2011-03-31
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the entire sitting day for the members for Arnhem and Braitling. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips. I table this document.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Yirara College students in Year 8.4, with their teachers Ms Sarah Johns, Mrs Suanne Tikoft and Mr Mark Bensted. Also, Centralian Middle School Intensive Needs Unit, with teachers Mrs Marg McHugh and Mr Barry Georgeopoulos. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend Part 4 of the Education Act, enrolment attendance and participation, in order to modernise and restructure existing provisions and, in particular, to include a range of new provisions to enhance the capacity of the Department of Education and Training to deal with the issue of school attendance.
The bill makes the act more workable and enforceable in relation to school enrolment, attendance, and participation including:
(1) making it compulsory for parents to attend formal meetings to discuss their children’s enrolment, attendance at school, or participation in an eligible option;
(3) where appropriate, making a child of or above the age of 14 years who lives independently of their parents personally responsible for complying with the enrolment, attendance, and participation requirements under the act;
(4) providing the ability to issue a compliance notice to a parent or child living independently informing them of their legal obligations under the act in relation to enrolment, attendance and participation and requiring them to comply with those obligations, failing which they will commit and offence; and
(5) providing for the sharing of information between Northern Territory government agencies and other bodies to better facilitate timely support for parents and children in relation to school attendance or participation issues.
International evidence demonstrates that attending school regularly, finishing school, and going on to further education and training leads to better job prospects, higher incomes, provides young people with more life choices, improves wellbeing, and makes them more likely to be active and productive citizens.
Statistics show there are persistent challenges for certain groups of Territory students who are not attending school regularly enough, or for long enough, to improve their life prospects. Average attendance in the Territory is about 82% while attendance in urban centres is about 92%. Attendance at very remote schools, other than in the 20 growth towns, is 76%. Average attendance in the 20 Territory growth towns is 56%. There is a steady drop-off in participation and retention in very remote schools from the middle years.
There is growing concern amongst many senior Indigenous people that children in their communities are not attending school and not gaining the competencies needed to participate confidently in their own community and the wider world. If we are going to meet our key educational objectives we must address the basics: getting every child enrolled in a school and, then, attending school every day.
In October last year, I announced the Territory government’s Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy. For the first time the Territory has a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address enrolment attendance and participation. It sets ambitious targets and details key strategies that we are implementing with parents, schools, and communities to improve the participation of our young people in high-quality education that is available to them. Already, we have implemented widespread reforms. We now have a specialised process for recruiting teachers to our remote communities, as well as enhanced rewards to keep them there to reduce teacher turnover as a factor impacting adversely on attendance and participation.
School planning and accountability processes have been overhauled, and principals are now accountable for the development and implementation of an attendance plan for their schools. Initiatives have been implemented to make schools safer, welcoming places such as the establishment of positive learning centres, school-wide positive behaviour programs, and Clontarf and Sporting Chance academies. We are making school more relevant by linking education to real jobs and futures through initiatives that encourage school attendance such as Beyond School Guarantee, Work Ready program and VET in the Middle.
School attendance must be enforced. Sending children to school is the responsibility of, first and foremost, parents and families. Parents must ensure every child attends every day. The Department of Education and Training will work proactively with parents and families to help get their children to school. The bill outlines comprehensive procedures aimed at helping students and families re-engage with school. Unfortunately, there will be a number of parents and students who, despite the very best efforts to assist them, will continue to do the wrong thing, and strong measures will then have to be used.
This bill significantly increases the penalties for offences against the enrolment, attendance, and participation provision in the act, and brings them more in line with those in other Australian jurisdictions. Breaches of these provisions will be serious offences. The penalty for a first offence will generally be 15 penalty units or $1995, and 20 penalty units or $2660 for second and subsequent offences. In this bill, penalties are also modernised by being expressed in penalty units rather than in the dollar amounts as is the case in the current act.
The requirement for a child to enrol in and attend school or participate in an eligible option now extends until the child turns 17 years. There will, accordingly, be a number of young people who, despite the best efforts of their parents, will be beyond the control of their parents. Such children should, therefore, be responsible for their own actions if they fail to comply with the enrolment, attendance, and participation requirements of Part 4 of the act. Currently, such a child can ignore these requirements with impunity. This bill rectifies that situation by providing new provisions and creating new offences in relation to a child of, or above, the age of 14 years who is living independently from their parents and who does not comply with the requirement of Part 4 of the act. The definition of ‘living independently’ includes a child aged 14 or above who still lives with their parents but who the parents cannot properly control, as well as a child who no longer lives with their parents. The maximum penalties for the offences committed by a child will be one-tenth of those applicable to an adult.
The increased focus on enrolment, attendance and participation matters, the infringement notice scheme, and the number of new offences introduced by this bill will likely give rise to a greater need to commence proceedings for offences against Part 4 of the act. This bill will now provide for the Chief Executive Officer to give consent to proceedings for offences relating to enrolment, attendance, and participation. My consent, as minister, will still be required in relation to proceedings for all other offences against the act.
As I said earlier, before pursuing a prosecution, government agencies will first act to support families to ensure that a child is enrolled, attending, or participating satisfactorily. Therefore, it is vital that they have up-to-date information about the child and their family so the support offered can be targeted, timely, and appropriate. Departmental officers and other agencies, including other jurisdictions, need to be able to confidently obtain and exchange information for the purposes of supporting parents and children to comply with Part 4 of the act. Therefore, a new provision in the bill will ensure that the Chief Executive Officer may, without offending the privacy provisions of the Information Act, obtain and use relevant information about a child and their family from any person or body, including non-government schools and other government agencies and bodies in other jurisdictions.
This is a very important provision as it will ensure the collection and use of relevant information to support families to comply with the act is not hindered. The provision will also ensure that the department can more confidently exchange information with bodies such as Centrelink, in line with initiatives such as the Student Enrolment Attendance Measure, or SEAM initiative. The sorts of strategies the departmental officers use to collect the information and put in place approaches that support families to comply with the act include requiring the parents or child directly to provide specific information, meeting with parents and/or child to plan ways forward in relation to enrolment, attendance, or participation, and reminding parents of their legal responsibilities in relation to Part 4 of the act.
The bill also provides that the Chief Executive Officer may direct a parent, child and other relevant persons to attend a compulsory conference to deal with enrolment, attendance and participation issues. Failure to comply with a direction to attend such a conference without a reasonable excuse will constitute an offence ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 5/6, Larapinta Primary School, with their teachers, Mr Kenneth and Mrs Smith. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: This provision will significantly enhance the capacity of departmental officers to meet with parents - and particularly recalcitrant parents - and children living independently, with a view to entering into a family responsibility agreement or similar in relation to the child’s failure to attend school or participate satisfactorily in an eligible option.
The bill also provides for the Chief Executive Officer to issue an information notice to a parent or a child living independently, requiring the parent or child to provide information about the child’s enrolment, attendance, or participation. Failure to comply with a notice will constitute an offence. The Chief Executive Officer may also issue a compliance notice to a parent or a child living independently advising them of their legal obligations under the act, and requiring them to comply with those obligations. Failure to comply with a compliance notice will constitute an offence.
The ability to issue these notices will significantly enhance the department’s capacity to seek and obtain information about a child, and to make the parent or child living independently aware of their legal obligations, and enforce those obligations. This will, in turn, reduce the need to issue infringement notices or commence proceedings for offences under Part 4 of the act.
Legislation is only as good as its implementation and, in order to implement this legislation, it is important that departmental officers have sufficient authority to liaise effectively with recalcitrant parents and children living independently with a view to motivating them to comply with the requirements of Part 4 of the act. This bill will now permit an authorised person to deal not only with parents but with a child living independently, not only with enrolment and attendance issues, but also with a child’s failure to participate satisfactorily in an eligible option. Of particular significance is the new provision which permits an authorised person to direct a parent or child living independently to enrol the child in a school within a specified time frame. Failure to comply with such a direction will constitute an offence.
In order to support the authorised officers in the role the legislation creates for them, the bill also creates offences for hindering an authorised officer, and for providing misleading information or documents to an authorised officer.
I have referred consistently to offences relating to Part 4 of the act and the seriousness of breaching the provisions of the act. To enforce many of the provisions under the act, it would normally be necessary to charge the parents and have them summonsed to appear so the charge could be heard by a court; any fine may then be imposed by the court up to the legislated maximum penalty.
As a component of the comprehensive Every Child, Every Day strategy that addresses school enrolment, attendance, and participation in the Northern Territory, the Department of Education and Training will also now be able to issue infringement notices to adults of two penalty units, which equates to $266, for a range of existing and new offences under the act in accordance with the Education Infringement Notice Regulations, which also will be amended by this bill. The capacity to issue infringement notices will provide effective, cost-efficient and responsive methods of summarily enforcing offences. Infringement notices also provide a method of enforcement without the cost and delays associated with prosecution, and they have the further benefit of motivating parents to comply with the legislative requirements.
There are also some additional administrative matters which are addressed in this bill which will facilitate the implementation of this legislation. They include the enhancement of the existing, but limited, provisions applicable to what will now be termed ‘home education’, and provisions which will, for the first time, enable the department to ensure that a child enrolled in a distance education centre such as the Northern Territory Open Education Centre or a School of the Air, participates fully in the programs offered by such a school.
The bill also provides, for the first time, that an adult student, not just a child, can be expelled from a school. The bill also provides, again for the first time, that the CEO can direct that a child be enrolled in a specified government school, or not be enrolled in a specified school where the CEO reasonably believes the enrolment of a child may constitute a risk to the staff or other students in a school, or where the CEO believes the specified school is able to better meet the particular child’s needs.
The bill also significantly enhances the penalties for employing, or permitting to be employed, a child of compulsory school age at a time when a child should be attending school. The bill also significantly increases the penalties for employing, or permitting to be employed, a child in a manner that would make the child unfit to attend school or unable to properly benefit from their instruction when they are at school.
Finally, there are some consequential amendments proposed in the bill, together with some minor amendments of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments modernise the language used in the remainder of the act but do not affect existing legislative policy or the legal effect of the provisions so amended.
Apart from the 2009 amendments to implement the National Youth Participation Requirement (Learn or Earn) and those in relation to the registration of non-government schools, the Education Act has not been significantly amended since its enactment in 1979. These amendments will deliver a contemporary, targeted, and robust set of reforms which work hand-in-glove with the full set of initiatives that comprise the government’s enrolment, attendance, and participation strategy. Every Child, Every Day is what we are about. Together, they will deliver a comprehensive set of measures which address the management of enrolment, attendance, and participation issues which threaten the futures of too many of our young people.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Bradshaw Primary School students Year 5/6, together with their teachers Ms Brooks, Mrs McMaster and Ms Ward. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 157)
Bill presented and read for a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Audit Amendment Bill is to strengthen the statutory framework that supports the Auditor-General, and to align the Audit Act with contemporary audit practices and principles. Honourable members will agree that, for an Auditor-General to be effective, it is vital he or she is supported by a statutory framework which reflects contemporary audit practice and principles so that the Auditor-General can continue to serve this parliament effectively by providing independent assurance that public funds are being utilised appropriately, and that government’s objectives are being met.
Whilst minor amendments have been passed by this Assembly since the commencement of the act in 1995, the way the public sector operates and delivers its programs and services has evolved considerably. For this reason, I instructed officials from my department and Treasury to undertake a review of the act to consider matters such as the statutory framework, independence, audit scope and coverage, and the term of appointment of the Auditor-General. The review also considered and was informed by recent jurisdictional reviews of audit legislation.
I am pleased to say, in many ways, the act as it currently stands is consistent with other jurisdiction’s audit legislation. However, the review highlighted that the act focuses the Auditor-General’s audit scope to audits of agencies. While this possibly reflects the structure of the Northern Territory Public Sector at the time the act was established, since that time we have seen the passing of legislation - for example, the Government Owned Corporations Act that provides for the creation of entities that are not agencies. Whilst other Territory legislation provides that the Auditor-General is to be the auditor of these entities, it is considered prudent that the act be amended to clarify that all entities that are deemed to be under the control of the Northern Territory are subject to the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction.
To achieve this, the bill inserts the definition of ‘Territory-controlled entity’ into the act and broadens the Auditor-General’s audit scope to enable the audit of financial statements, compliance with statutory obligations, and performance management systems of any entity that is deemed to be controlled by the Territory. The definition of a ‘Territory-controlled entity’ is relatively straightforward. It includes any agency, government business division, government-owned corporation, a Territory company, and any subsidiary body of these entities. However, the most significant aspect of this definition is that it will also capture any ‘body’ that a government may create in the future; for example, a trust, partnership, or any other special purpose vehicle which the Territory may control and utilise for the purpose of delivering its projects or significant service provision activities.
