable levels of domestic levels, assaults and trauma. Tragically, he found a direct link between the culture of heavy drinking and a local epidemic of youth suicide.
Ganja was, of course, also a part of that equation but the coroner noted, very clearly, a direct link between the operation of the club and heavy drinking. He said:
- There is no doubt, as the evidence reveals, that the abuse of alcohol is one of the major underlying factors in suicide and self-harm.
Dr Parker, with 20 years experience amongst Tiwi Islanders, observed a strong connection between alcohol abuse by adults and the internalisation of violence, anger and grief among Tiwi youth as a core factor contributing to suicide and self-harm. Importantly, he also commented on a pattern of a 20-year lead time; how childhood trauma festered over time and often erupted 20 years later in suicide.
More recently, our Children’s Commissioner, our advocate for Territory kids, has also expressed alarm about totally unacceptable levels of alcohol-related violence against Aboriginal women in the Territory. A level of violence he says is 80 times that of other women - a fact that beggars belief and is totally shameful.
We know that this outrageous level of violence in our families is fuelled by grog. I would go on but the facts are well-known. They are well-known, I believe, by the member for Arafura, who was prominent in supporting the Coroner at the time. I look forward to hearing from this new member for Arafura about how his thinking has evolved and how he sees the return of full-strength beer to the Tiwi Islands being handled.
What message will the return of full-strength beer for adults and drinking as a core part of day-to-day Tiwi life seem to young people at risk?
It is important that the member for Arafura and the Chief Minister outline their plans because many of the people we listen to on the Tiwi Islands are deeply anxious about the return of full-strength grog. They are fearful of returning to an environment of heavy drinking, with less money to feed the kids, more arguments and humbug. They are scared about the impact on Tiwi children, wondering how a vote for grog will be handled. This is absolutely a matter of definite public importance.
I call on the government to explain to Territorians, to Tiwi Islanders, how they will ensure that we move forward and not backwards, forward in protecting women and children in supporting Tiwi families to live healthy lives and celebrate their Tiwi culture and identity, not a return to community life revolving around the club and grog as a central part of day-to-day life.
Explain to Tiwi Islanders, Territorians and Australians generally how we will not slide back to the awful truth that in 2000-05 the Tiwi Islands was the suicide capital of the world. I have heard fine things said about the fact that the member for Arafura is not a drinker. I have heard fine things said that he lives at Four Mile where the aspirations of the community are that there will be a rehabilitation centre, not for the return of full-strength grog - the community has aspirations for a rehabilitation centre run with Tiwi culture at Four Mile to deal with the problems they have with the drinking of mid-strength now, and the serious problems they have with ganja on the islands now.
They are looking to the senior leadership of the member for Arafura because they know he is not a drinker and he lives the gentle life at Four Mile, which was established for rehabilitation. They are looking for that information I have spoken about here and they are looking for that leadership with genuine angst. We listened to many different people - elders, men, women, children. They are waiting for the answers. We would like to hear them.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I am a senior Tiwi elder and I am proud to be a Tiwi. I can talk to them through Tiwi law and through white law because I am elected to be here. I can speak for Tiwi. About reformed drinkers, I stopped drinking in 1983. That is one example and people have a choice.
Tiwi people come to Darwin and have access to full-strength alcohol. I see them drunk on Darwin streets and I am saddened and embarrassed for them. We have a social club on Tiwi that only allows light beer with a meal. Tiwi people are telling me they should be able to drink full-strength beer in their own community, controlled by their own people.
Tiwi people should have choice and community decision-making. Like any other location in the Northern Territory, Labor does not trust us with alcohol. Tiwi people are already taking responsibility for looking after problem drunks in our community.
The facility at Four Mile on Bathurst is a potential site for a rehabilitation program and problem drunks on Tiwi Island to come back to our community. There is a building already in place which is inappropriate for the type of rehabilitation use.
Tiwi people are sick and tired of being told what to do by Labor, and Tiwi people are telling me that Labor is treating them like second-rate citizens. If you talk about closing the gap, does that mean that whites can drink heavy and blacks cannot? I am here to listen to them and to communicate their views and ideas in this parliament
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, Rome was not built in a day. Problem drinkers are not going to fade away; they are going to be here forever, and we can expect younger generations to follow. Unless we, as government, start talking seriously about how we can help each other out, we as a whole will not get anywhere with this issue of problem drinking.
Let me take you back to last year, when I chaired the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. I remember the then Deputy Chief Minister walking into a room full of Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council members and the Indigenous Economic Development Task Force to tell us how this new Enough is Enough alcohol reform package was going to help our people. You should have seen the Indigenous Affairs Advisory councillors’ jaws drop. I remember, to my understanding, we as the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council were there to advise the then government on what was best for our people in order to engage with each other.
I do not believe we were consulted, or were even advised that this was happening. That day, the only person who felt so low was me, as Chair of the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council, because I had to calm my councillors down. We are here today and we still have not done anything about the drinkers out there, and these drinkers are our families. They are our families; our fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters. Just remember that when we talk about this big problem we have in the Northern Territory.
We bury people. My four brothers died in a town camp because they drank every day, day in, day out. I want to seriously work with this government which has been elected by the people out there who said to everyone enough is enough. We have been bashing our heads against the wall, talking to every government member who has flown in, driven in. They have been there for one day, and they think they know us and can walk away with just one answer from a person who might be visiting that community that day. That is what makes people think they have the answer. No, you do not, because any Aboriginal person you pull up, wherever, will give you whatever answer you want to hear so you can walk away feeling you have been consulted.
Madam Speaker, we have to think seriously about this problem we have in the Northern Territory, because it is costing our people’s lives.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I want to make one thing clear in this House: During my election - I want to get you straight, Delia ...
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable member, if you can direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Ms LEE: Okay, sorry about that. During my election, I have not once, or ever, bribed my electorate with the promise of alcohol. As a mother of four, I stopped drinking when my father died ...
Ms Lawrie: Good.
Ms LEE: I tell you that is good; that is the best decision I have ever made ...
Ms Lawrie: I am glad you did not promise grog.
Ms LEE: Whoa, good on you! But do not walk into this House and accuse me of something I have never done. I live, I cry with my family. I live on the same land as my family. I see the problems; I have grown up with it in my house. I do not need to hear it from anyone else. That is the whole reason why you are on the opposition, and we are over here, because the people voted us in, not you. Get that right. Okay?
One thing has to be settled in this House. The only reason why Labor was voted out - and I will get that straight out into the open because the world needs to see it, Indigenous people need to see it - was because we are here to stand up and represent them. We are not going to sit here and put our foot down on them. I am one of those people. I am part of them. I have grown up with them. English was never my first language.
You might think I am dumber than you; that is your thought, I do not care. The reason they put me here is because both my parents, especially my father, was the same as this old man right here next to me, Francis Xavier - a very high cultural leader.
My mother would not even sit there and question Alison Anderson or Bess Price. They are both too high a cultural leader as well. She knows her ground. I do not know about any other woman, but it is a disgrace. That is why you are put on that side.
That is my point, never walk into this House and accuse me of something I have not done. I told those people exactly what they needed to hear: The shires - get it out. We will go in there and fight for that. What has the SIHIP program delivered - refurbishments, housing. Were they up to standard?
Mr Kurrupuwu: No
Ms LEE: No, exactly. Look at Lajamanu, for instance, one of your growth towns. If you walk through that community there is rubbish all over the place. Go to every community - there are no jobs on the ground for our people. That is the reason why we are in here. Where are the jobs? You have Balanda - you want to talk about language, well Balanda, I am sure you know what Yolngu means. That is us mob, Balanda, that is you. Balanda are taking over our communities. Our leaders died. You have no idea - never accuse me.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, what we have here is the quintessential clash of ideologies. Never have I seen it in this House more starkly represented than in this debate.
The Leader of the Opposition said we have to continue these policies because we know what is good for you. That was the policy of the original European settlement of Australia. That, by the way, was the policy of extermination. That was the policy of assimilation and the policy of welfarism. It is all about, ‘Let’s control peoples’ lives because we know what is good for them’.
That ideology leads to the policies we have seen pumped out into these communities by this government. Woe betide you if you are the recipient of any of this state-run charity and have the audacity to question the wisdom of the state because they will come after you. Under their cloak of graciousness if you have the audacity to question them, clearly you must be some sort of heretic and they treat people who question them as heretics, they burn them at the stakes.
I have listened to the member for Arnhem have to reject an accusation that was levelled at her by the Leader of the Opposition. Why was that accusation levelled at her? Because she is one of the heretics who has the …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order Madam Speaker! There was no allegation levelled at anyone. The Matter of Public Importance is documented on the Notice Paper.