More recently, some jurisdictions have updated the coverage mandate of their respective Auditor-Generals to take account of the new ways in which their public sectors are operating. In particular, Western Australia and Tasmania have passed legislation to broaden the audit jurisdiction of their respective Auditor-Generals to be able to examine the expenditure of monies by entities that lie outside the boundaries of the public sector. These jurisdictions have, effectively, provided their Auditor-Generals with the power to ‘follow the public dollar’ so they can examine or investigate the use of public monies where it flows from government to a non-government body for the purpose of meeting government objectives. The ability for an Auditor-General to follow the public dollar is considered an important audit mechanism in view of new ways governments are developing to finance and deliver their projects, programs and services.
There is little doubt that the use of new structures such as public/private partnerships, joint ventures, strategic alliances and partnerships with non-government organisations play an integral role in assisting a government to meet its objectives. However, as these new structures change the way in which the public sector operates, it is important the Auditor-General can continue to provide the necessary assurances to government and parliament that public monies are being utilised appropriately and that objectives are being achieved. Accordingly, my government considers our Auditor-General should also have the power to follow the public dollar.
To achieve this, the bill inserts a new provision into section 15 of the act providing that, at my request, the Auditor-General can be asked to conduct an audit of the performance management systems of an organisation that has received public monies from an agency for the purpose of delivering projects or undertaking significant service delivery activities on behalf of the Territory.
I am not suggesting the Auditor-General should become the auditor of all non-government organisations; rather, from time to time, it may be necessary for the Auditor-General to undertake an audit of the performance management systems of an organisation to provide assurances to government and parliament that where significant programs or public monies flow to a non-government organisation they are being used appropriately.
As I previously indicated, these audits may only be performed at my request. While some might suggest the Auditor-General should have the power to conduct these audits as he or she thinks necessary, I believe the requirement that audits of this type be the subject of a ministerial request is justified as it provides an appropriate and necessary safeguard to ensure, before such an audit commences, a public interest test is first satisfied.
As a consequence of broadening the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction, the bill also makes amendments to sections 16 and 24 of the act to extend the reporting obligations and right-of-reply provisions in relation to a report of an audit by the Auditor-General to include Territory-controlled entities and non-government organisations.
The capacity to execute the role independently and free from influence is fundamental to the effective functioning of an Auditor-General. In some jurisdictions, independence of an Auditor-General is explicitly stated. In others, such as the case of the Northern Territory, the legislation is silent, although there is an implied understanding of the Auditor-General’s independence. My government has no doubt about the independence of our Auditor-General. However, it is prudent to ensure the act is explicit about the Auditor-General’s independence and discretion to be able to prove his or her duties in relation to the range of matters on which this parliament seeks assurance. Anything that would prevent the Auditor-General from inquiring into matters that fall within his or her jurisdiction would reduce this independence.
Accordingly, the bill inserts a new section into the act providing a strong and explicit statement of the Auditor-General’s independence. It stipulates that the Auditor-General is not subject to direction from any person in regard to the performance of his or her functions and powers, and the Auditor-General is free to act independently, impartially, and in the public interest at all times. Further, in exercising his or her functions and powers, the Auditor-General is not subject to direction by anyone about the types of audits of public monies that may be conducted and how they are conducted, the making or reporting of an audit, what can be included in a report, and the priority given to audits. This is a fundamental element of transparency.
However, it is also important that this independence does not preclude the Auditor-General from being able to accept suggestions about his or her annual work program. That is why the act provides the capacity for the Auditor-General to be asked to undertake special audits on a specific issue relating to an agency, or an audit of a performance management system of a non-government organisation.
The review also considered matters relating to the term of appointment of Auditor-Generals. Across jurisdictions, the term of appointment of Auditor-Generals varies between seven and 10 years. The exception to this is South Australia, whose Auditor-General holds office until 65 years of age. More recently, some jurisdictions such as Western Australia and Tasmania have amended their audit legislation to increase the term of appointment of their respective Auditor-Generals to 10 years.
Our Auditor-General is appointed for a fixed terms of seven years and, with the exception of the Ombudsman, all other Northern Territory statutory officers are appointed for three to five years with the capacity for extension. To provide consistency with the term of appointment of other Northern Territory statutory officers, and the longer term of appointment of 10 years recently adopted in the audit legislation of Western Australia and Tasmania, the bill changes the term of appointment of the Auditor-General from a fixed term of seven years to a term of five years with a capacity of a single reappointment of no more than five years. In view of the change to the term of the appointment, the bill also contains a transitional provision which provides that, at the end of his current term, the Auditor-General may be reappointed for a single term of not more than three years to bring his maximum tenure to 10 years.
While some might suggest the capacity for reappointment may compromise the Auditor-General’s independence, it is my government’s view that, in conjunction with the broadening of the Auditor-General’s audit scope to follow the public dollar, and the inclusion of an explicit statement of the Auditor-General’s independence, there is no suggestion that eligibility for reappointment will compromise the Auditor-General’s independence.
In conclusion, I believe the bill strengthens the statutory framework which will support our Auditor-General in the performance of his or her functions and enable him or her to adapt to the changing context of the way the public sector operates. Importantly, the broadening of the Auditor-General’s audit scope to be able to audit all entities that are controlled by the Territory, in addition to the ability to follow the public dollar, will significantly improve public sector accountability and increase transparency, and enable the Auditor-General to continue to provide the independent assurance that this parliament requires: that government activities are carried out and accounted for consistent with its intentions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act 1981 to remove the requirement for annual inspections and licensing of Northern Territory residential aged-care facilities, referred to as nursing homes in the act.
There are seven licensed residential aged-care facilities in the Northern Territory that undergo annual inspections conducted by a team of three delegated officers from the Department of Health’s Aged and Disability program and Environmental Health. The inspection teams are appointed by the Chief Health Officer and use a standard assessment tool to evaluate operational standards. Facilities that satisfy the standards are licensed by the Northern Territory to a certain capacity of placements.
The licensing of private hospitals is also the delegated responsibility of the Chief Health Officer, but is an entirely separate inspection process to that developed for residential aged-care facilities. The proposed amendments to the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act ensure continued legislative direction to the Northern Territory’s private hospital, protecting the health and welfare of people accessing private medical or surgical treatment. The proposed amendments to this act serve to align the Northern Territory with regulatory arrangements already in place in other Australian jurisdictions.
The Australian government Aged Care Act 1997 regulates all residential aged-care facilities through a mandated accreditation process which is conducted by an independent body, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency (the agency). Accreditation assesses facilities against four standards: management systems, staffing and organisational development; health and personal care; resident’s lifestyle; and physical environment and safe systems. Within these four standards, residential aged-care facilities must satisfy a total of 44 expected outcomes. The evaluation process may also include consideration of whether the facility meets other responsibilities under the Aged Care Act. Facilities maintain their accredited standard through the submission of a plan for continuous improvement and annual self-assessment.
The agency monitors the facility and will make one unannounced visit each year to ensure the plan is being implemented and the accreditation standards continue to be met. The Northern Territory process of licensing nursing homes is not as comprehensive as, and to a lesser extent duplicates, seven areas of the accreditation process, placing additional burden on both the department and residential aged-care facilities.
Due to the broad nature of accreditation, all other Australian jurisdictions have discontinued licensing, deferring responsibility back to the Australian government. As a part of the National Health and Hospital Reform agenda, aged care has been identified as a key objective for reform across Australia to ensure consistent and equitable access to aged-care services for all older Australians. The primary reform measure is the Australian government taking on funding and policy responsibility for all aged care. This reform will see the development of a one-stop shop, providing centralised access to aged care by 1 July 2012. The Australian government will also assume sole funding and policy responsibility transitioning from this date.
Northern Territory residential aged-care facilities’ licences expire on 1 July 2011, making the introduction of this bill timely.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, today I respond to the bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 22 February 2011 by minister Vatskalis as Health Minister, called the Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill, (Serial 147). This was introduced just five weeks ago, and is legislation directly connected to an undertaking the government made to implement the whole of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, which was a report about child protection services in the Northern Territory.
The Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010 and was a story of systematic failure of the Northern Territory government to adequately service children at risk of abuse and neglect in the Northern Territory. This government has a long history of not responding to the child protection needs of the community. This report has been the most recent report during the Labor government’s reign. The Growing them strong, together report followed many other reports of a similar nature.
So, this Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill the government has put forward is a very important bill. It is about the future of child protection services in the Northern Territory. I take this matter very seriously because some of the content of this bill is quite alarming. This legislation is due to commence on a date fixed by the Administrator. However, no specific time frame was mentioned in the minister’s second reading speech with regard to when this legislation will commence. This also is a significant issue, which I will come back to later.
The purpose of this bill is to implement one of the urgent recommendations, Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report. The recommendation directed that the Children’s Commissioner is to be given own motion powers, the ability to compel documentation and witnesses for all functions, not just for investigating complaints, and to allow a broader role in monitoring government decisions relating to any future inquiries into child protection or wellbeing established under the Inquiries Act.
The role of the commissioner is fairly well recognised. It came about as a result of the assent of the new Care and Protection of Children Bill in 2007. The new Children’s Commissioner position was established in December 2007, and the person holding that position currently is Dr Howard Bath who is well known within the child protection sector in the Northern Territory.
The function of the Children’s Commissioner is to investigate complaints about services required to be provided to protected children by service providers, to monitor ways in which service providers respond to reports made by the commissioner, and to monitor the administration of this act insofar as it relates to protected children. The Children’s Commissioner also has a role to monitor the implementation of any government decision arising from the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, and to report to the minister on a matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) which I just mentioned.
The Children’s Commissioner has a responsibility to monitor the implementation of the act, and to provide a mechanism whereby people can complain about services to protected children in the Northern Territory. This was recognised in the Growing them strong, together report as being fairly limited. Recommendation 136 in the Growing them strong, together report is as follows:
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, there is no photography in the Chamber. Thank you. Member for Araluen, please continue.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you. This bill achieves the majority of Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report with one exception: the commissioner has only been given the power to receive submissions on the Growing them strong, together report and not ‘monitor’ government decisions relating to the implementation of recommendations. The commissioner has also been denied powers to monitor decisions relating to any future inquiries established under the Inquiries Act relating to the child protection system or child welfare, nor to any recommendations made by other judicial bodies or like subjects.
The role of the Children’s Commissioner needs to be expanded to fulfil Recommendation 136 because the government undertook to do so. We have a crack forming in the government’s commitment to implement this recommendation. The government has found one word within this recommendation which has given it an opening to allow it not to fully implement this recommendation. The word the minister mentioned in his second reading speech is ‘may’. I hold the government to account to implement the recommendation as it reads.
The Ombudsman has a very important role in our community in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman is an invaluable referee in ensuring Territorians are protected from the excesses of government. The size of the Territory, the complex interaction between government services provided by agencies, and the expanded definition of ‘vulnerable children’ means even if not specifically investigating a service provider to vulnerable children, the Ombudsman may be prevented from fully investigating a complaint because a service being complained of is, at some point, provided to vulnerable children.
This legislation is an attempt to exclude the Ombudsman from investigating any matters the Children’s Commissioner will now be able to investigate. In plain speech, matters that will be investigated by the Children's Commissioner at the moment can also be investigated by the Ombudsman but, through this legislation, the Ombudsman will be effectively gagged, with the exception of matters involving children and the police ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Braitling Primary School students Year 3/4S, together with teachers, Mrs Newman and Mrs Schrama. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY: This restriction of the role of the Ombudsman contained in clause 26 is the most concerning aspect about this bill. It means this government is trying to gag the role of the Ombudsman; trying to gag her contribution to investigating matters regarding services to children, services around child protection, services that affect the lives and wellbeing of children in the Northern Territory.
The role of the Ombudsman is not only a grievance mechanism; it is an investigation and complaints process. It is about leading to improvements of services for children in the Northern Territory. It is also about ensuring when mistakes are made they are picked up and rectified.