Mr ELFERINK: I would suggest he reads the Hansard of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution.
The member for Arafura, during and after the election campaign, was hounded by the people who see him as a heretic. His argument to resist this position today was simply this, and it was not a complicated argument, but it fundamentally demonstrates the other side of this ideological divide. It is that we are individuals as human beings and we can make decisions for ourselves.
I was particularly captivated by the observation of how this grog policy works - only black men can drink half-strength beer and only white men can drink full-strength beer.
Another country approached racism in that fashion. That country rejected that form of racism absolutely, completely and utterly. It was a form of racism. It was the most racist country in the world for a long time.
What I am hearing from the members on this side of the House is, ‘Well, you reckon you know about this stuff you fellows on the other side of the House? We live and breathe this stuff every single day of our lives. We see it in our communities.’ You reckon these folk do not know what they are talking about? They do not have doctorates but I can tell you that they have doctorates in the challenges of life and living under the blessings of an all-giving state. I can tell you they have learnt that lesson.
They are saying, ‘For God’s sake, start making us responsible. Allow us to make decisions and be responsible for the outcomes of those decisions.’
For them to stand up in this place and suggest it would be to have them branded by the all-giving, all-knowing charitable ones on the other side as heretics of the lowest order.
It is not a religion. Ideology should not be a religion but for the people on the other side it is. It is all they have. If you dare challenge it they will hound you, abuse, publicly attack you, and, as we have already seen in this House, defame you.
The comment of this government and what the Chief Minister has said is that people should make the decisions for themselves. I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and she said all of these communities have chosen not to have alcohol. That is entirely reflective of the comments of the Chief Minister on this topic because the Chief Minister has not said we are just going to open the pubs up in every community. I do not remember the Chief Minister ever saying that.
What he said is that we are going to listen to what Aboriginal people have to say in these remote areas. I would not be at all surprised that some, half, possibly most of those communities may say no. But guess what, that will be their choice.
If a community says they like some of the things that flow from the capacity to make a positive decision or a decision to enable full-strength liquor to be sold in their community, then they would like to make that choice. We live in a democracy but one could be forgiven for thinking that if you are an Aboriginal person living in a remote community on a land trust somewhere you should be deprived of democracy because ‘we know what is good for you!’.
I have seen for many years people knowing ‘what is good for’ Aboriginal people. The part that really irritates me about it most of all is that they turn up, spend one or maybe two years in those communities and, boom, they are back down to Sydney and Melbourne sitting there on Lygon Street, drinking their cappuccino saying, ‘Oh, you should see the terrific work I did for Aboriginal people in the bush. You have no idea how wonderful I am’. It is one massive ego trip. ‘I got my doctorate studying Aboriginal people.’ What, like zoo animals? Their nose pressed up to the glass saying, ‘Oh, look there is one’.
When are we going to start treating people like human beings and stop seeing the colour of their skin? It is all I have ever asked for in this House.
I know they are of Aboriginal descent but I also know they are individuals and have different opinions. I listened to the five members of Aboriginal extraction on this side of the House talking in private and there are differences in opinions. Why? Because they are human beings and that is what human beings have. But not so for the state charity runners on the other side of the House. They are a homogenous block. I get irritated, quite frankly, at having to identify people by race. We have to do it because that is the way the debate runs.
We talk about Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, I like to talk about individuals. The only reason I use that identifier is because it is necessary for the sake of the structure of the debate. That is where we have descended to.
That is life, but I realise my relationship with these people will be built not on their Aboriginality but on the personal relationship I have with them. I may end up close to some of them and I may not end up close to others.
It was how it was when I was the member for McDonnell. There were some Aboriginal people I
simply did not like. There were other Aboriginal people who I was very fond of and I realised very quickly that the handle ‘Aboriginal’ is not something you just land on a person and say, ‘that is it’. It is like an XF Falcon, there is an XF Falcon over there, they are all the same. Forget it. Humans are way too complicated for that.
To hear a person come into this Chamber and simply say, ‘For God’s sake, let us make some decisions amongst ourselves!’ and have that branded as some sort of heresy demonstrates how unimaginative the opposition position is and that the left of this country has basically been distilled to one thing only: massive, uncontrollable control freaks.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I would like to dismiss the member for Port Darwin’s debate because he stereotyped the Labor person.
Mr Elferink: Yes, I did.
Mr McCARTHY: He was a hypocrite. He used stereotyping to try to defend an argument.
Mr Elferink: No, I talked about your ideology.
Mr McCARTHY: That was hypocritical. That is the second time you let me down, member for Port Darwin. I like learning from you, but you have had a bad day today because that is ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr McCARTHY: ... two debates you have really let me down on, but I am sure you will pick the game up. I want to participate in this debate for what it is. It is a matter of public importance because the agenda has been set about alcohol in the bush, but this item talks about the re-introduction of full-strength beer.
I have joined the Northern Territory, I have joined the Indigenous community in Sydney, in northern New South Wales, in western New South Wales and the Northern Territory. I did not stay for a day, I do not sip lattes, I have shed blood, sweat and tears for over 33 years. I have raised my children with Indigenous people. I have raised my family and when I say blood, sweat and tears, I have fought with Indigenous people, worked with Indigenous people and mourned with Indigenous people. So I think I have a little street credibility to talk about this MPI, which is about the re-introduction of full-strength beer on the Tiwi Islands.
I have never been to an Indigenous social club. I have been a Barkly person for over 33 years. We lived in the bush, we lived on cattle stations, we worked for three months, we hit the roadhouse or town, partied hard for three days and three nights, swung out of the rafters, sung, danced, ran out of money, jumped in the Toyotas and went back to work for another three months. That was the way I dealt with alcohol.
That was the way I partied and I have never been to a social club, never lived on a big Aboriginal community, never understood what this is about. I was very fortunate, with the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues, to travel in the Northern Territory to look at a couple of these social clubs for my research. I am very lucky to do that, and we are travelling throughout the whole of the Territory doing this research.
The first one we went to was Kalkarindji and the next one was Nguiu, for all sorts of reasons. Both these places have clubs and Kalkarindji was very interesting. Kalkarindji, the club, had security on the door, great food, entertainment and mid-strength alcohol. There was no quota system, there were operating hours of the club. It was very well patronised. As a matter of fact, you felt the community vibe where people were getting prepared to go the club. They were organised to go to the club. You could set your watch by the club.
I was only there for three days and only went to the club once, so I am your classic whitefella that blew in and blew out, but I got the vibe that this was not just the day I was there. This was a community rhythm, people love that club, we talked about the club, they went to the club and they prepared and enjoyed their club and then they went home.
We did our research among the professionals, among the locals, among the blow-in, blow-out whitefellas, among whoever would talk to us and they made a clear distinction between when that club sold full-strength alcohol and when it did not. There was definitely a difference in the community life and the community safety. That was coming from all walks of life, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
We went to the club at Nguiu. I had a great time there, did my usual, crashed into the place, looked for the oldest people I could find, sat down with them, got a coke and started to learn about the life of Nguiu and the club. Those old boys were just fantastic - and didn’t we laugh and have a lot of fun? We talked a lot of politics, very quietly. They were whispering about politics, not me. It was interesting.
That club did not have any tucker. There was a band set up; I really wanted to jump up but I showed restraint. It did not have much entertainment going for it, but there was mid-strength alcohol and a quota system. I was told by many of the locals how to scam the quota system. You are only allowed six mid-strength beers, but there are a couple of really good ways to scam it. If you can scam - and I used to be able to scam really well - you can get much more alcohol than that. Then there was this permit system and blah blah blah; it was a whole different environment around alcohol that I discovered in Nguiu.
There was a common denominator in both of those places, and the member for Arnhem talked about it - the rubbish lying around; that community issue - not just rubbish. Anyone who has lived in Aboriginal communities and understands Aboriginal people knows what I am talking about. It is something we start to become desensitised about, but it is good to hear new members of this House raise it and talk about it. In the politics, the shire gets all the blame. Right? The shire was the whipping boy. The shire was to blame for all the ills, and it was worked as a political aspect, and worked really well. That is why you guys are on that side, and we are on this side. I accept that reality.
However, what I saw in both places in both clubs were similar challenges to where I choose to live. I thought it might be different, but I am glad I have been through an experience to see it was not. There was a common denominator: in both those places the employment programs are running at less than 30%, but the club was really well patronised. No one was late for the club, but the employment programs are running at less than 30%.