When this bill was first brought forward by the government on 22 February 2011 there was a reaction within the community to the fact that the Labor government was trying to gag the Ombudsman:
Just after the Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010, there was an horrific documentary played on the ABC Four Corners program called - goodness me, the name escapes me. It was about the Northern Territory child protection services; the fiasco that has been the child protection services of the Northern Territory. Dangerous Territory it was called. In this documentary, they interviewed a social worker from the Royal Darwin Hospital called Susan Mansfield. Susan Mansfield was a courageous advocate for children’s rights. She came out publicly, probably against the best interests of her personal career and aspirations for moving on in her career in social work. She came out publicly and spoke against the government’s handling of a particular case that came to her attention in her role as a hospital social worker. Susan Mansfield went to the Ombudsman because she felt the Ombudsman was the truly independent place to go for her type of complaint. Her complaint never, ever received the satisfaction she believed was required within the system. There were many allegations around how Susan Mansfield was treated within the Department of Children and Families regarding bullying and harassment. None of those have been formally substantiated, but the allegations were certainly there.
The Ombudsman played a critical role in helping Susan Mansfield get her case represented, in a way - because Susan Mansfield was not knocking on the door of the Ombudsman’s office for her own interests. She was there because she believed a child who was in the care of the hospital that she was involved in case managing, was not receiving correct care. She had gone through the normal process of venting and airing her concerns, trying to get some positive outcome for this child. She got nowhere and, obviously, she felt she had to take the extreme measure of taking this case to the Ombudsman.
I mention this case which was graphically described and presented on the Four Corners program, Dangerous Territory, because it was horrific. However, it also demonstrated the absolute necessity of having the Ombudsman there as an alternative complaint mechanism for the welfare of children in the Northern Territory.
This government has had 10 years of systematic failure when it comes to the provision of child protection services. There have been many reports presented to the public - and some not presented to the public at the government’s discretion - that demonstrate there is a need for this government to become more transparent about what it is and is not doing. Howard Bath wrote a report in July 2007 called The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit. This report was commissioned by the government after another case was reported in this Dangerous Territory, the Four Corners program; after the girl whose case was presented in this report died at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
This government asked Howard Bath to provide this report, The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit. It was presented to the government in 2007 and the government has never, ever, to this day, brought this report forward to be scrutinised and read by the public. The reason for that is because it had something to hide. It wanted to hide its lack of response to the needs of children in the Northern Territory - the maladministration, the systematic failure in providing child protection services in the Northern Territory. That is just one example of why we need an Ombudsman who is at arm’s length and independent to stand up for children in the Northern Territory.
Of course, we had the Little Children are Sacred report that came about in 2006 as a result of the identification of child sexual abuse throughout the Northern Territory as being at an horrific, alarming rate. This came about through one courageous woman in this wonderful town of Alice Springs. I will never forget watching this ABC Lateline program, which was on 15 May 2006. Dr Nanette Rogers told her story - a genuine story from someone who witnesses these sorts of things firsthand. She told of the problem of violence and sexual abuse of children in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. This caused an outcry throughout Australia - a national outcry asking how this could be. How could we, in this day and age, in 2006, have an horrific and alarming rate of child sexual abuse going on in Australia? In a western civilised society, how could this be?
It was as a result of the courage of Dr Nanette Rogers to speak out. I know she was given a hard time by this government too, because I suppose, effectively, she was a public servant. She had the courage to stand up and put her case on the public record. She took an enormous personal risk to identify this problem. As a result of what Dr Nanette Rogers did, the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, announced an inquiry into child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities under the Inquires Act.
The report that came about from this inquiry was called the Little Children are Sacred report. I am telling you this story to graphically describe the failure of this government - and I repeat this time and time again, because there is no other word; it is failure - to respond to the child protection demands of this community of the Northern Territory. The Little Children are Sacred report came out and, once again, the whole of the nation was horrified. How could this be?
There were 97 recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report and, of course, the Northern Territory government came up with its own plan to close the gap of Indigenous disadvantage within the community. But it was as a result of the Little Children are Sacred report that the need for a Children’s Commissioner was identified.
The Northern Territory government was flying by the seat of its pants, embarrassed. Ministers were moved, shuffled sideways discreetly. We have had four ministers responsible for child protection in the last 10 years. We saw various ministers shuffled around again and discreetly moved into the background while the next minister was presented to the community of the Northern Territory. The next minister had to attempt to explain their way out of this horrific hole that has become the story of child protection in the Northern Territory.
This brings us, basically, to where we are now. There have been other events that were certainly noteworthy, but here we are with the Growing them strong, together report, which has been out for almost six months. The response to the Growing them strong, together report was put together quite cleverly. They divvied up the 147 recommendations into three groups. You had the urgent six-month group, the 12-month, or 18-month - gosh we have not got to that stage yet. But, they were divvied up into three groups according to time frames. There were 34 recommendations within the urgent category.
As I said before, this particular Recommendation 136 is a part of the urgent bucket of recommendations, so the government is scrambling to get it through. Five weeks ago we were given this bill and, although I attempted to negotiate a briefing with the government, with me being down here in Alice Springs it just did not happen for various reasons, which I have some regret about because briefings are what good governance and the democratic process is all about. I believe I have done enough research on my own part to come up with a fairly reasonable and well-researched response.
The history behind this amendment to the bill has been a long and intense one when it comes to child protection. That is why we need to get right the role of the Children’s Commissioner. It has to be just right because, if it is not, we will lose the ability to effectively monitor the implementation of this Growing them strong, together report and other inquiries’ reports that will, indeed, come about if this government is to remain in power. So, we have to get it right and we have to ensure the Ombudsman is not gagged.
What is the Country Liberals’ position? In February 2010, the opposition introduced the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Investigative Powers) Bill. It was sponsored by the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, who I saw in the Chamber earlier. She presented this bill. She had amazing insight and understanding of child protection services in the Northern Territory. She, too, was a courageous advocate for youth justice and child protection services. So, before the Growing them strong, together report even came out, Jodeen Carney could see the looking, tweaking, and improving the role of the Children’s Commissioner was essential - it was a critical part of the whole equation. Jodeen Carney had great insight and she introduced this amendment bill in February 2010.
However, of course, the government hid behind the fact it had commissioned this inquiry. I might add, the inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report was collated, researched, and written by three people, Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, Professor Muriel Bamblett, and Dr Rob Roseby. The government cleverly hid behind the fact it had already commissioned this inquiry, and it could not possibly move in favour of the bill introduced to parliament by Jodeen Carney because it wanted to see what the outcome of this inquiry was. It hid behind this great anticipation of what the Growing them strong, together report would hold.
The purpose of this bill, at the time, was to give the Children’s Commissioner own motion investigative powers - the ability to decide what he needed to investigate, to investigate complaints about the adequacy of the police or FACS’ response to a complaint regarding child welfare, and to receive issues referred to him by the Child Death Review Committee. So, there was an understanding, even in February 2010, that this government had to be monitored, and could not be trusted in what it said it was going to do and what it really did in practice.
Jodeen Carney was on to that and very cleverly crafted this amendment bill to look at allowing the Children’s Commissioner to investigate issues he felt were necessary in the services provided to protected children, and giving the Children’s Commissioner powers to investigate other matters in response to complaints of a child welfare nature.
Debate on this bill occurred in August 2010, before the Growing them strong, together report was released in October 2010, and the bill was rejected.
After the final report was released, another opposition bill, the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Additional Functions) Bill 2010 was introduced in parliament by me. It was released incorporating the amendments from the previous bill presented by Jodeen Carney, and it was adjusted to accommodate many of the recommendations from the Growing them strong, together report. This bill was also negatived by the government in February 2011 after it introduced its own bill. So, the race was on. Once the Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010, the race was on for the government because the pressure was on them to at least commence the implementation of all 34 urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report before 18 April 2011. Tick, tick, tick.
You have a matter of weeks, minister, to come up with proof to the community of the Northern Territory, to the people who have been anticipating your response, that you have been true to your word in implementing at least the 34 urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
This takes me to why, again, should we be asking for a report card from this government? Why should we have to stand in parliament? Why should people have to ring me, write letters to the editor, jump up and down like the people of Alice Springs did on Tuesday morning to receive a response? I asked in parliament late last year for the government to provide regular updates, to put something in the paper about the progress of the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations. However, it is only when we jump up and down that we get a response. I would like a response for the community of the Northern Territory now. I would like to know where the government is up to in its progress – a progress report on what is happening – because things have gone very quiet of late.
Going back to the role of the Ombudsman, the government intends to take away many of the current roles of the Ombudsman relating to responding to complaints regarding child protection issues. When the government was questioned on this, the Child Protection Minister, Kon Vatskalis, gave a very interesting explanation as to exactly why the government has cut short the Ombudsman’s role in dealing with complaints regarding child protection services. Parliament was told that the current Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards, supported the government’s attempt to gag her. That was very rapidly and promptly refuted by the Ombudsman. She said: ‘I did not say that; that is not true’. She did not support, at any point, her role as the Ombudsman be restricted or reduced by this government. That was an interesting debate last time we met in February 2011. It was on these lines that we, as opposition, asked the minister to explain who was lying here. Who, potentially, was lying - the Ombudsman or the minister?
However, I suppose the more important point in this matter is why the government would want to exclude the Ombudsman from dealing with complaints around the services provided to vulnerable children. She can deal with complaints regarding police involvement around the services provided to vulnerable children, but no other complaints. Her role has been trimmed from this big to this big. Why is this so? Why do you want to do that, minister? What good will that do for children in the Northern Territory? What are the advantages to children in the Northern Territory to gag the Ombudsman? What are children going to get out of this?
My response is - nothing. Children in the Northern Territory will in no way benefit by the Ombudsman being gagged. Because of that, my only conclusion is this government is still on the run - this government is running away at high speed from anything, any mechanism, any position, any person who looks like saying it the way it is; calling them out, tripping them over, exposing them. That is the only reason. I have thought long and hard about it, minister, and this is my conclusion. The only reason why you want to gag the Ombudsman is to shut her up so she does not cause you any more trouble. The Ombudsman has been a thorn in your side for a long time, for many years - not just in the area of child protection. She has not only spoken out about child protection, she has identified many other significant failures of this government. She is not your friend and you want to get rid of her, marginalise her, reduce her role so she is, basically, silent - zip, she cannot say anything.
This is taken out of The Australian on 8 February 2010:
Why would you not want to shut her up? She is exposing you, revealing the facts, revealing failure, that you have lost control of one of the most critical departments in our society: the protection of children. She has made your life very difficult.
I am not saying the area of child protection is easy. I am a social worker. I have never worked specifically in the area of child protection, but I know this is difficult. But, you guys have made a feast of it. You guys have made something look very difficult; you have made a sham of it. I love the description the member for Fong Lim used last night in one of his speeches where he said Indigenous policy in this country needs to be shaken out of the tin, emptied of all its contents and put back into the tin. That is what needs to happen with child protection in the Northern Territory. We need to empty it out and start again, because the problems within the child protection system are so systemic, so ingrained, so entrenched, you guys have no hope. You are just trying to put bandaids on it. You are trying to react, to respond to the half-a-dozen reports that have been slapped in your face over the last 10 years, damning you and telling the world and Australia how useless you are. You are on the run and you cannot think straight.
This is an example. This attempt to gag the Ombudsman is, indeed, an example of you not thinking straight because, in a democracy, you need checks and balances. You need mechanisms to monitor and review, in an objective way, what you are doing. It makes what you do transparent. It makes people who are sitting in the gallery understand what really is going on from an outside perspective. You need those mechanisms in place. To gag the one person in the Northern Territory who has tried to make these issues transparent, and respond in a constructive manner - and I know Carolyn Richards has held her breath many times. She could have gone in much harder and more frequently, but she has not, because she knows it is a tough business and the solutions are not there in front of you. She knows these problems are entrenched and very complicated, but she also knows you are not doing a good job, even if it is hard.
The Northern Territory Ombudsman has slammed child protection authorities for failing to save ‘the most vulnerable Territorians’. That was a quote from the Northern Territory News on 9 November 2010 after the ABC Four Corners program Dangerous Territory. The Ombudsman was featured on Dangerous Territory, that Four Corners program and, once again, she spoke out nationally about her concerns about child protection - the tsunami of need in the Territory when it comes to child protection.
‘Ombudsman hits out at child protection failures’ was an article about her Four Corners interview:
That comes from the Four Corners program Dangerous Territory. That is what they are calling us, dangerous Territory - dangerous for the people we should hold in the highest esteem, the children of the Northern Territory. I will not become emotional.