People were not going to work; they were not getting up and doing things. Their self-esteem, obviously, has dropped - and you know the story. You are able to craft an excuse about a government and reform, and you put all those planks together and created a bridge you walked across into government. However, the fact remains that in those communities they have similar problems to those in communities in the Barkly, where employment levels are really low, people are not going to work, kids are not going to school with 100% attendance, the community wellbeing is low, self-esteem is low, and there are issues.
We have to talk about that, and you guys now are going to create new policies around making sure that all turns around. There are plenty of jobs out there. Anyway, they were the dynamics.
The other thing about Nguiu was that I saw people preparing for the club. I sat on the verandah talking to a few locals and watched and I picked up the vibe. I knew what was happening there. Everyone was prepared for the club and the wave of people was going that way. I followed and we all ended up at the club. That is what this debate is about. We are able to talk about the club when it had full-strength alcohol, and the club when it did not have full-strength alcohol. That is the debate everyone is going to have. As the member for Arafura says, bring it on, and we are going to talk about it.
That is what we are doing here, and it is good to be able to talk about it without that ya-ya from the member for Port Darwin with all his ideology. What a hypocrite, trying to tell us his ideology is better than the ideology of a person who votes for Labor.
None of the clubs had a family-friendly culture. The locals told me in both places - at Kalkarindji and at Nguiu - families want to go to the club; kids want to go to the club. I said that if you are going to have families at the club you have to have a culture for families. There have to be things organised and things to do.
To tell you the truth, being a person that can party hard, I thought, ‘This is a great vibe’, and I had a lot of fun in both clubs. Imagine if we were not drinking XXXX Gold and we had green cans, would it be different?
You bet your bottom dollar it would! I defy anybody to tell me it would not be. That is the decision that will be made. I reckon it would be a different vibration all together; it would not be so family-friendly with green cans, but I reckon XXXX Gold is okay. Borroloola has gone through this transition and I will tell you about that another time.
We are talking about the reintroduction of full-strength alcohol. The conversation is out there because health workers, teachers, professionals and local people are able to tell the story of what it was like with full-strength alcohol and what it was like with mid-strength alcohol. They are making their decision, and that will factor in your debate.
The Chief Minister says he is going out to talk to everyone. He is going to have to put together some type of plebiscite or process to gather the community opinion – ‘Yes we do, no we don’t; here, not here; don’t bring that here; we are in for it’, whatever. He has taken on that challenge; he has taken on that debate. He has adopted the new Country Liberal Party ideology to champion what the member for Port Darwin talks about.
I was at football training at Nguiu. I went to two football training sessions. First was the local league, which is fabulous, and then I watched the Bombers train. That was amazing. I only talked to men and kids and there was a common theme among a number of the men, without me pre-empting anything, which was that these young people have to get off the grog but also the drugs.
I am from western Sydney and I will tell you a story about that one of these days, but, ‘They have to get off the drugs’. That was in the same sentence as alcohol. It comes perfectly naturally now wherever you go in Australia. I have three boys; I deal with the same challenges. Everyone talks about grog and drugs - they are together. These guys were telling me these young people have to get off the grog and the drugs and they have to train hard. It was all happening, it was fantastic, but there are still real concerns about grog and drugs.
The next day we sat in the club and watched the football team on the oval. Everyone was drinking XXXX Gold and it was a great time. It would be different if they were green cans; however, that will be decided by the people, as we are told.
This debate is around the reintroduction of full-strength in a place that has a history, baggage, that can talk about that debate, that can make the distinction, and all that will influence their decisions. The Chief Minister calls it a conversation: We are just having a conversation. At the moment that is all it is and it is starting off with a debate in parliament and so it should. The Chief Minister says we are going down that road and it will take a long time. Well I hope it does, because I see very real priorities for the Indigenous mob I have chosen to live and work with, and cry with, and raise my family with.
My priority is that we need to have the conversation about an employment program anywhere that is running at less than 30%, but politicians can bang on about there being no jobs. Politicians can exploit what they do not want to talk about.
Let us talk about that if we are going down the big, brave, new world of the member for Port Darwin. Let us talk about why employment programs ran at less than 30% in 2012. I can give you stories of the Barkly but, unfortunately, I heard the same stories in these other places we went to.
It is time to have the debate about how we deal with abuse of alcohol. If you want to live in Kings Cross no problems; Kings Cross is a red hot town, let me tell you. However, Kings Cross needs an incredible amount of services to deal with the human beings that fall off the wagon; that smash and crash and end up broken in pieces and society has to pick them up and put them back together. If you do not have those services then you will be in a world of pain. If you want to walk on the wild side, let us do it. However, ensure we have the conversation about how we plan the services to pick up all the broken people. At the moment the CLP have one mantra: ‘We are gunna do this; we are gunna do that’.
We need to have the conversation about poor school attendance. I am so disappointed you fellows threw us out of government because we had this really good extension of our policies to fuse. I am not going to tell you that story. We are keeping that to ourselves because you guys are going to have to learn the hard way.
I am really disappointed that we did not get the next term to consolidate the issues around youth. To concentrate on the Every Child, Every Day strategy, to concentrate on getting the grassroots level, the early childhood level, really solidified to produce those next generations.
We can have the wonderful conversation about grog; let us have the conversation about the low school attendance in the Northern Territory and how we have to really do some work on that. Like I said the other night, let us have the conversation about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder because for many people that is a new concept. Many people do not understand what that is about, and as I said in this House, we are lucky we have a project running in Tennant Creek and the Barkly. We need to put this out further and wider and make sure people understand that. They are just a few little areas I would like to work on as a member of this House before I can be bothered talking about grog.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker - I will be short, member for Nelson.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this on. She has been taught a lesson today. She will not learn, she will not listen; she has really but she will not show it. She was taught a lesson by my colleagues who told her how they feel and what they take from the community. You have a smiling face over there, Leader of the Opposition, but you heard what was said today and you know you have a challenge as Leader of the Opposition from a party who did not listen and has not listened to people from the bush. I know you have got that.
I do not want to pass over what happened in the election but I will reflect a bit. From where I stood when I was on that side fighting for these issues for a long period of time, I was out there listening to people. I heard the stories. The member for Barkly spoke in the last debate about housing and he spoke about numbers of houses, dates and so forth, saying the Housing minister has put something in his press release about dates and numbers, and that he will hold us to account. The whole SIHIP debate - for all of its failures such as spending $50m without lifting a hammer - you never heard us talking about the numbers of houses that did not get built, 750, 250, 1000 or whatever; you never heard that debate because that was not what it was about.
It was about the fact that people were disengaged from the process, they were not involved in building them and all those employment statistics run out through the SIHIP program were all false figures. You can move 50 people from one project to the next to the next to the next; you add them all up, they are all the same people.
Spread it how you like but that was the argument. You were not listening and people were not engaged; that is the argument about the shires. So many shires I have spoken about are a tarnished brand. It does not matter how many good people are there doing the right thing, they are a tarnished brand. You heard the examples here. People go straight to the point; they do not like the shires, they do not even listen to what the issue is about.
The whole argument in this can be underpinned by a principle of self-determination. Many people, commentators around the nation, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have spoken about how self-determination never worked. In my argument, self-determination was never tried. People make mistakes all the time. We all make mistakes in this Chamber, personally, professionally, politically. We live, we learn.
There might be some communities that fall over; there might be some that go strong. In some ways, it is a competitive environment, in others it is about people learning. It is the argument of self-determination, and communities, black or white, have to be able to do that for themselves. They have to be able to make the decisions. The whole principle, which I have argued on that side and before politics, is that self-determination was never tried. It was never given an opportunity because - forgive my language, this may be taken by some as offensive; it is not - but everyone is out there to try to help Johnny Blackfella get up but when he gets to a certain point they want to cut the legs from under him so he goes back down. Everyone wants to help but no one wants to see him up the top.
That is why in the corporate world, in the bureaucracy, particularly in Canberra, but in many of those elite professions aside from sport, you never see people reach that upper echelon. There might be one or two who break through but look at the public service of the Northern Territory. Twenty-two thousand staff roughly, 19 000 full-time equivalents. How many senior Indigenous leaders are in the public service in the Northern Territory?
A member: Not many.
Mr GILES: That is because everyone wants to help, and then they get their legs chopped off. That is how it is everywhere.
I think Tracker Tilmouth used to say, ‘It is all right to come up out on the balcony, but you are not allowed in through the front door’. That is what it is; it is about self-determination. In our direction on shires, which will be a fast process but done slowly for consultation purposes, not rushing things and make rash decisions without talking to people, it will be about giving that self-determination back while trying to build the governance and trying to build the financial security for people.