‘So, let us gag her. Let us shut her up. Let us block her from telling the truth, for exposing us. Let us prevent her from having a say about child protection services in the Northern Territory. Let us get rid of this constant reminder of our failure and incompetence’. Well, to get rid of the Ombudsman from hearing complaints relating to the child protection industry is a crime in itself, a huge disservice to the community, and bordering on criminal.
Child protection workers throughout the Northern Territory – and I am getting to hear from some of them - are ringing me. If they are not ringing me directly, they are coming to me indirectly. Child protection workers in the Northern Territory are not a happy bunch. They feel frustrated, they feel unsupported, they feel like they are a part of a body which does not have the capacity to listen to children, let alone the people they employ. Who will represent those people? Who will represent the Susan Mansfields of the Northern Territory? Who will assist them to continue to do this very important work in our community?
I know for a fact there are many child protection workers who have contacted the Ombudsman. This is a fact. You can ask the Ombudsman if you would like confirmation of it. I know for a fact she has received many complaints from very distressed, well-meaning professional child protection workers in the Northern Territory, saying: ‘Please help. Please help us to rectify the problems in the child protection system in the Northern Territory. No matter what we do, who we talk to, no one listens and no one wants to take on board our concerns’.
The Ombudsman is not only hearing complaints at present about the services provided to protected children of the Northern Territory, but much of her work in relation to child protection is working with employees of the Department of Children and Families. To take away the Ombudsman means those people do not have a voice. Most of those incredibly dedicated child protection workers are social workers, people who have a similar professional background to me, who usually hold their hearts in their hands. They will not have a voice. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think the people of the Northern Territory will think that is fair either.
In closing, we will only support this bill if the government accepts our amendments, which I would like to take to committee. We see this as a very important bill and, if the government gets this up, this will be a very sad day in the democracy of the Northern Territory. It will be a very sad day for the welfare of children in the Northern Territory because we will no longer be able to live in comfort knowing there are mechanisms in place to ensure transparency, and that complaints will be dealt with properly. There will be no mechanisms to ensure any future inquiries into child protection will be done at arm’s length.
The government has put together this wonderful group of people to be a part of their reform monitoring committee - a title something like that. It is a group of distinguished professional people in the area of child protection, some of whom I know will carry out their jobs with great esteem and conscientiousness. However, those people have been appointed by this government. They will be provided material from this government and be asked to preside over things this government identifies. They will not be independent. This will not be a true, objective monitoring of the reforms of child protection in the Northern Territory. If this government is genuine about reforms in child protection, they will not gag the Ombudsman and they will allow the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the Growing them strong, together report, and also any future inquiries into child protection.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Centralian Middle School students in Year 7 together with their teacher, Ms Majella Bowden. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the bill, only because I have had a look at the bill and my other Independent colleague and I have spoken about it this morning. I had the opportunity, through him, to have a look at the legal advice the ministers received. I am happy with the legal advice the government has about the Ombudsman not losing all the powers and the Children’s Commissioner being independent. That is the only obstacle I had when I was looking at the bill.
It has now guaranteed me what I needed to know; the fact that he has his own motion power, and it does not take away any other investigation the Ombudsman can have except for child protection. Child protection will now come under the Children’s Commissioner. It is only appropriate to have the investigation conducted by the Children’s Commissioner not be done by two people because you could have contradicting investigations being conducted.
One of the recommendations of the inquiry was more powers be given to the Children’s Commissioner. In this debate we can get into talking about what the government is going to do and what the opposition is putting up. However, in light of where the government is going, which is about child protection, it is the silent voices of our Territory children ...
Madam SPEAKER: May I remind honourable members there are no phones, thank you.
Ms ANDERSON: Most of the core business is Indigenous kids in the Northern Territory. Looking at the recommendations the minister adopted, the government has taken into consideration all the aspects of the inquiry quite seriously. I would not be standing in this parliament praising the government if I knew, as an Indigenous politician and Indigenous mother, grandmother and aunty to many kids in the care of FACS, that the government was not doing anything.
I congratulate you, minister, for taking on the recommendations of the inquiry. We have had many inquiries. This is really serious business, and the silent voices we have are the kids of the Northern Territory who are the future generation. All they want is safe homes and safe, loving families. They want to be able to sleep in a normal warm bed like everybody else. They want to have loving parents no matter who they are. They are not fussy about whether their carers are black, white, Chinese or Sudanese. They just want loving people to look after them.
I have many families in care of FACS. It is really hurtful for people to say these children should be only placed with Indigenous families. That is not correct. These children just want to be loved. Sometimes, they are in a situation where mum and dad are drinking, mum and dad do not have homes. That is why I object to building so much infrastructure and wasting so much of Territory taxpayers’ money to build up something we know will perpetuate this problem - the town camps. We have no certainty and no assurance that the amount of money we put into housing infrastructure in these town camps will ensure at least 60% or 70% of the kids will be safe.
The government needs to move down the path of mainstreaming the town camps so they are suburbs of this town, so there is safety, so there are Sudanese, Chinese, or other Aboriginal people or white Australians living next door to these people so they can report neglect if children are running around knocking on other people’s doors in the neighbourhood asking for food because their parents are drinking.
I have several nieces who live near a creek who are drinking now, and I know their father has custody of the children. The father is a traditional owner of this country, but the father is an alcoholic. How many times do you keep reporting this same case over and over again to the Department of Children and Families? You become fed up. Last Saturday was a classic example where I drove past a house, and the kids were all playing outside being a nuisance to neighbours’ property, asking people for food. The father was sitting with 10, 15 other people drinking inside their home, which is supposed to be their safety zone, somewhere they can feel safe.
What do we do as adults, politicians, or human beings? Do we continuously report the same case to the Department of Children and Families? It is obvious assessments have been done of these children. I gave my commitment to the person who was working with these children and, along with FACS, took them out to Papunya and got their grandmother to look after them. However, at the end of the day, the grandmother is half deaf, has no employment, and no control over the children.
As I said in the briefing in the minister’s office at the last sittings, we have to be very careful where we place these children because, sometimes, we place them with elderly people. We know the lightning speed of a two-, three-, four-, or five-year-old child compared with a 79- or 80-year-old grandmother or great-grandmother, who has to get up if there is a car coming. There is a collision before the 79- or 80-year-old can actually get up to save that child. You have 80-year-old people walking around the community looking for these children because they are at the waterhole or playing down the road. They should not be there. Then, you have the problem of grandparents living not in a house but inside a humpy. Then, the children turn up to school with snotty noses and not fed, and not clothed properly. Then, the teacher, through the reporting mechanisms, reports that to FACS.
What do you do? We are in a no-win situation with some of these families and some of these children. I believe there really needs to be aspects, minister, where, through the Indigenous people you have now employed on remote Aboriginal communities - which is good - you have a mechanism in place where that Aboriginal person actually identifies, acknowledges, respects, and understands your legislation. Also, there is someone they can work with on the community to ensure there is an education strategy to allow the whole community to participate, engage, and be part of driving any kind of reform to make their lives better, and to understand child protection.
Child protection is not just about abuse; it is about neglect. If the mother is sitting down gambling all day long, or if the father and mother are on ganja and the child is just roaming around, or the mother and father are drinking, that is all neglect. That is all reportable. Instead of just leaving it up to the teachers, nurses, police, and youth workers, we really need to drive home with an education strategy on the communities to allow Indigenous people to understand child protection and neglect; that they cannot sit there and gamble all day while the child is sitting there hungry; that someone will report that child.
I have said in parliament repeatedly: the important factor of any kind of legislation the government introduces is educating the community. It goes back to education. It is all very well for us to pass all this legislation in this House, but if we do not transfer what we put into this House out in a very simple form to these communities and have a targeted education strategy through a DVD or something like that - and at that meeting I had with your staff, minister, I suggested some kind of DVD where you could have a play where people are talking about child protection, and talking in language about how important education is. That is something else, minister, you might be able to pick up on. DVDs are not really expensive, and people have all the technology on communities to have a look at that kind of stuff. Maybe we can have a deal with Imparja or NITV that we air all this kind of educational material on their programs, because that is the key.
One of the keys is, as a government, you have the duty of care to pass legislation in this House. However, another duty of care we have is the education material we urgently need to send out to communities. While the Education minister is here too, that is another part of what we can take up through enrolments at school, urging the communities to be responsible, participate in their children’s education because, as we all know, education is the key. Education opens up lots of avenues for all of us. It is not through not going to school that you have politicians sitting inside this House. We have actually all had a good, quality education, and that is the key. That will open the door; many avenues open up for people, and they can then start changing their lives. Everything else falls into place through a good, quality education.
It is good to see so many young Aboriginal people in the gallery here today. I hope you can take back all these messages to your families and the people you live with, your mums and dads. Pass on all these messages to the young kids you hang around with that child protection is really important. We have to use that avenue, even through these children, to talk to their peers as well so they identify what neglect is, and identify at a very young age what abuse is. It is through these people and these young adolescents we can also pass on the message. I believe it is really important.
Minister, I take this opportunity again to congratulate you for taking on the recommendations, but with a view that we must understand we should not just be placing children with black families; we should be placing them with loving families, people who can love them.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am, at the outset, astonished that from government we have no speakers other than the minister who, some months ago, placed this matter on the Notice Paper for discussion. On an issue as important as matters surrounding child protection, you would expect to see government ministers, one after the other, leaping to their feet to discuss the issues that surround these matters. However, their thundering silence on this issue behoves a thinking which, in my opinion, is much more sinister than the member for Macdonnell would have us believe.
I am not sure what the member for Macdonnell has seen, but if the government was interested in trying to win over this House, it would be a matter of courtesy that things like legal opinions would be tabled in this place so all members could read them. They have not, they have been withheld. We have not seen this legal opinion. Why not? Because government has decided to deal with this issue as a numbers game, so it withholds information. This is contrary to the philosophical approach one would expect from a government which was genuinely interested in dealing with these issues.
I am concerned about this legislation, and I am concerned about the fraud that is being perpetrated through the bill which is in this House at the moment. Let us …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am concerned about the use of the word ‘fraud’ by the member, and I ask you to rule on that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I would ask you to re-word, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘fraud’. I am sorry they are offended by the word ‘fraud’; perhaps deceit would be better. … the deceit which is being perpetrated on the people of the Northern Territory.
The first thing I remind honourable members about this particular bill is it does intend to take away powers from the Ombudsman. It is worthwhile and useful to pause for a moment to consider who the Ombudsman is. The Ombudsman is an officer of this parliament. She does not work for the government; she does not work for anyone else but this parliament. Her function is quite simple. Her function is to review how government, or the executive arm of government, does its job. She does so thoroughly, relentlessly, and comprehensively. In her pursuit of those ideals, she has, on repeated occasions, been critical of this government and its capacity to deliver services within the boundaries of the legislation described - legislation passed by this House. It is for that reason she is an officer of this parliament and not an organ of the executive arm of government.
The Children’s Commissioner, whilst government claims to be independent, is attached to the executive arm of government. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed this minister thinks both the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman are incapable of communicating with each other.
The reason the powers of investigation are being withdrawn from the Ombudsman is because this government is sick of critical reports. So, rather than deal with the issues she raises, they seek to strip her powers.
Is she currently investigating child protection in the Northern Territory? Yes, she is. And she is due to report in the not-so-distant future. The minister says she will be able to complete that report. On her reading of the legislation, she says, no, she will not be able to complete that report ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. If the Solicitor-General has that view, and you want to convince us of it before the debate in this House, show us the Solicitor-General’s view - weeks, days, months before the Health Minister came into this House and said: ‘Well, the Solicitor-General has a different view’.
If he wants our support for these bills, walk across the floor of this House, figuratively speaking, come and speak to the shadow minister and, then, make those bills available. But, you do not do that. What the minister does is selectively deal with this as a political issue. That is at the core of this legislative instrument: it is about making this a political issue.
I heard the interjection from the minister: ‘The Children's Commissioner does not answer through government; it answers to the House’, will be his allegation. I remember when the government was in opposition it had great problems with the Electoral Commission being attached to the Department of the Chief Minister, and it used to whinge about it endlessly. Indeed, it actually made the Electoral Commission an independent statutory authority after coming to government because of its deep concerns about the relationship between government and these independent authorities. But, no such rule for the Children's Commissioner.
Let us examine what we are talking about. Let us put this into context for a second. Not only the Ombudsman, but also the Coroner, has dealt with issues relating to the failures of this government dealing with child protection issues - repeated ongoing failures. I remind honourable members of the Coroner’s investigation into a young girl by the name of Deborah Melville. The reason I mention this – I will prefix my comments – is to remind honourable members how serious this stuff is.
Deborah Melville was a 13- or 14-year-old girl who was in the care of this minister – or one of this government’s ministers; they have had so many for child protection ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I will actually pick up on that interjection. This is also part of the problem I have with this government. The CEO’s care was an amendment made to the act not that long ago because the minister no longer wanted to be responsible. It wanted to wash its hands because, once again, it did not want to be responsible. This government does not want to be responsible and, like Pontius Pilate, it washes its hands and takes no responsibility: ‘It is under the CEO’s care’.
When Deborah Melville was in care, I think it was before the change of the act. In any instance, who does the CEO answer to, minister? You? Or are they some sort of vigilante health organisation that run independently of your government? Because that is the argument you are proposing with that facile dodge of the facts.
Deborah Melville died under the care of this government. She died in a back yard after having been visited by workers who were overworked, underpaid, and under-supported by this government. She died as a result of an infection in her femur and thigh which, on autopsy, discovered had as much as a litre-and-a-half of pus in it. That is what we are talking about. That is how serious these issues are. Yet, the government deals with it as a political issue. It says we have to work together, but it withholds Solicitor-General’s advices, it withholds information and, now, it starts to attack the very bodies which have investigated them in the past.
This is an attack on the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory. To suggest …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you mind if I acknowledge these students please?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alice Springs Steiner School students, Year 6, together with teachers, Ms Stowe and Ms Yffer. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, to suggest otherwise would be errant and wrong. The justification for this change is that by some magical principle the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, who is a qualified and practising lawyer, cannot talk to Dr Howard Bath, a man of eminent repute, and organise between themselves the order in which they choose to investigate matters. It would go something like this: ring, ring, ring, ring, ‘Hello, Howard, this is Carolyn’. ‘Hello, Carolyn, what can I do for you?’ ‘I have a complaint about a particular issue. Can I have a meeting?’ That is how difficult it would be, and that is how difficult it is to deal with these issues. However, the government would paint a picture that somehow Dr Bath and Ms Richards would be incapable of coming to an arrangement by the fact the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner both have the power to investigate roughly the same area of government performance. Arrant nonsense!
The real reason the government is trying to cut the Ombudsman’s throat is simple: what the Northern Territory government is trying to do is silence somebody who has, on repeated occasions, found flaws with this government’s capacity to perform.
Eight hundred cows died at Mataranka cattle station, the Ombudsman investigated and was critical of government. So, what does this government do? It attacks the Ombudsman; shoots the messenger. That is exactly what is proposed in this legislative instrument. It is a furphy to suggest two intelligent, capable, educated, qualified people could not determine a hierarchy between them in relation to the investigations they have.
This is not a transfer of powers; this is an attempt to silence an Ombudsman who has had the courage to challenge this government. When Sue Mansfield challenged this government she was attacked and criticised inside the Health department because of the political nature of this government and the way it affects Northern Territory public servants. Nanette Rogers had the same experience when she had the courage to call it for what it was.
The child protection area, at the moment, is buried under a mountain of fear caused by political interference and an attempt to deal with the message and not the issue. This is about dealing with the message and not the issue.
To reinforce this opinion, I quote from the minister’s own second reading speech. It is a lengthy quote:
The government stressed ‘may’ and the reason is because government does not want to do that. Government thinks Dr Bath, eminently qualified person that he is, cannot really get his head around staffing issues whilst keeping an eye on the other bouncing ball he is responsible for. Nonsense! It is about retaining control of the processes as much as possible and restricting power to government.
I further quote:
There we have the government setting up its own committee to investigate how the implementation is going. Does Dr Bath get the right to investigate how the implementation is going? No, Dr Bath is not given that right, he can only hear submissions. In essence, Dr Bath, the Children’s Commissioner who has these investigative powers, has to sit in his office in regard to the implementation of the board of inquiry’s recommendations and, if someone shoves something under his door or into his in-tray, he can have a look at it. However, he cannot generate that himself. We see the tight stranglehold of the executive reaching that little further into the processes of the idea of having to protect children. That is what makes this bill so reprehensible.
I do not know what the member for Macdonnell has been told, but we are being sold a pup. We are being asked to believe this is all sweetness and light. The government’s desperation on this issue goes one step further. In response to a question to the Health Minister in this House, we were told the Ombudsman ‘supported these changes’. No, she did not. What she said to the minister was changing the powers was his prerogative, which means he has the power to pursue these things with the support of the majority of members in this place. The majority of the members in this place? No wonder they are having little backroom chats with the Independents, because they know we would be …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We would be critical of this particular issue. Yes, I am smiling because this is the Independent …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, if you have a point of order you may go to the lectern but, otherwise, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well may the member for Nelson be sensitive to these comments. I am not at all surprised. He is the man who enables this government, with this awful track record, to stay in power. He is the man who has struck a deal that ensures even the Labor Party does not have the capacity to remove the current Chief Minister, no matter how bad and incompetent he is. This man who feigns a care about responsibility – no that is unfair, and I withdraw that. This member, who says he cares about so many matters in the Northern Territory and, then, keeps saying in this House all of the things government has to do without actually taking on any of that responsibility for himself by becoming a minister of the Crown, loses credibility in that process.
I digress. Getting back to the issue, the Ombudsman will have her powers removed. There is a motion on the Notice Paper dealing with the way this minister dealt with the Ombudsman’s integrity. He verballed her in this House. He said she said something she did not say, in defence of his deceitful representation of this legislative instrument.
I know the member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Child Protection, has amendments to push through this House. If those amendments do not succeed, we will oppose this bill because it is about managing the message rather than managing the issue. This bill is about making sure and certain the Labor government does not look bad. This bill is about silencing critics and criticism. This bill is about taking away from the people of the Northern Territory the transparency they were promised by this government. I will not abide or stand by and watch this government pursue these ends. Whilst they might try to bury their message in these sesquipedalian second reading speeches, as far as I am concerned they have betrayed the people of the Northern Territory by attacking a person who has had the courage to stand up.
The casualty list is growing: Nanette Rogers, Susan Mansfield, now Carolyn Richards. Who is next? Who is the next person in the crosshairs of this government who has the audacity to challenge it or stand in its way? We know how low it can go; we witness it every day.
Madam Speaker, I plead with this government to make good on its promise to openly deal with these issues in a cooperative fashion. I see no evidence of it. To the contrary, I see evidence of these matters being avoided. If you continue, as a government, to engage in conduct which is to deal with message and perception rather than the reality, you will lose the faith of the people of the Northern Territory but, much more importantly, there will be more Deborah Melvilles. That is what is at stake here. I will not place my name against legislation which is designed to make things look good rather than the real issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I note it is 11.50 am. We will break at 12 o’clock, but you can continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important bill. I believe we have to keep this debate to the essence of what we are trying to do; that is, to protect children. Naturally, there are some other agendas in this which, I believe, need to be touched on. My approach is, and has been, in relation to this bill what I call a commonsense approach.
The Growing them strong, together report had a number of recommendations, and the legislation before us today intends to put those recommendations into legislation. I have had a number of discussions with the Children’s Commissioner, and also with the Ombudsman. I remind people I was on the committee that actually helped appoint the Ombudsman, and I have a lot of time for the good work the Ombudsman does.
I also make it known I have a lot of time for the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Bath. I am a little upset that - it may not be intentional - by saying because Commissioner Bath will take over the - actually, I will put it the other way. Because the Ombudsman will lose some of her power because the commissioner will take over some of her power, Dr Bath will not stand up here and tell us what is wrong with the system. That is a really important point. People are actually challenging Dr Bath’s independence and efficacy, and that is a danger. Both people, I believe, will do a very good job. The Ombudsman has done a very good job and, from all the contact I have had with him, I believe Dr Bath will do the same. It is an unfair sleight on Dr Bath to say, just because he is taking over from the Ombudsman, he will not be as good as the Ombudsman. That is wrong.
I have had a number of good discussions with Dr Bath, and I have had quite a bit of correspondence - briefings, you might say. From those briefings, I know Dr Bath is generally happy with the changes. There are some issues, and we can go and argue the case over a number of the concerns he has, but what will that do? Will that help protect the children? We need to bring this legislation through now and, if there are things to be debated later on, the minister has said, I think in his second reading, we will bring those things up at a later date. I certainly will be raising those things at a later date.
Dr Bath has told me he has some concerns about some issues. One of those, for instance, was in relation to the commissioner’s functions and powers. He was concerned he will not be directly monitoring the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report because the government said that is why it has set up this new committee. I say to the member for Araluen - and by the way, member for Araluen, in no way do I try to diminish your concern, but we are allowed to have a different opinion - I have met Dr Vimpani, a very impressive person, who would in no way like to hear you say he was not independent. Nor would the people in that group say they are not independent. I say they are fully independent. Their job, of course, will be to monitor whether the government is doing its job.
I should say the concern the commissioner has is those sorts of committees will come and go over the next three and five years; people will come and people will go, but the commissioner will stay. I am asking the government - not today but maybe this is something which can be discussed at another time - to see whether the role of the commissioner should be expanded to cover the area of the recommendations of Growing them strong, together. It is something Dr Bath said and it should be taken into account. Be that as it may, we could get stuck on that. What we really want to do is get the powers of the Children’s Commissioner up there and get this rolling.
The other bit of what I call commonsense is: why would you have two statutory authorities looking at the same issue? You do not do it with other matters. If you have some interaction between the two, you would expect the two of them to sit down and, as Dr Bath has written - I do not have it in front of me - you would imagine there would be some form of understanding between the two. Whether that is in the form of a memorandum of understanding or just a matter of picking up the phone, you would hope both the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner, who both have children’s welfare at heart, would simply work out a way of overcoming any difficulties which might occur where their powers overlap. If I was looking at this in the cold, hard light of day, why would you have two people with the same powers doing the same job?
The Ombudsman can still look at the way the department functions, will still have power in relation to matters of the police, but we have now given the commissioner all those functions the Ombudsman had in relation to the welfare of children. The government has given him extra funding; why would you want to actually repeat that? I am saying that not from a political point of view; commonsense tells me you would not do it otherwise you get accused of duplication normally. So why go down that path?
The Children’s Commissioner has spoken about the definition of vulnerable children. We had an e-mail from him, and he said he was assured the additional point - he had some concerns about aspects of the definition - would be included in the text or by specific reference in the regulations referred to in proposed new section 258(2)(f). I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
Madam Speaker, I have tried to do a lot of work in relation to the concerns the member for Araluen has put forward. I say congratulations and thank you for bringing those forward. We have read them. Some of what the member for Araluen has put forward is based on the notion that the Children’s Commissioner is not independent. Regardless of what people have said today, I have briefings. I have briefings on just about every bill. I try to take nearly every piece of legislation seriously. I had briefings on the port yesterday; I had briefings on the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Briefings on this particular bill have been no different except this is a fairly serious matter and I want to ensure I am thoroughly across all the matters.
I cannot help it, member for Araluen - believe it or not, I am not in charge of briefings. It is part of my standard work. I try to get briefings where I need to get them. So, I received an e-mail following some discussions at a briefing where we needed things clarified. Some were in relation to the issues you have raised. When it came to the section on independence - and I am quoting from the advice in the e-mail from the Solicitor-General:
In light of what the Solicitor-General has said, it makes it quite clear you have to refer to section 262 of the existing act:
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, unfortunately, it is 12 o’clock. Do you want to round up?
Mr WOOD: I have a few more things to say which will go longer than one minute.
Madam SPEAKER: So, we will return at 2 pm.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Gillen Primary School students from Year 5/6 Wood, together with teacher, Ms Paula Wood, and ISAs, Mr Tully Lowson, Talisha Kerin, Ms Marlene Coombe, and their AIEW, Mr Robert Clair. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a few more things I would like to add. I have gone through the member for Araluen’s amendments and, as much as I understand why she has put them forward, I do not criticise her in the slightest. I am always a little worried that sometimes, as happens in parliament, we have legislation that perhaps is not required. It is not good to duplicate things. Both the amendments the member is putting forward are covered by section 260 - I will read those out - and also taking into account I believe the commissioner is independent, not only from the Solicitor-General’s advice, but also from what is written in the existing act. However, under the new amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act in clause 8, section 260, Commissioner’s Functions and Powers:
1. The following are the Commissioner’s functions:
That is a far-reaching clause which would easily satisfy the matters raised by the member for Araluen. I am not diminishing the concerns of the member; however, my understanding is that would cover the issues raised. The commissioner has the own motion powers the government promised it would bring in, and that is clearly stated in section 260.