There is the real question - and I will shed some light on what some people have spoken to me about – do we need local government in a small jurisdiction? That happens to me all the time, particularly from a community aspect. I sit back and listen. There are many people on the Tiwis who have said that to me, and I sit and listen.
These thoughts will all go towards the development of a consultation paper by the regional governance working group I am putting together. That will be for all people to talk about and see, but these are things that come forward. We have to listen to those arguments.
It comes back to listening and that is why so many people joined the Country Liberals Party, because we were listening. That is why so many people voted for change, that is why people love to see the new houses being built in their community, like Wadeye in the seat of Daly, houses for Africa, houses for everyone, in Maningrida, houses, houses. You thought you would win the election because you were building houses. It was not about the houses.
I am not sure where this photo has come from, but this is reflective. It is a community house where there is a vinyl floor. For example, in a public house in Moulden when you need to fix the floor, you replace the whole floor. Because it is in an Aboriginal community, you just find the one broken tile and you replace that one. Second best. That is what it was about. You can build shiny new houses and that all works, but it is about second best. That is about the self-determining nature. When people are involved, change will happen. The idea of panel contracts for people out bush is a start; it is not the answer, it is a start.
Yesterday in the debate I provided some direction for all the candidates who want to run for Lingiari. The solution for Lingiari is: who wants to put in the most infrastructure, roads and bridges? I will go over again why roads and bridges are important.
Roads and bridges will open the Territory up; they will provide opportunities for economic advancement. They will start to build real jobs, not welfare jobs. Not government service jobs; they will build real jobs, where tourists turn up and you can take people fishing, shooting, hunting or whatever you might want to do. It will be the real jobs we need to create. I know the member for Arnhem knows what is going on in Ngukurr - massive opportunities there and I am supporting her. I am supporting all my colleagues by doing what I can with roads for those areas. I ask the federal government to come on board with me. I will provide whatever I can if you help me, because that is the solution.
You said before you wanted to have a debate about education. You were in government for 11 years, you got appalling NAPLAN results. It is not just because of the approach you take to the education system, it is about the whole lot. It is about self-determination governance, infrastructure and jobs. There is a saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ that blokes talk about from time to time in a joking sense, but from a community perspective, if you have a happy community all these other things will start to fall into place. You have to get to the core of dealing with the problem and part of that includes governance, ownership, listening and the leadership component; the other parts will flow from that. This argument is about alcohol.
Once again, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to attack one of our new members of parliament. She has failed dismally by very short, sharp, and pointed speeches. Your attitude failed dismally. I have my opinions on alcohol too, but I know the voice of the member for Arafura is challenging my thoughts, because that is what his people want.
The other component of this debate is treating alcohol as a demand issue. All your responses have always been about supply, and that is what everyone always talks about: supply, prohibition, prohibition. It is a demand issue. You did not talk in your speech, member for Barkly, about welfare.
All members here, but particularly the member for Port Darwin, spoke about treating people equally. If you live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or anywhere and you are on the dole and you do not look for a job, you lose your money. I do not want to see people lose their money, but there needs to be a carrot-and-stick approach to all Australians, to encourage people to get a job.
If you paid me to sit down and do nothing all day - because I do not mind having a beer - I might drink beer. I have responsibility in my life; I have things to do, I have to earn a living. That is what provides that change. The real debate is about welfare. The real debate is about sit-down money; it always has been about sit-down money. Land tenure reform is part of an argument - that is a federal argument - but sit-down money is a major problem. You will not get people to turn up to your employment programs if you keep paying people to do nothing. That is the No 1 issue.
Where the member for Port Darwin spoke about ideological positions, he took it in a different context. However, the ideological position of Labor is that people should have that social welfare safety net that encourages people to do nothing, not protect people. Until that ideology is lost - and I hope politicians in Canberra, as this is a federal issue, recognise the voice of change in our party, whether our members are of Indigenous heritage or not. I hope they recognise the voice of change; that people want a Liberal perspective about how things are run in the Territory, in the bush and regional Australia, more than they want the Labor perspective, because the Labor perspective has killed middle Australia where most Aboriginal Australians live. Welfare is another major part of it.
I will sum up by saying that you did not listen. The Leader of the Opposition might have heard something in this speech. You have to start listening to be able to engage in the debate properly in this House to try to drive change. People want a bipartisan approach on a number of things - that will never happen. However, there is an opportunity for Labor to come forward now with generational change and to get a more educated debate happening in this Chamber where we can argue with one another rather than you guys being left behind.
You were left behind in 2008 when I walked into this Chamber and started arguing for exactly the same thing we are arguing for now - the same reasons that saw the member for Namatjira leave when she was the member for Macdonnell to come over here, without putting words in your mouth.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Advancement): Madam Speaker, I was appalled and disgusted to see the Leader of the Opposition come in, lean over a microphone and speak very slowly to the member for Arafura - very patronising.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do that often in speeches to apply emphasis. I have been speech trained. I do it regularly, Alison. I know what you are trying to infer and that is offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please continue in a normal manner.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I feel there were racial undertones to that.
Ms Lawrie: Well, you are wrong, Alison, you are really wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms Lawrie: Member for Namatjira, you are wrong.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms Lawrie: Member for Namatjira, you are wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: Do not come in here and accuse me of being racist.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: I was born and raised in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please be seated.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I ask that you ask the Opposition Leader to leave the Chamber. She is going directly against your word.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat! Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to ask the Leader of the Opposition to refer to my colleague by her electorate name, which she did not do on three occasions.
Ms Lawrie: I did.
Mr GILES: I also ask you to direct the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Lawrie: I have been called Delia a couple of times.
Mr GILES: It is a point of order. I also ask you to direct the Opposition Leader to adhere to what you say, otherwise leave the Chamber because when you call a point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, sit down please. Leader of the Opposition, if you are to speak, please direct your comments through the Chair. The same goes for the minister. Member for Namatjira, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of public importance because it affects our people.
If the Opposition Leader has not already realised the Indigenous people sitting on this side of the House were born and bred with the problem - not just alcoholism, but overcrowding, we have families who have suicided, and our children who are not just alcoholics, but are on ganja and other drugs, and we bury these kids; we cry for them. As I said in my speech on Tuesday, we go to their baptisms and their funerals. We do not see you coming to the funerals to bury our kids who have suicided through overdose of drugs.
Aboriginal people are the biggest debate issue in this parliament among people who do not understand where we come from. You might have lived in places for 30 years, you might have associated with Aboriginal people, but you are not Aboriginal. You need to start listening to the people who suffer due to the consequences of bad, failed policies. We know alcohol is a problem, but we also want people to decide for themselves. It is a choice as a human being.
Opposition Leader, you spoke about children born to mothers who drink alcohol. Do you think Francis Xavier does not care? He has 10 grandchildren. He is a grandfather. Do you think he does not care that pregnant women are drinking? He has buried relatives through suicides and overdose of drugs and alcohol. He buries them every day.
I go to what my colleague, the member for Braitling, said, it is about choice. It is about giving people the opportunity to decide. A couple of days ago I told our deputy leader to consult with people in the communities. That is exactly what the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory said - black people gave him the power to govern the Territory on behalf of all Territorians. That is why they put you on the other side, because they were sick of you deciding for them what you thought was fit for them. That is why they put a conservative government into power to govern for the whole Territory because they want to be human beings. They want to have choices.
Let me tell you about Aboriginal people in communities. Member for Barkly, you should know this. About five or six per cent of Indigenous people in every remote Aboriginal community are drinkers. Do you think that is the majority? Absolutely not! Who are the most powerful people on the communities? It is usually women, usually grandmothers. Do you think they are going to allow full-strength alcohol to be consumed on communities? Give them that choice; give them that opportunity to decide. You will find, through consultation, that most communities will say no. About 99.9% will say no, but on this side of the House we are giving that choice to people.
On the day he was elected, Terry Mills said he would give the power and the voice back to the Aboriginal people. That is exactly what he is doing. He is telling people they have the choice to say no. We are human beings just like you. We do not tell you that you cannot drink inside your house in Karama, Opposition Leader. We do not expect you to tell us what we should be doing in remote Aboriginal communities. Like I said, we do not see you at funerals. This is the first time in your life you have been to the communities to shake their hands, and you have the audacity to talk about Nigel Scullion. Nigel Scullion probably shook hands with many blackfellas long before you were born.
You might have been born and bred with them, but you did not see the real blackfellas in the communities in the last week.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please direct your comment through the Chair.