The other issue which has been discussed is the Ombudsman’s report she is doing at the present time. Again, I have tried to use a little common sense because it is obvious the Ombudsman is doing a report and, having spoken to her, she said the report keeps raising some new areas of investigation she would like to continue. I understand that; it is a fair comment. There must be some time when there has to be a break. The important thing in this debate is to get it going.
The member for Araluen talked about a number of recommendations which have to be done in the first six months. On one hand, you are saying government is rushing it, on the other hand you are saying it has to be done. I am saying we have to get it done. These amendments will bring the Children's Commissioner into the new scope the Growing them strong, together report mentioned. The government has to decide a time to implement this law. From my briefing, I will read the response to this from the Solicitor-General:
The government eventually has to set a time to introduce this as law, or it becomes law, and it would not matter what the date is; this could occur at any time.
The Ombudsman may not have been doing a report. The government might have said: ‘We are going to pass the powers relating to the welfare of children over to a Children’s Commissioner’. There will always be a period where there is going to be a crossover where one person takes over the reins from another person.
My understanding is the Ombudsman will write a report. I imagine, in that report, as part of the conclusions she would say – and I am not putting words in her mouth here, but I imagine if there are matters to be investigated, those matters to be investigated would be written into the report. Obviously, if those matters have not been sorted out, I regard them as ongoing investigations.
Once again, knowing Dr Bath is very ethical and a very committed person to matters of child protection, I have no doubt, if he saw a report - and, again, I am not going to put words in his mouth - he would seriously look at any matters the Ombudsman had raised, bearing in mind the commissioner has the powers in section 260 I just mentioned. I believe, as I said earlier, Dr Bath is just as capable as anyone of investigating, independently and fearlessly, any matters that relate to vulnerable children in the Northern Territory.
I have every confidence - regardless of whether the Ombudsman’s report has come to an end - from speaking to the Ombudsman there are matters that still need to be investigated. My personal feeling is Dr Bath would be quite capable of following up those investigations. That is entirely his business, not mine. I am just saying that Dr Bath can do that sort of work just as capably as anyone else.
Just a couple of little issues the member for Araluen spoke about. There is no doubt, member for Araluen, your predecessor had done an enormous amount of work helping to drive where we are today. Occasionally, the previous member and I had a difference of opinion, but there is no doubt she did an enormous amount of great work. She has led the way in this parliament in raising the issues of child protection; there is no doubt about that. From my view, I do not have that knowledge; I do not deal in that area. I might be able to tell you about planning and things like that which might be important to me, but child protection is more important than that. I have learnt a great deal from the debate that has occurred in this parliament.
In relation to the origin of this Growing them strong, together report, I need to put on the record the previous member for Araluen put pressure on the government to introduce something. The minister, at that time, decided to have an inquiry into the way people enter into the system. It was a relatively minor inquiry.
I was driving through northern New South Wales looking at prisons in late 2009, and I received a phone call from Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN and I was discussing this particular issue. Should I support this? Originally, I thought the new inquiry was good. I stepped off a plane from Timor with Madam Speaker and a parliamentary entourage that had been over there to talk to the East Timorese government, and I was asked about this inquiry. I said, yes, it sounded okay. Anyway, obviously, I did not know what I was talking about. That is the danger sometimes when someone puts a microphone in front of you and you say something and, sometimes, you do not have the information.
Lesley Taylor rang me and said: ‘This is not good enough’. She told me the inquiry had to be far bigger than the minister at the time said; it had to be total. I contacted the AMA as well, on her recommendation, and they said exactly the same thing. There were two driving forces behind the actual implementation of the inquiry which has been completed. I am not, in any way, diminishing the role the previous member for Araluen had in making the government get off its backside and do something. However, that is where it came from. There were discussions and I was a mediator - that is all I was - discussing matters with Lesley Taylor who represents NAPCAN - a very good person who has a great deal of knowledge about child protection and has been in the business for a long time - and AMA, of course, which was very concerned as well. That information all went back to the then minister, who decided to have a full inquiry. My hat is off to the previous member for Araluen, as well as Lesley Taylor and the AMA. I believe they certainly made the government get its act together.
I cannot recall the time, it may have been the same time I was travelling, the Ombudsman rang me. I do not have any written record, and I am only going from recollection, but she had a concern about the government setting up an inquiry. I believe her concern was whether it was trying to compete with the Ombudsman. However, I did not see it that way because it had come from two independent sources - NAPCAN and AMA. She has every right to do her own report. I gave her what I felt was the advice I thought was right; that she had every right to do her own report. I did not believe the government was actually doing this to upset her at all, because the origins of the report were from NAPCAN and AMA, organisations which had nothing to do with any of the politics around the place. They were two respectable groups that had a real concern something had to be done. I believe it is more coincidental; I do not believe there was anything sinister in it. It just happened that way, and I do not believe, in the end, it made much difference.
So, the Ombudsman is doing, and has been doing, her report for quite some time. I imagine we will see the results of that report. As you know, we have the Growing them strong, together report which is a result of the minister asking for a much larger, widespread inquiry.
I believe it is important we debate this. It is important we ask questions about the government. However, I believe the key is we need to do this quickly. It has been out for some time for discussion, and I am unsure about the intricacies of why the CLP did not get a briefing from the government - that is not my area. All I know is I have had a number of briefings. I have spoken to various people – commissioner Bath and the Ombudsman – and thought about it a great deal. I believe the bottom line is we can argue the toss over certain things, but why not accept these amendments to the bill? Let us get the commissioner going with what he should be doing.
Let us move ahead to try to protect children. If we have problems with this - I am sure everyone here will get reports sooner or later - I am sure commissioner Bath will come back and say: ‘Hey, government, you promised various things here’. All of us have a duty to see whether this particular amendment is working as it should be, whether the commissioner is doing his job, and if children are being protected.
Madam Speaker, I will support the amendments, but I will be keeping an eye on some of those concerns the commissioner has raised. I will be asking the government to at least review, without waiting a long time, some of the issues the commissioner has spoken about. If it needs to come back to this parliament to be amended, that is exactly what should happen. We do it for the kids of the Northern Territory. Let us get going, otherwise we will stand around here for a month of Sundays arguing the toss. Let us get it done.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I agree totally with the member for Nelson; this is not about government or the opposition, it is about the children of the Northern Territory.
I also profusely thank the members for Nelson and Macdonnell for their comments today. Neither member did backroom deals; they simply asked for a briefing and received a detailed briefing, as they have on many other occasions. At that briefing, we explained the legislation, what amendments we would introduce, and why we introduced our amendments. In addition, we provided information about the legal opinions we obtained regarding several sections of the legislation, and also with regard to the ability of the Ombudsman to complete the current investigation, and about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner.
I say to the member for Macdonnell, who raised issues in relation to community education and promoting the protection of children in remote communities, that in response to the board of inquiry report the government is establishing community child safety and wellbeing teams across remote communities in the Northern Territory. These teams will include important community workers such as the remote Aboriginal community workers and Safe Place staff in working together to protect children and promote child safety and wellbeing in their communities. As part of the roll-out of these teams, the department will be working with communities to develop community education around child protection. The most important thing is for people to realise safety of the children is paramount.
We are not only talking about communities; we are talking about urban communities and mainstream communities too, because it is not only Indigenous children who are sexually or physically abused. They are children who live next door to us, in downtown Darwin and in downtown Katherine.
I remain committed to do anything possible in my capacity to protect children in the Territory. I come from a culture where children are paramount. In my culture, the role of the parent is to bring up the child, look after the child, educate the child and, of course, have a functional family. I was born into this culture. I will carry it for the rest of my life and will die with these beliefs. Being a minister with responsibility for child safety puts an added weight on my shoulders. I will do anything in my ability and my capacity to ensure children in the Territory are, and will, remain safe.
Yes, we have some very terrible examples; we have had Coronial inquiries. I have said before and I will say it again: I cannot understand how a person who is fully trained cannot realise a child is very sick, will not even report or seek some medical advice, and that child ends up dying. It does not matter whether they are under the care of the minister, the CEO, or anyone; children have to be safe. We have a responsibility for children to be safe.
I am disappointed. I came here and sought bipartisan support, and today, what do we see? Playing politics, to put it bluntly. Not because the members of the opposition do not want children to be safe or do not believe in the safety of children, but because they see it as a very good opportunity to attack the government.
Some will think the Territory was a utopia and everything changed on 19 August 2001 when the Labor Party came to government. A system like the child protection system does not fall over overnight. It does not get destroyed in five years. We are talking about a system which has been in crisis for the past 37 years. Of course, it would have been in crisis when the government of the day allocated only $7.8m for child protection, when the number of people working in child protection was only 100, and the only thing they cared about was people in urban communities, not in remote communities.
Yesterday, I was very disappointed to listen to the member for Fong Lim who questioned me about how we are going to create another system for black kids, different from the white kids. That is the same as they, to their credit, created an Indigenous-controlled medical service. Yes, there are two systems in the Territory. There is a mainstream Health department, and then a number of Indigenous-controlled medical services like Danila Dilba, Wurli Wurlinjang, Miwatj, and others. They work together for the benefit of Territorians, black or white. This is our intention: to create a system that will look after Indigenous kids, especially in the communities. The reality is for people who come from somewhere else in the Territory, it is like going to another planet. They do not have the cultural knowledge or the cultural relations, and the best people to deal with children is us, ourselves, the community. So, who is the best person to deal with a child welfare issue in Yuendumu? The people of Yuendumu. Who is the best person to deal with a child in Darwin? The community in Darwin. The same for the community in Alice Springs.
What is disappointing is the attack on the credibility of the Children’s Commissioner. I thought it was absolutely pathetic that they said the Ombudsman is the only one to investigate kids because that is the only independent, credible person, and Dr Howard Bath is not. That is absolutely untrue. There is no conspiracy to take the part of the Ombudsman and give it to a person who is going to do what the government wants.
The reality is I have had many robust discussions with Dr Howard Bath - we have differences of opinion. Government sought his advice on these amendments. It adopted many of his recommendations, some it did not. However, we decided to work together and, as the legislation comes into force, we will see where the shortcomings are and look at them again.
I was also very disappointed to hear the spokesperson from the opposition quote from The Australian newspaper of 8 February 2010 that the inquiry was a faade. I would like her to talk to Professor Muriel Bamblett, Dr Roseby and Dr Howard Bath and tell them she believes their inquiry was a faade; it was not a real inquiry. It was the greatest inquiry into child protection in the Northern Territory ever - 147 recommendations. Yes, the government will accept them because they are very important recommendations. It is the government’s obligation and responsibility to ensure these recommendations are adopted, are put into place, in order for child services to be improved, and children in the Northern Territory to be safe.
The member for Araluen, the spokesperson, said we rushed this legislation into parliament. She forgot that just after the board of inquiry tabled the recommendations - within a month or two - she was bringing her own legislation into parliament. Talk about rushing! I do not think it was the government.
She also claimed the high risk audit report done by Dr Howard Bath was hidden away; the government would not display the audit because there was something secret there. If she visited the website of the department, she would find the executive summary of the audit and the recommendations. I have stated, in parliament and publicly, progress with regard to the recommendations of the high risk audit.
The member also raised the issue of we are not going to report. Well, I stated in parliament that the first report would be released in April 2011, six months after the release of the board of inquiry report, and there would be regular reporting.
Then, we had the member for Port Darwin, who will not let the truth ruin a good story. Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin gave you a letter asking me to be referred to the Privileges Committee. Before parliament even decided, he issued a media release saying I had been referred to the Privileges Committee. He was forced to withdraw that letter to you and move a motion for the next General Business Day for me to be referred to the Privileges Committee because, somehow, I misled parliament.
I have not misled parliament. I consulted with the Ombudsman on 4 February, 24 February and 7 March, and we discussed issues of the proposed legislation. I advised the Ombudsman what the government intended to do. I told her government was going to put all the investigation of vulnerable children to the Children’s Commissioner, and she agreed with that. I will not say that myself; I will let her respond to that because, in front of me, I have a transcript of an interview the Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards, gave to Julia Christensen on 16 March 2011. Julia Christensen asked the Ombudsman directly and I quote:
The government advised the Ombudsman it was going to give this authority to the Children’s Commissioner, and the Ombudsman said it was a good idea to have one agency dealing with the issues of child protection and investigation of complaints. She agreed with the government’s position. When I spoke to her about the Children’s Commissioner having this responsibility she said: ‘It is the government’s prerogative who is going to be this authority; it is not for me to say’. She agreed it was a good idea for one agency to deal with these issues. That was the proposal of the government. If she agreed with the proposal of the government, there is no disagreement there ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin quite frequently jumps and down, makes noise and usually gets it wrong, as he has done again.