Ms Lawrie: You do not know my life.
Ms ANDERSON: Of course I do.
Ms Lawrie: No, you do not.
Ms ANDERSON: I would not want to say anything about it either.
Ms Lawrie: You do not know my life.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please direct your comments to the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Take the Gillen Club, for example. The member for Barkly said something about eating and a playground where there are kids, but does the Alice Springs Town Council or the government dictate to those people that, because there are children playing at the Gillen Club and mums and dads eating, you cannot sell full-strength beer inside the Gillen Club, or the Memo Club before it closed down?
I used to take my grannies in there. We do not dictate to those people what they should do and this government is about choice; it is about treating Aboriginal people as human beings, something you have never been able to do as the so-called lovers of black people. You have loved that to death, we want you to leave us alone now.
We have had enough of you. Aboriginal people told you that on voting day; that is why you are sitting over there. At the last election, that man sitting over there, the member for Nelson, denied you the Chief Minister’s position. This time, black people put you there, Opposition Leader, it suits you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am a little saddened by the tone of some of the debate because it is an important debate. I am a human being, I am not black or white in that sense. I have feelings for white people and Aboriginal people.
In fact, the reason I came to the Northern Territory was - I might have been a bit Utopi-istic. I was 19; I studied horticultural science. I felt that I could do something for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That may be outdated today but that is what I had in mind. The distinction between whether you are black or white does not help this debate. This debate is about human beings. It is about caring for one another and, if it gets to the point where we are debating this issue because we think someone is not the same as us then, unfortunately, that is not the way we should be going.
Aboriginal people should have the right, and I say that sincerely, over their own community. I listened to the member for Braitling and I support 99% of what he says. I have said similar things in parliament, especially about welfare.
I would have preferred this MPI to say, ‘the introduction of full employment and the dissolution of welfare’. When I was at Bathurst Island, I worked for the council and I will say one thing: do not get rid of councils. Maybe adjust them because councils are about the provision of essential services which do not have anything to do with traditional ownership. It is the right of each human being in that community to have essential services ...
A member: I am just telling you what people tell me.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. I was the works manager in the Nguiu Shire Council and we employed 107 men. We employed everyone we could until about 1978 when Gough Whitlam brought in unemployment benefits. Since then we have had generations of unemployed people and that has been one of the disasters for the welfare, not only of Aboriginal people, of other people as well.
The only other thing I would disagree with you over, member for Braitling, is that many Aboriginal people go up to a certain point and then get cut off. Sometimes that is Aboriginal people’s own fault and we call that in the Northern Territory ‘shame job’. I had a nephew who was an ACPO; he would not wear his uniform back into the community at Nguiu because it was a shame job. He could do the job well. He probably could have gone further but it was a shame job and that tall poppy syndrome in some places still exists, unfortunately. It is sad. It is not everywhere and it is disappearing, but it is still around. Sometimes that is a problem in itself, people advancing.
I agree that, regarding the shires - and I have said this before - their downfall was that they introduced a complicated, high-tech form of local government to fill pot holes, pick up rubbish, clean the parks that was so advanced that Aboriginal people were moved further away from having managerial control of their own communities.
If you are looking at reviewing shires you need to give the opportunity for Aboriginal people to take ownership of their shires. That idea on the big super shires was not even in the debate. I went to Bathurst Island in 1974 and worked there until 1981. In 1974 the club gave four cans of beer to each person. You bought it and it was full-strength beer. They were VBs in those days. I am not sure what they sell there now as full-strength, but in 1974 they had full-strength beer.
Drinking was certainly an issue, there is no doubt about it. There were ways to get more beer, people used to bring it in by boat, and many a person drowned on the way from Darwin to Bathurst Island. People tried to smuggle it in on planes, some people had permits. It has always been a problem on the island and you only have to look at the history or talk to the liquor commission to know it has been an issue.
I always felt it had some form of calming because people had full employment. If people had to turn up the next day for a job, they were less likely to get on the booze. If someone did not turn up, they would not be given the next day to work either. There was an incentive to make sure that even though you had been on the grog, you would turn up for work. The two work together. If you have no job you might as well get drunk anyway, because you have not got much to live for, so why not?
There is a lot of talk about what you are living for. If you are living in an overcrowded house, have not got a job, they are not putting any new houses in your community, what are you living for? Work gives people a reason to live. If you are taking that basic human value away, who blames people for getting drunk or going on ganja?
I totally agree. I have taken it up with Ms Macklin at the Palmerston mini-cabinet and I have spoken to her directly. I did not have much time, I said - and this is my version so other people might have a different idea – ‘You have to get rid of welfare. You have to give that money to the councils, top it up to a reasonable wage and say welfare is not available here. If you want some money, you go to the council and the council will get you a job.’
As long as the council is also funded with enough infrastructure and capital equipment to do that, it can be done. There is plenty of work in communities, plenty! Then if people want another job, perhaps they have to advance their education, apply for jobs elsewhere, but at least you give them the basic start in life, you give them a job. I agree totally, if you are the government and if you can convince the federal government ...
A member: I will try.
Mr WOOD: Okay, I am happy to support you, because it is an issue of education. I always keep saying, and getting in trouble for going back in the past, that my wife was born at Channel Point and spent the first years of her life going up and down the coast to Indian Island, round the Bynoe and down to Channel Point, over to Banacula, which is on the other side of the mouth of the Daly.
She went to Delissaville as it was called then, now Belyuen, and at nine years old, she went to Daly River Mission because her mother had leprosy and that was the only hospital available, otherwise they would have been split up and she would have gone to Croker Island.
She and her sisters all speak English extremely well and can all read and write well. They speak Ngangikurunggurr which is not their language but because they went to Daly River that is the language spoken there. They are trying to pick up their own language, which is Batjamalh. It was the old way of education and for some reason in the last 30 years we have discovered new ways of doing things, our academics have hold of the system and we have people who have poor literacy and numeracy and do not turn up for school.
Why does that not tell us something? Why is it I am old-fashioned if I say let us teach kids rote methods of learning times tables? Oh, no, you cannot do that, you have to have a little computer and it has to analyse what you are doing.
It might, but the fact is we have very low numeracy and literacy skills, not only out bush but I see kids - not Aboriginal kids - who cannot count the change in the shop working backwards. I have seen people in secondary school writing reports and I tell you, the writing is of the standard of someone in primary school. I just wonder. We had the academic revolution, but I am not sure it took us, in some cases, in the right direction.
I have no problem with the idea of people having the right to say whether alcohol should be on their community. You do not necessarily have to use the Tiwi Islands here, you could apply it anywhere. The concern I have is - and Paul Toohey raised it in his article, and I know from firsthand knowledge - you have to be very careful that influential people will not set the agenda.
I have seen it on Aboriginal communities. If you want to talk to a non-Aboriginal person who has lived a long time in this community, talk to Sister Anne Gardiner and ask her what her fears are. Within the local government at Bathurst Island, which did have elections - and it was a good council, do not get me wrong - people who wanted to be on the council somehow got on the council, if you know what I mean. The idea of a secret ballot did not happen. That is the danger I see.
Most women and people I call leaders - like Francis Xavier, who gave up smoking and drinking in 1983 as he told me - would be very concerned about the introduction of alcohol in some communities. You have to let Aboriginal people have their say, there is no doubt about it. I do not have any problem with that. However, let us not be fools and think there are people who will not use that leverage we might be giving them to start up a campaign to get what they want.
There are certainly men who have the ability to persuade - whether legally or illegally - to get what they want. That is the caution I have: by all means Aboriginal people should be allowed to have their say about those matters, but let us make sure that say is fair; it has not been influenced by people who have another agenda. Otherwise, I do not have a problem at all. That is their right, that is their land and, if they wish to make that decision, that is their decision. As long as it would not be influenced by vested interests, I do not have a problem.
About the tone of what I heard today - I know there are people here who do not get on well, but let us not believe that because I am of one colour and someone else is of another colour, I do not have respect or feelings for them. My wife is Aboriginal. I get a fair indication of the Aboriginal way of thinking from her. I love my wife and my sisters-in-law and my sisters and brothers who are not all Aboriginal. However, I do not look at them from that point of view. They are my fellow human beings.
I would be sad if what I heard today makes people bitter. I was talking to a priest the other day and he was telling me about someone - I do not know whether he is a philosopher or spiritual leader. He talked about the phases in which we should move in life. He talked about going from hostility to hospitality. It made me think about whether we have to approach life a little differently. Are we going to be hostile to one another for the rest of the four years, or are we going to work together in a hospitable manner to achieve better outcomes? That is the way it should be.
I hope that no matter what was said today we move on from it because it does not achieve anything. We need to look at these issues as human beings who pick up experience from those who come from a different background, but do not discard the views of people who also come from a different background. We all want the best for Northern Territory people, and we all want the best for the children of the Northern Territory. That is why it was called the Little Children Are Sacred report. That is what our responsibility is and we need to be careful with what we say. If we go down that path it would not be good. We should be talking about respect, love, and caring for other people no matter the colour of their skin.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr GILES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, tomorrow evening there will be a rally throughout the streets of Darwin starting at 7 pm, a rally put on every year by Ruby Gaea called Reclaim the Night. I will be attending. I am looking forward to attending the rally of Reclaim the Night and am encouraging women to get out and join the rally. The rally is around the issue of women’s safety and calling for women to reclaim their safety. Reclaiming safety, obviously, with a name like Reclaim the Night, in public places.
I came into the Chamber and attempted to put things on the public record on the first day of sittings at the request of a woman who had felt violated by verbal abuse from you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand by what she has said to me. I have seen the statements of witnesses, and I saw what she lodged with the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
I hoped this House would let me table that information but I was shut down by numbers. I will not utter those words in this Chamber because they are too vile. However, I will not let this go either. If, for one minute, there is anyone in this House who thinks I will not continue to pursue ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If she wants to make an allegation against a member of this House she should do so by way of a substantiative motion. She should do so in a way where she produces some evidence, just a skerrick.
This attack on the member for Daly is unfounded, unsubstantiated, and she is prepared to use this place as a kangaroo court. If she continues in this vein, I send a signal now that this side of the House will gag her. Produce some evidence, produce something.
Ms LAWRIE: I would be quite happy to table in this House the complainant’s lodgement with the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I would table the information you have no doubt already seen …
Mr Elferink: Which does not have a name attached to it.
Ms LAWRIE: … which details what was said. I will table statutory declarations from two witnesses. If you are not going to use your powers when I seek leave to table, let me know now by all means. In the debate in adjournment, stand up and say if I seek leave to table that documentation you will grant me leave because I will not stop representing a woman who has had vile words used against her. Women are going to a rally to reclaim the night of personal safety. I have met with, spoken with, and have listened to a woman who had hideously vile words used against her.
You use your numbers to stop me from tabling information, but if you are genuine, you can stand up and say you will not prevent me from tabling that information. It will come through, I will not leave this be because there is a woman who has had vile words used against her.
I read very carefully the comments and adjournments by the member for Daly and he did not deny what he said. He did not know what was outlined so, therefore, he denied. There is a distinct difference. I am smart enough to know the distinct difference and so are many others.
I have been shown the Hansard of what the member for Daly has said and everyone can see through it. I wonder, has the Chief Minister shown the allegations, the words to the member for Daly? Have the members of the Country Liberal Party represented in the Chamber, have they been shown the words? Has there been a discussion? How do the women of the Country Liberal Party feel about the vile words used? Why are you preventing the tabling?
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Because you want the name of the person, even though the Northern Territory News in its editorial today pointed out that their reporter, who had interviewed the woman, found her highly credible.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: That you want to do a bit of the ‘let us intimidate, let us publically name and shame the woman’ - an Aboriginal woman, who was spoken to like that and who has said to me that it is too shameful for people to know it was she who received those words. I will continue to walk into this House and raise this matter from time-to-time; I will not let it go. Women should never be spoken to like that. It is grossly offensive and it is vile. I have sat with the woman. I have seen how traumatised she is. I have seen how deeply it has affected her. It is vile, and you sit there and are happy to defend a man who uses those vile words against a woman. Shame on you!
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in July this year we said goodbye to a Territory gentleman, Barry Stach, perhaps best known to the broader public as the Commodore at the Sailing Club. Barry was much more than that to those of us who had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him. Barry was farewelled at the Sailing Club in a very moving ceremony.
No higher compliments can be made of a person and be made as a testament of a person’s life than those that have been made of Barry by those who knew him best, and many people knew him best. That was one of the things that made Barry special. Barry was a friend to all who met him. He always had time for you, and when you spoke with him you had all his attention.
You knew you were special and the things you did were important to him. The only problem with being friends with Barry was that you had to share him and even then that was okay, because everyone should have the opportunity to spend time with Barry.
I was incredibly fortunate as the member for Fannie Bay to spend time with Barry, to work with him on one of his passions, the Darwin Sailing Club, and to help him deliver things to the club he loved and the people who are a part of that club and loved the place like he did.
I did not realise it at first, but my time with Barry was critical in shaping my approach to being a member of parliament, of being a local member, and understanding our community and how our community works. Barry was a mentor through both actions and character, and I am a better person for knowing Barry. I am not the only person who he left better for knowing him.
I have no doubt in saying that anyone who knew Barry would believe that if we could be even half the person he was, we would be twice the person we could ever hope to be. He did not live his life to be an example or a saint; he lived life fully. He was a rascal, he was a mentor, he was a raconteur and that is a word that does not get enough of a run nowadays.
The highlights of Barry’s life are many. He was born in Melbourne on 10 December 1945 and educated at Northcote High School and RMIT. He participated in national service, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam. He was in the Torquay Football Club Team of the Century and he was the winner of the Victorian long board surfing title in 1964. A goofy footer too, apparently; did surf to the left foot.
He met Janice at the Torquay Pub in 1971. He married Janice on 25 May 1979 and moved with her to Darwin in 1980. He was the project construction manager for Mindil Beach Casino, Tindal RAAF Base, and White Construction, Singapore. He was a lecturer at Charles Darwin University and a teacher at Palmerston High School.
At the Darwin Sailing Club he was a UTYA president for many years, the Vice Commodore for three years and the Commodore for 12 years. He was a Darwin to Ambon winner 1995, 1996 and 1997. He was an avid restorer of classic cars, a raconteur extraordinaire, and a vast font of knowledge on pretty much anything, and a fanatical South Melbourne Bloods supporter.
Barry is survived by his wife Janice, and we thank her for sharing him. She and Barry’s sister, Brenda, have people they wanted to thank – Mr John Wardill, for all the care and assistance he provided to Barry over the last few years; Dr Kanga; the staff of Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital; those at the Darwin Hospice for all the compassion and care they showed Barry in his final days. Also, thanks to Barry’s vintage and classic car club mates at the Qantas Hangar for their help and for giving Barry a circle of like-minded friends with whom to share his car passion.
To the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, Barry’s time in the armed services was very important to him and so the presence on the day of some black hats was much appreciated. Thanks to Taffy Evans and Roy Brandner who volunteered to sail Andromeda in its sail past at the funeral. To the minnow fleet, the next generation of potential world champions who also sailed in the convoy that day at the funeral, but thanks especially to all of Barry, Janice and Brenda’s family and friends in Darwin and around Australia for all the support and love they provided.
The pallbearers for the entrance were Glenn Hosking, Rick Browne, David Wilson, Steve Horvat, Ross Davis and Ashley Baum, and the honour party for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment lead by their Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Mick Bye, escorted the casket and carried Barry’s military service medals. The pallbearers after the service were from the Darwin Sailing Juniors who Barry helped in their formative years: Claire Wharton, Amy Nicholas, Luke Owen, Andrea Rice, Jamie Richardson and Thomas Winter.
I would like to finish by reading the words of the new Commodore, one of Barry’s best mates, Peter Bracken:
- Barry Stach touched all of our lives in many ways and over many years. He was selfless and compassionate, engaging at all levels, and a natural leader. He was a great mate, a fellow sailor and a passionate car restorer. He was well read, a knowledgeable man on all manner of things. He was a mentor, a teacher, and a positive influence on many young lives. He was a raconteur par excellence. He was a builder of large buildings and a maker of letterboxes that were simply works of art. He played a large number of sports at a high level and succeeded in pretty much all of them. He watched all sports that made it to television, often at the same time. Beware Barry when he had the remote!
- Barry influenced all of us in many positive ways and the presence at the funeral that day of many who came from interstate is testament to how this man has touched our lives. He was Commodore at the club for 12 years and was involved for over 30 years in all. His presence amongst the Sailing Club alone will be felt severely.
- An important point to make is that even with all his health problems over a long span of time, Barry never once played the victim card. He was courageous to the end. He was simply quite a special man and before we hear from others I simply echo a sentiment that has been expressed many times in the last week, Barry has been a great part of my life. I don’t mean great as in volume, I mean great as in bloody terrific.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I ask the opposition to clarify its position on a number of things. I hope members of the opposition might be able to do that in adjournment tonight.