Let us discuss gagging the Ombudsman. When the Ombudsman spoke to me and expressed some concerns about her belief that because we introduced legislation into parliament she would not be able to continue her investigation, I told her I would seek legal advice. She also expressed some concerns about her ability to talk to the commissioner about the issues regarding vulnerable children. Again, I told her I would seek legal advice and provide her with that advice. She then expressed concern about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner. Once again, I promised to obtain legal advice, which I did.
The member for Port Darwin said: ‘You did not give us the legal advice’. The legal advice will be provided to the shadow minister. The shadow minister actually e-mailed me on 28 March to seek a briefing. We were trying to provide her a briefing. We suggested a number of days to visit here in Alice Springs. Unfortunately, she could not make it, so she did not receive a briefing. Hence, she did not receive the legal advice. The members for Macdonnell and Nelson actually asked for a briefing, and they received a copy of the advice.
Let us go back to the claim about gagging the Ombudsman. In the legal opinion we received from the Solicitor-General - a real solicitor, a real, practising lawyer - it said:
I asked the Ombudsman when she will finish the investigation. She could not give me a date. I told her: ‘I am prepared to initiate the legislation on 1 July if that is sufficient time for you to complete the investigation’. So, she can investigate; she can continue her investigation. However, she cannot continue all the time; the legislation has to commence somewhere.
Regarding the Ombudsman’s concern about being able to discuss issues with the Children’s Commissioner, the legal advice we received is she can actually confer with the Children’s Commissioner in relation to a complex matter, different aspects of which might enlighten the jurisdictions of each of those officers. That means if there is a complex matter that contains elements the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman can investigate, they can sit down and talk about it; even develop a memorandum of understanding and work together.
Finally, Madam Speaker, is the Children’s Commissioner independent or does he come under the jurisdiction of the CEO of the Health department? Well, a practising lawyer - a lawyer who has a degree and has practised widely - the Solicitor-General, said:
That means it does not matter what the duty statement says, the commissioner is independent and supported by legislation, and nothing else counts.
I know the member for Port Darwin did not have the opportunity to have this legal opinion. I am happy to table the letter that was sent to the Ombudsman with the legal opinions, so he can have a copy. My argument, member for Araluen, is next time you seek legal advice I suggest Jodeen Carney would be the person to seek legal advice from, not the member for Port Darwin.
The other thing I question the opposition about is its own will to support this legislation. I received proposed amendments by the member at 9.58 am this morning. I have no idea what it says; I have not had the opportunity to go through and have a look and ask my department to interrogate it. I wonder has she provided these amendments to the Independent members so they can support it or not? I have to tell you I am unable to accept these amendments, delivered to me two minutes before parliament commenced to discuss this legislation. I will not accept these amendments for the simple reason I had no time to interrogate them. I have not had enough time to receive legal advice. I question whether the opposition really wants to support the legislation and, with its position at this stage, whether it would play any constructive role in child protection in the Territory.
The amendments we put in place give the commissioner broad powers to deal with matters relating to the board of inquiry’s recommendations where they relate to the wellbeing of a vulnerable child. These amendments expand the role of the commissioner in a manner entirely consistent with his overarching responsibility; that of safeguarding the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
We have different people looking after different elements and aspects of government. We have the Ombudsman who can check the government, and can take the government to task. We have the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Until recently, the position was held by the Ombudsman. She decided she did not want to do that as she could perceive a conflict of interest. So, now, we have a different Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner.
Also, the Children’s Commissioner, we believe, is the most appropriate person to deal with issues affecting the provision of services to vulnerable children. A vulnerable child is any child who has been reported to our system, any child who comes to the attention of our system, any child we believe, and is reported, is in danger.
The other matter about the Ombudsman is the amendments will remove the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to vulnerable children. She still can investigate other aspects with regard to the police, other administrative matters - any matters that do not relate to vulnerable children. It is a clear definition of demarcation. We have the Ombudsman controlling and examining every other aspect of government services provided to children, but the vulnerable children will be examined, assessed, and interrogated by the person with the expertise. We believe that expert is the Children’s Commissioner.
Madam Speaker, I point out, for the benefit of the members, there is a minor typographical error in clause 9. The reference to section 269 in paragraph (a) should be a reference to section 260, and that will be correct in the final version.
It is important this legislation passes today. I am the first to say it is not perfect legislation; it is actually very broad legislation. As we discussed with the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman, if there is a requirement for further amendments, if we find out there is a conflict between different legislation in the Northern Territory or we can improve the legislation, I will be quite happy to bring forward to parliament amendments as soon as the shortcoming are identified.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to a group of students from Year 7 of the Centralian Middle School with their teachers, Mr Wellington Pasi, Ms Birkenhead and Ms Ashley Casey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2011 (Serial 147), together with Schedule of Amendments No 58 circulated by the member for Araluen, Mrs Lambley.
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 58.1.
I preface this amendment by saying the role of the Children’s Commissioner is highly valued by the opposition. The member for Nelson seemed to think we were, in some way, attempting to diminish the credibility of the Children’s Commissioner, and this is far from the truth. We have a great deal of respect for Howard Bath and the role of the Children’s Commissioner. I have met with him several times now, had a few telephone calls with him, and I understand he is a man of great ability, highly competent, and I am not questioning his role or ability to execute his position.
This amendment amends the objects of Part 5.1 to enable my proposed amendment to the commissioner’s functions. This, and the following amendment to section 260, is to accommodate the explicit request made by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in their submission to the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, in the report called Growing them strong, together.
The request made by the office was to enable the commissioner to monitor the implementation of government decisions arising from inquiries commissioned under the Inquiries Act relating to child protection or child welfare issues. This includes the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Little Children are Sacred report, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, Growing them strong, together report, and any future inquiries.
This amendment will also expand the commissioner’s monitoring role to reports and judicial recommendations relating to child protection or welfare matters the commissioner considers relevant. This would enable the commissioner to monitor the government’s response to Coronial inquests. Section 25 of the Coroners Act allows the Coroner to make a report or recommendations to the Attorney-General about a death being investigated by the Coroner. If that report contains comments relating to a agency, section 46A requires the Attorney-General to immediately forward the report or recommendations to the agency. As required by section 46B, the CEO of the agency must respond to the report or recommendations within three months, including what action the agency is taking, or will take, regarding the report or recommendations. The Attorney-General must respond to the agency’s actions and table a report in the Legislative Assembly containing both responses.
This was the process followed in the inquest into the death of Deborah Melville-Lothian in 2009 with the Coroner making no less than 14 recommendations to correct failures within the Care and Protection of Children Act and the process of the Department of Children and Families. This was provided to the Attorney-General and, in due course, tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 28 July 2010.
That is, basically, where we are coming from in the amendment to the objects of Part 5.1; to allow the Children's Commissioner to have a greater role in monitoring the implementation of the reports under the Inquiries Act.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the government’s amendments give the commissioner broad powers to deal with matters relating to the board of inquiry recommendations where they are related to the wellbeing of a vulnerable child. I remind the House these changes are the result of the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection ever undertaken in the Northern Territory. These amendments expand the role of the commissioner in a manner entirely consistent with his overarching responsibility, that of safeguarding the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
No one can argue the Children's Commissioner is best placed to investigate matters relating to vulnerable children. A similar situation occurs in relation to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission. Experts in their particular field are appointed to investigate complaints. The government has established an independent external monitoring and reporting committee, separate to the commissioner, to oversee implementation of the government’s response to the board of inquiry. That committee is chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani, and consists of child protection and family services experts from across Australia. The amendments require the Children's Commissioner to report issues related to the board of inquiry to the minister who will, in turn, report these issues and provide copies of relevant submissions to the external monitoring and reporting committee. The Children's Commissioner has been consulted extensively on this and all aspects of the amendments. The Children's Commissioner recognises the expertise of the members of the external monitoring and reporting committee, and has met with Professor Vimpani.
In relation to any further inquiries, these can be appropriately dealt with at the time. It should be remembered these amendments give the Children's Commissioner an own motion investigation power and the power to monitor implementation of recommendations arising from this investigation. So, he has the power to investigate on his own motion. He does not need a referral; he can do it on his own volition. The own motion power would allow the Children's Commissioner to pick up, investigate and monitor a relevant finding or recommendation relating to vulnerable children arising from a Coronial or any other inquiry. It should also be remembered that the Children's Commissioner chairs the Child Death Review Committee, membership of which includes the Deputy Coroner.
We put this recommendation into this act. I also remind the member opposite it was this government which established the first ever Children's Commissioner, an independent statutory body to oversee and examine issues regarding children. We expanded this with a better definition of what a vulnerable child is, and also provided an own motion power.
The government will not support the opposition’s amendment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We understand the monitoring committee appointed to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report consists of people with much experience in the area. We have no question at all about the credibility or capability of this committee. We are here to talk about the role of the Children’s Commissioner. Recommendation 136 made it very clear it was the desire of the authors of that report that the Children’s Commissioner should be given the capacity to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report and not be limited by the current limitation on the Children’s Commissioner; that he only investigate matters relating to services to vulnerable children.
The opposition believes the Children’s Commissioner should be given a free rein to monitor the Growing them strong, together report. Let us not forget Dr Howard Bath was one of the authors of this report; he was on the board of inquiry and is a man of great knowledge in this area. He is more than equipped to provide unlimited monitoring of the implementation of this report. Why do you want to limit in any way his capacity to monitor the implementation of this report? This is what we do not understand. We believe the Children’s Commissioner is available, he is equipped, and there is an opportunity for this government to allow the Children’s Commissioner to be unimpeded in how he monitors the implementation of this report.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have broadened the powers of the commissioner more than anywhere else. Before, the act referred to protected children, now we are talking about vulnerable children, which includes children who have been arrested or on bail, children in juvenile detention or under juvenile correction orders, children with a disability, children in relation to whom an order is made under the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, and children who have left the care of the Chief Executive.
We have acted very quickly. We had to introduce legislation within six months, which we have done. We have not rushed it; we have thought carefully about this legislation before introducing it.
For the Children’s Commissioner to investigate any child in the Northern Territory, think about the implication on his role, and about the floodgates that would be opened if the commissioner investigated any child in the Territory without giving any reason for a report. He could investigate the member for Arafura’s child without any reason; perhaps investigate the member for Johnston’s daughter without any reason. There has to be a reason, and that reason is the child is vulnerable. There is a clear definition about the vulnerable child. It would be not only impractical, it would be impossible for the commissioner to undertake this big role.
Let us face it, not all children in the Territory are abused, not all children are in danger. A number of children in the Territory are in danger and services are provided. We have expanded his authority; we have given him more power. He has his own motion investigation power now and can investigate kids who come to our attention, who are considered to be vulnerable, or who receive services.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The opposition has never, at any point, suggested the Children’s Commissioner be allowed to investigate complaints regarding all children. We have never stated that. It would be a very difficult task and would be untenable for the Children’s Commissioner to do that. We do not disagree with you there, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: Good.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Why do you not want the Children’s Commissioner to have open and free ability to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do not have a problem with him implementing it. As a matter of fact, the commissioner met with Dr Vimpani. The other thing is the commissioner was involved in the board of inquiry’s recommendations. Of course, with a person who is so intimately involved with a body of work, people can actually express some concern about what was perceived as a broadminded, independent point of view. We have a group of people from around the Territory and Australia who are very much involved with children’s safety and the protection of children under Dr Vimpani. This committee - independent and at arm’s length from the government - will investigate the progress and will report to parliament through me.
The commissioner has already met with Dr Vimpani, and will continue negotiations with Dr Vimpani and his group. We never stopped him meeting with them; we never stopped talking to them. What we want is an independent body to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. The key word is ‘independent’. They have been involved in the drafting of the recommendations, with the board of inquiry, and they will be out there looking at what is happening from outside and ensuring what is happening is what the board of inquiry has recommended, and that these recommendations become a reality.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Regarding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, I take your point that Dr Bath was on the board of inquiry and he was one of the authors of the Growing them strong, together report. You could argue he is, perhaps, too intimately involved, although I do not accept that as a reason.