On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 on Alice Springs radio 783 FM morning program, the member for Barkly was being interviewed and talked about a few things the reporter put to him. I will quote from the transcript:
- Now there’s a few changes being made to parliament this time around. Question Time has been changed from a sort of afternoon late evening session to a morning session. It will now run between 10 am and 11 am which I know a lot of people in the media are happy about because they can now cover what is said during Question Time a lot better. What do you make of the change to the morning session?
The member for Barkly replied:
- No, we are happy about that. As a Caucus we’ve discussed all their proposed changes that they will be bringing in, the new government. We are happy about that because, yes, as you say the media will be able to go away and start to deconstruct minster’s answers to important questions that are put to them. So that is good for them and we’ll also be able to come out and make a second and third comment on what the minister has told the Northern Territory and that’s all about holding the government to account.
Later the same day in this House, the member for Fannie Bay, Mr Gunner, said, in relation to an interaction with the member for Port Darwin:
- Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of Government Business the other day, we will support the changes the government wants to make on the running of parliament with some reservations. We believe as a Caucus that the government is the primary driver of business in this Chamber, so it has a certain responsibility for ordering the routine of business. We understand that, so we provide support with some reservations.
We have concerns around the shifting of Question Time from the spotlight of 2 pm to 10 am. We think that provides less scrutiny, fewer people will be watching and, therefore, there will be less transparency with a 10 am start to Question Time. We believe the spotlight of 2 pm provided more attention for Question Time, so we do have that concern.
Madam Speaker, I would like the opposition to clarify what their position is, because we have the Leader of Government Business and the deputy opposition leader at odds about their position on what is and what is not a good time for Question Time. It would be very interesting if someone from the opposition could inform the government as to what they actually believe and do not believe. Perhaps they might like to get their stories together before they come into the House and start making statements in the House and on radio.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I I refer to the 2012 Smart Schools Awards website, which says:
- About 480 educators and supporters of education across the Northern Territory celebrated the 2012 Smart School Awards.
The gala night, held at the Darwin Convention Centre, paid tribute to government schools and their efforts in delivering excellence in education. School staff from the Arnhem, Central, Barkly, Katherine, Darwin, Palmerston and Rural areas attended the event, hosted by Australian entertainer Ernie Dingo.
I celebrate excellence in our schools with the announcement of the 2012 finalists in the Northern Territory Smart Schools Awards, featuring four Barkly schools. The Territory-wide winners were announced on 20 October at the special function for nominated school communities recognised as striving for excellence in the important work of preparing young people as future leaders in our community. I congratulate the principal, teachers, school support staff, parents and carers, and communities of four Barkly schools on their nominations as finalists in the 2012 Northern Territory Smart School Awards.
The Principal, Mark Phillips, at Alekarenge School was nominated for Excellence in Partnering, being for:
a measurable increase in student outcomes as a result of the school working in partnership with community organisations and industry
targeted use of resources, structures and processes to build organisational capacity
evidence of formalised partnership agreements.
The Principal, Ross Forbes, at Alpurrurulam School was nominated for Excellence in Innovation in Indigenous Education, being for:
a measurable increase in outcomes for Indigenous students that can be attributed to the school’s innovative practices, for example, attendance rates, NAPLAN results, the Northern Territory Certificate of Education, vocational education and training
The principal, Carolyn Kassis, at Epenarra School, was nominated for Excellence in Student Wellbeing and Special Needs, being for:
a measurable increase in qualitative and quantitative student outcomes for students with disabilities
I congratulate the 2012 winner in the Smart Schools Awards in the section ‘Excellence in Senior Secondary Outcomes’ which went to Barkly College. To the Principal, Erica Prosser, the staff, the school community, and the school support staff, congratulations on your great win.
This demonstrated:
a measurable increase in the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training achievements, such as the quality of results and the number of graduates which can be attributed to the school’s actions:
targeted use of resources, structures and processes to build organisational capacity and effective performance of people in key roles.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, again I find myself on my feet having to bat away a second attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to get into this House words that she says were uttered by the member for Daly.
I have, on two occasions, blocked this because those words - I am aware of what they are and I have seen the so-called evidence the Leader of the Opposition provided to the Chief Minister. They are indeed offensive words but were not attributed to any individual. The important component is that they are denied. They are abjectly and thoroughly denied by the member for Daly who said so in this House last night.
The strategy of this Leader of the Opposition is that once she can table this allegation in this House, those words will be reproduced in the media and trial by media can be held against the member for Daly.
The problem I have with that approach is, whilst the words are denied, and there is no substantive evidence given to this House, or to the Northern Territory News in support of the allegation made against the member for Daly, I would continue to argue that you have to deal with this by proportionality. The allegation levelled against the member for Daly, which is denied, is a substantial and grave one. Therefore, the quality of the evidence being used to challenge him should also be substantial, not a mere innuendo, not some words written anonymously on a piece of paper, and not some back door approach to try to get a trial by media happening.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to today’s editorial. There are several things I will say, the first being there is a comparison between the words alleged to have been used by the member for Daly and the former Labor member, Len Kiely. The editorial says:
- The alleged abuse is indeed offensive - far worse than the words used by the then Labor minister Len Kiely to a female security guard and worse even than the emails sent by the disgraced federal Speaker, Peter Slipper.
The difference between this allegation and the former Labor minister and Peter Slipper is that those words are not denied. Particularly in the case of the former Labor minister, Len Kiely, those words were admitted. These words are denied so the challenge for this House, and for the Northern Territory News, is that we approach this with a sense of gravity.
The Northern Territory News has spoken to a woman. That woman has appeared to the reporter to be a credible witness. We only have the reporter’s word on that and, in fact, we only have the Northern Territory News editorial staff’s comment based on the opinion of a reporter, who has spoken to a witness. I urge that the complainant in this matter, whoever this is, if there is a complaint to be made, produces some evidence. What I will not accept is this House being used as a kangaroo court for a serious allegation for which there is, at this stage, no evidence available.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to go outside of this Chamber and make the same allegations in front of a television camera. Then provide that material, as it appears to have been provided to the Northern Territory News, in a fashion in which her name is put to that material. The Leader of the Opposition can stand up in front of a Northern Territory News reporter or in front of a news camera and make the same allegations. If she is prepared to do that, then the consequences of that will flow.
What this House should be asking for is some evidence, not anonymous bits of paper which have no names attached to them. Until such time as such evidence can be produced then, as far as I am concerned, and we on this side of the House are concerned, there is no reason why this House should be used as a vehicle to engender a case in the court of public opinion.
It concerns me that the Leader of the Opposition has now, on several occasions attempted to do this in this House, claiming some self-righteous contempt for the member for Daly. If that contempt was really felt, she would have been screaming it out during the election campaign or after the election campaign, but not using this place.
I do not remember her indignation for the former member of this House, Len Kiely. I do not recall her indignation when the Bob Collins matters were surrounding the government. I do not recall her indignation on any other number of levels. This is a political effort on the Leader of the Opposition’s part to stir up a story, but this is a man’s reputation we are dealing with. I ask that the members of this House remember that and that real evidence is required, even in the court of public opinion, for an allegation such as the one that has been pursued by the Leader of the Opposition.
I also speak in relation to an official statement I received from United Sikhs signed by Harjit Singh, the National Director, and Sukhwant Singh, the Director of National Legal Affairs, about an attack on a 26-year-old taxi driver attacked and injured in Darwin on 10 October. I have spoken to Mr Singh and advised him that the Northern Territory will not pass legislation, certainly not the Country Liberals government, which will identify people by race, cultural background, creed or religion. I have also advised Mr Singh that we will introduce legislation for mandatory sentencing for anyone who attacks another person in the workplace.
This policy in part was generated, or certainly highlighted, by the alleged attacks on taxi drivers just before the election in August this year. We will introduce into this House mandatory sentencing legislation to protect workers in the workplace, whether they be taxi drivers or other workers in any other workplace. If they suffer harm as a result of an aggravated assault, or an assault occasioning harm, then there will be a law that says that a person in the workplace will be protected. We consider the workplace to be a sacred place; it is a place where people make their bread and butter so they can support their families and support themselves. The workplace needs to be protected and I can assure Messrs Singh that we, as a Country Liberals government, take the workplace seriously for all people, no matter their nationality. I look forward to introducing that legislation into the House before Christmas this year.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have called this adjournment debate tonight the ‘Highlights from Durack School’, so please indulge me.
In Drysdale, there are five schools, four of those are primary schools and one is Palmerston Senior College, which also contains a special education centre. Of the four primary schools, three are public schools. I feel very privileged to have so many schools in my electorate, which serves a very large proportion of young Territorians living in Palmerston. The school I want to dedicate this adjournment speech to tonight, as I have already foreshadowed, is Durack Primary School, whose school values are respect, responsibility, and integrity, fine foundations on which to educate future generations of Territorians.
Durack Primary School was opened in 1998 and is named after Patrick Durack from the Durack family, who are arguably Australia’s most famous pastoralists. The school is predominantly made up of children from the suburb of Durack, and has a high number of students from Defence families. It currently has 395 students enrolled and experiences attendance rates of above 94 %. Teachers at Durack Primary School have been recognised for their individual expertise.
In 2010, teacher Simone Timms won the Australian Microsoft Teacher of the Year Award and, notably, ranked third in the world for this category, a remarkable commendation for her dedication and contribution to her profession. The year 2010 also saw teacher Jackie Edie receive a Northern Territory Green Teacher award.
Recently, 15 students contributed online to the National Youth Advisory Council. I am pleased to inform the House that two of the students participating in this council have been invited and will attend the Australian government’s 2012 Cyber Safety Summit in Melbourne today. I look forward to informing the House of the outcome of the student’s attendance at this summit.
Twenty-nine students at Durack Primary School volunteered to participate in the Australian maths competition. The students did exceptionally well. Overall, the school achieved one high distinction, representing the top 2 % of students, three distinctions, representing the top 15 % of students and 10 credits, representing the top 50 % of students. The student who achieved the high distinction has been invited to the Australian Mathematical Trust Annual Awards to receive a certificate.
Durack Primary School also actively takes part in a trial to collect data on students with disabilities. The school has recently had a boost to students joining the choir. This may very well have had something to do with the school’s success during the iconic BEAT Concert on 14 September of this year. The choir has become so popular that Mrs Robaye has since established two school choirs.
I was very pleased to participate in a special assembly held by the school on 21 September 2012 to celebrate the achievements of all students for participating in the fundraising spell-a-thon. Collectively, the school raised over $10 400. At this special assembly, individual students and classes were given prizes and rewards for working so hard to achieve their goals. I very much enjoyed presenting what looked like a mountain of goodies which were kindly donated by the local community and local businesses.
In closing my highlights of Durack Primary School, I thank the teachers, parents, staff and students of the school, who have welcomed me as their local member and involved me in the workings of their school. I look forward to continuing to build these relationships over the next four years.
In these first days of sittings in this Twelfth Assembly, we have heard from the Chief Minister and the Minister for Sport and Recreation about the Mills government’s commitment to sport and, indeed, tourism. I spoke in my maiden speech about the importance of safeguarding our unique Territory lifestyle and recreational opportunities.
Tonight, I express my support for Speedway as a sport that can be enjoyed by the whole family, and that contributes to the Northern Territory economy and to tourism. I remember the many occasions my family and our family friends attended the Speedway on a Saturday night with our picnic blankets in hand. It was loud, it was hectic, but it was fun and it was about families. It was about running down to the fence as the cars whizzed past with the hope of getting fresh mud sprayed on your face.
I am privileged to have Oliver Dennis, a very passionate and committed man, live in my electorate. It is through Mr Dennis that I have been able to tell this good news story. I thank Mr Dennis for his commitment to young Territorians and to the Speedway family. I first met Mr Dennis when doorknocking during the 2012 election campaign.
It was at that time he explained to me the way in which motor racing is giving young Territorians purpose and pride. It is keeping Territorians on the right track, a healthy track, and is instilling values in them that go well beyond the circuit. The juniors involved in Speedway care about their motorsports complex; they have taken personal ownership of that space and, therefore, take on the responsibility of its maintenance and upkeep. I was impressed by the dedication of these young people who have spent many hours of late regenerating the complex’s garden beds. I made sure that shortly following the election, I delivered a large pile of campaign posters to Mr Dennis for use as weed mats by the juniors in these garden beds.
In January of this year, the Territory held the Australian Junior Sedan Titles which was a great success. The event attracted 90 competitors between the age of 10 and 17 to the Territory. Needless to say, the participants brought along their families, friends and support teams from right around Australia. This is not to mention the 40 officials who also travelled to the Territory.
This month, Tennant Creek hosted the NT titles, which again saw participants, families and teammates from all over the country travel to Tennant Creek. I quote my constituent, Mr Dennis on his reflection of this event:
- This proves we can bring a welcome financial boost and change to our struggling towns and provide the youths in the outback of Australia with a bright future.
I was recently at Beaurepaires in Palmerston talking to Geoff Baronet, a hard-working small business owner who also lives and runs his business in Drysdale. Mr Baronet, like Mr Dennis, is involved in Speedway. Mr Baronet proudly informed me about the home-grown Speedway talent we have in Palmerston, in Drysdale. Both Mr Baronet and Mr Dennis’ sons, and at least one other young man as I can recall, have all worked very hard and will be attending the National Junior Motor Sports Championships in Mackay, Queensland in January 2013. I wish them the very best of luck and hope they bring home the title.
I will finish with a quote from Mr Dennis that I have paraphrased: kids in sport turn out to be good community members; it keeps them busy with maintenance of the vehicle, getting it prepared, and it keeps the kids off the streets.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not agree more.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk on two areas. First, I commend and bring to the attention of this House the organisers of the Coolalinga Rural Markets. The markets have been operating for over 30 years. They started out with just a handful of stallholders and people selling plants and some local produce. In the last 10 years, it has developed into a vibrant family-friendly community market with a diverse range of food, craft, and other locally-produced items such as chutneys and jams, craft, soap, and the famous laksa soup.
The markets are open every Saturday, come Wet Season or Dry Season and in between, from about 8 am to 1 pm throughout the year. They provide an invaluable community meeting place in the rural area, and are one of the few outlets where rural residents can purchase locally-produced and grown goods and products. In fact, the market has developed a significant reputation for certain products with many customers travelling some distance to access the goods, such as the the famous laksa soup, and the poultry, chickens, turkeys, ducklings, rabbits and guinea pigs that are available for sale.
During the Dry Season, the market struggles - in its previous and current locations - to accommodate an average of about 40 stalls. They had a limited undercover area and it was always full in the Wet Season, making it quite small and squeezy. Those who went outside, of course, had to brave the elements.
The market organisers operate as a not-for-profit organisation and any moneys they accumulate from stall fees in excess of the insurance costs, rental obligations and other expenses they donate to charity. The market supports and raises money for the Northern Territory Cancer Council and, in the last 12 months, has donated $2344, including money raised when the market hosted Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. They have made other donations to many worthwhile causes, mostly in the rural area. They donated $1000 to the Leukaemia Foundation. They donated to a family who had a very sick child, Rhiannon. They provided considerable assistance to her family of $1000 plus gift baskets sponsored by the stallholders to help ease the burden on that family. They provided some financial support to a quad bike accident victim from the rural area; provided a training defibrillator worth $655 to St John Ambulance; gave $1050 to PAWS, animal caring and welfare and gave $770 to a special children’s Christmas party. They also gave $1000 to the Queensland Flood Appeal.
Because of the growth of the markets and the expansion over the last 10 to 20 years in particular, there was a growing need to broaden the horizons. There were changes to the existing premises in the Coolalinga Shopping Centre. They were getting squeezed out and squeezed in by the weather and the popularity of the markets, so they made a decision to move to the big shed pavilion at the front of Freds Pass Reserve. This was a brave move. They did not know where they were going or what it was going to hold, but they drew up some large banners; they thought it out. They spoke with me, they spoke with the Litchfield Council, they also spoke with the Freds Pass Reserve Management Board and all were supportive.
The committee is hard-working. It is all voluntarily; there are no honorariums, no pay. I pay tribute to the committee under the careful guidance of Trish Ranger, Kevin Horner, Sandy Feasey, Jenny Crowley, Arthur Eggleston and Marianne McLaughlin. They are great markets. I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have been to these markets, and I know many urban people come past the Berrimah Line or the Howard Springs lights to partake of the markets.
The new location at Freds Pass Reserve is only going to get bigger and better. It is a very family-friendly atmosphere and has great potential not only to host more produce - vegetables, fruit, herbs and things of that nature - but it has the potential to expand into a car boot sale. They are starting to talk that way already.
I wish them the very best. I was pleased and honoured to be asked to open the new market sites with Allan McKay, Mayor of Litchfield. I will be a regular visitor at these markets and I encourage the clerks at the table, who are nodding that they would love the Coolalinga Markets.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016