My question to you, minister, is: why was Dr Howard Bath or whoever was sitting in the Children’s Commissioner position, not invited to be on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, as I said before, I wanted an independent committee - as independent as possible. I am glad you agree with me that some people could perceive that with Dr Bath being involved in the inquiry he is not totally independent. However, as I said before, no one can doubt the independence of the committee we have put in place.
Coming back to the previous comment by the member for Araluen that you never meant any child, in the bill you brought to parliament late in 2010 you included the words ‘children, including protected children’. So, your original bill actually referred to any child, including protected children. I am glad it was removed in this revised version. As I said before, we insist it will be a totally independent body of experts who will meet and oversee the implementation of the recommendations. We stand by our position that the fully independent body which consists of experts on child protection is the most appropriate body to oversee the implementation of these recommendations - a body which is independent from the government, which will only report to parliament through the minister, and which will not accept, and will never get, instructions from the government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are hearing a great deal of reference to the word ‘independent’. I am hearing that the Children’s Commissioner is ‘independent’. He cannot be on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee because that is an ‘independent’ committee. The Ombudsman seems to be no less or no more ‘independent’ than the Children’s Commissioner.
We have a situation here, minister, which needs to be teased out and defined for the people of the Northern Territory. You are describing degrees of independence which need to be, as I said, defined and clarified. If the monitoring committee is independent and the Children’s Commissioner is independent, why can the Children’s Commissioner not be on the independent monitoring board? You have put yourself in a corner here. I have already described what you have said, so I will not go over it again.
The member for Nelson made some interesting points and, he, too, was talking about degrees of independence. We consider the Children’s Commissioner is, to some degree, independent, but he does not have his own budget, he does not go to estimates, he is answerable within his job description to the CEO of the department. So, there are some limitations around the level of independence he has. Compare him to the Ombudsman who has her own budget, who appears at estimates, and has well-recognised independence, which is more than the Children’s Commissioner.
When you are talking about monitoring these types of inquiries and reports into child protection, it would be in the best interests of the community to have a Children’s Commissioner with a degree of independence monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. Then, you have the Ombudsman who is even more independent. Please, minister, I would like you to clarify what this mishmash of independence is.
Mr VATSKALIS: The only one who is confused about the independence of the commissioner, member for Araluen, is you. I have provided you with clear legal advice - and I suggest you read it before you open your mouth next time - that says the Children’s Commissioner is independent. He is a statutory body appointed by parliament. He is only accountable to the minister, and is appointed by the Administrator.
The fact that there was a duty statement does not mean the Children’s Commissioner is not independent. A duty statement does not preclude the independence of the commissioner because the legal framework that is set to ensure the commissioner is independent is above any duty statement you can read. It is clear and stated in the letter I gave you and I tabled today - that letter I sent to the Ombudsman. I suggest you read it before you start making statements again. The Children’s Commissioner is independent, was independent, and will be independent.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask just one part of that to be repeated. Who is the committee responsible to? I know it is created by the parliament. Who is the committee responsible to?
Mr VATSKALIS: The committee?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr VATSKALIS: Which committee?
Mr ELFERINK: The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee.
Mr VATSKALIS: The committee is not established by the parliament. The committee was established as an outcome of the board of inquiry. The committee is established by the government, and will report to parliament through the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah - will report to parliament through the minister. So, the minister becomes the vetting authority from the reports from this committee. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: No. You have it wrong again, member for Port Darwin. The government has made a statement in parliament that it will report regularly whatever the committee will provide to the minister. I do not think it will be any brave minister not to report to parliament when he made such a comment in parliament regarding when the implementation committee will report.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear that you have made a statement in parliament. If that is your intention, why did you not entrench that in law?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have a situation where we have a board of inquiry providing 147 recommendations. We created a committee to oversee these recommendations. We came to parliament and stated that this committee will report regularly to me. This committee is independent. I made a commitment to parliament that this committee is independent; that this committee will be reporting to parliament. In my eyes, it is equivalent to putting legislation in the book. Again, this committee will have a life span of five years, or even more, in order to oversee the implementation of all the recommendations. You do not need to put legislation for every single committee to actually report to parliament. It is a committee we have for parliament, and it will be such a committee.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘We do not have to put into legislation everything the committee does’. I will quote the minister: ‘The committee reports to me’. What we have is this: the committee reports to the minister; its reporting schedule is not entrenched in any form of law or any legal document. Now, we discover the minister thinks that a mere statement to the House would be a ‘trust me’. The problem is, minister, you also said the Ombudsman supported this legislation, when she did not …
Mr Vatskalis: She did.
Mr ELFERINK: Why …
Mr Vatskalis: It is in black and white, she stated publicly in the media.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: She did not.
Mr Vatskalis: Do not twist the quotes.
Mr ELFERINK: She did not support it, and do not …
Mr Vatskalis: She supported the government’s intention.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: No, what she said was that you could exercise the prerogative. You translated that into something else that suited your needs.
The problem is that when you start verballing people like the Ombudsman and, then, take away their powers, we lose faith and trust in you. That is why we do not support what you are doing here, because what you are doing is merely an attempt to pull the wool over Territorians’ eyes because you are more concerned about the political impact of what is happening in child protection than actually protecting children. That is what we are concerned about. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar on this issue.
Now your flash committee is not entrenched in a legislative instrument as far as its reporting goes, we have to trust your statement that you will faithfully report what they say. Where do they get their funding from, minister? Does it go through your budget?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the member for Port Darwin is notorious for twisting words and verballing people. He will use anything possible that suits his purposes.
The Ombudsman clearly stated in public that she agreed with the government’s decision to have one agency looking after complaints about vulnerable children. It is in black and white; she stated it on the ABC radio on the Julia Christensen program.
I know you do not like it because that does not suit your purpose, but that is exactly what she said. She also said it is the government’s prerogative who that agent will be - her or the commissioner. This government’s choice is it should be the commissioner because he is the expert. In regard to the committee, it has already met and formed a relationship with the Council of Territory Cooperation – of which you are not part - and has also met with the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner. So, that committee, which you doubt so much and you do not like so much, has already formed relationships.
There is also a public statement in parliament that this report will be tabled in April. So, you have the opportunity through the minister - me or whoever is the minister who tables the report - to interrogate the government and attack the government.
I have made my statement, Madam Chair. I am not going to play politics with the member for Port Darwin who thinks he is a QC when he is not. He may have a law degree but he is not a QC. I have made my statement. The government will stand by the arrangements made. We have given another commitment today in parliament that the reports provided by the committee will be tabled in parliament, and we will do so.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, all insults aside …
Mr Vatskalis: Not as good as you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I am always very careful, minister, not to insult people. However, I am always very careful that when I am insulting the minister, I do it carefully. All insults aside and, as much as you want to keep on banging on about me and your infatuation with me and whatever skills I may or may not have …
Mr Vatskalis: Oh, come on!
Mr ELFERINK: This is getting a bit stalky, minister. You know that. You will be starting to go through my rubbish next; it is a bit of a worry.
Let us get back to the issue. By the way, I have no problem with this committee necessarily. What I do have a problem with is that they have to report to you before you bring that information back into parliament. Why do you not just allow the committee to report directly to parliament without reference to you?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I have answered this. I have no intention of going over it again.
Mr ELFERINK: Why will you not allow that committee to report to parliament directly without reference to you in the first instance?
Dr Burns: He answered it.
Mr ELFERINK: Ladies and gentlemen of the Northern Territory, you have your answer from the Territory government.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 58.2. This is a similar line of argument, so I will not push this too hard. The debate is probably played out for the most part. My colleague seems to agree.
It is the same argument. We believe that Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report very clearly recommended that the Children’s Commissioner be allowed to monitor the implementation of any government decision arising from the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System of the Northern Territory, any other inquiry under the Inquires Act relating to child protection or child welfare matters, and any report or judicial recommendation relating to child protection or child welfare matters the commissioner considers relevant.
We are of the strong view - and anyone reading that recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report would have gleaned that was the sentiment of Recommendation 136. We have seen a major crack in the commitment of the government to implement, in full, each and every one of the 147 recommendations of this report; a major fissure in what it has said it will undertake. The public will not be pleased you have now done a backflip and decided you will not allow the Children’s Commissioner to monitor, because of some argument about independence, degrees of independence, or some other gobbledygook that has not been fully explained to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: I invite the minister to answer those issues.
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Araluen said debate has been completed in this area. There is no point going back again.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I would appreciate, as I requested before, an explanation of the degrees of independence you described before. This pertains to the clause 8 amendment we are putting forward. It is the same issue. Could you clarify the degrees of independence?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Araluen, there are no degrees of independence of the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner is independent. He is a statutory body appointed by the Administrator on the recommendation of parliament. The Children’s Commissioner is not bound by me, the CEO, or anybody else; he is totally independent and the Solicitor-General confirmed the Children’s Commissioner is independent. It is stated in black and white. It is not my advice; it is advice from the Solicitor-General. It is confirmed by legislation, and confirmed further by the Solicitor-General who clearly states it does not matter what other documents exist or whether there is a duty statement, nothing can override the independence of the commissioner because it is enshrined in legislation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Could you explain to me, from a legal perspective, what the hallmarks of independence are?
Mr VATSKALIS: Section 262 of the act provides:
(a) the way in which the functions of the Commissioner are performed; or
No one can direct the commissioner on how to do his job or what kind of job he does.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You stated the Children’s Commissioner was not independent enough to sit on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. Can you explain that please?
Mr VATSKALIS: I did not say that. I said because the commissioner has been involved in the board of inquiry’s recommendations, some people might perceive he is too close to those things to be overseeing the implementation of the recommendations. The government decided to have a totally independent body that has not been associated with the board of inquiry ...
Mr Elferink: Reports to you.
Mr VATSKALIS: It was an independent inquiry where the minister was not involved either, member for Port Darwin. It is a group of people totally independent, people who had nothing to do with the inquiry, under Dr Graham Vimpani, who is well-known Australia-wide. That independent body will oversee the implementation of the 147 recommendations.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Minister, we are talking about child protection, we are not talking about the Reserve Bank of Australia. We are talking about children who require objective input into how services are being monitored for them. You are talking about the fact that the Children’s Commissioner might not be objective in how the recommendations are implemented. I can - kind of - see where you are coming from. However, you are talking about a group of experts of which the Children’s Commissioner would be eminently comfortable to be a part of - a group of experts within the Northern Territory who can contribute to a meaningful discussion.
He has an enormous history here. He did your first audit report in 2007 which you failed to table publicly. Yes, you eventually came up with the executive summary under some duress from the Ombudsman who, once again, made this issue that you were withholding the report public. She was on the public record as trying to obtain that report from you so she could conduct some investigations into child protection. Yes, he had a history before you then commissioned him to undertake the inquiry that led to the Growing them strong, together report. Could you then have argued that he was not objective in how he undertook the second report? This man has been around for years.
All of a sudden, you can expand his powers in most of what Recommendation 136 defines, requires, or suggests, but you cannot give him this extra component - a man who has been around, you have trusted his word for years, he has been an integral part of a whole industry of child protection for years - this extra piece of authority or responsibility because, somehow, he is too close to the bone. It does not make sense.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, first of all, I thank very much the member for Araluen for actually realising it is about child protection. Hopefully, she will forget the politics and will work together to sort it out. Second, I would not call it the ‘industry’ of child protection. Child protection is not an industry, it is a responsibility for all of us. Third, this side of the House has absolute faith in the Children’s Commissioner. It looks like it is your side of the House that expressed concerns about his independence.
The external monitoring and reporting committee has a number of people who have expertise in child protection and the significant experience required. We have youth advocates, foster advocates, and the head of child service departments in other jurisdictions, including Western Australia.
The Children’s Commissioner has already met with the committee; they had minimal discussions. He does not have to be part of this committee in order for him to have input, or the committee have discussions with the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner has a more important job. We have expanded his authority and his powers now to investigate complaints about vulnerable children. The last thing he needs is to have another workload on top of it; something he can actually do better without. At the same time, nothing prevents him from talking to the committee, as he has done already, and as the committee has done with the Ombudsman. You asked me why we do not put the Ombudsman on that committee; we exclude the Ombudsman so there must be something wrong there we are trying to hide. No, we want the people to focus on their role, and their role is the implementation of the recommendations.
I want the Children’s Commissioner to focus on his role, to look at the vulnerable children. I would like the Ombudsman to focus on her role with regard to child protection - the administrative issues, the police issues, and other issues.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 58.3 regarding clause 26. We want clause 26 defeated. We want that removed with this amendment. We feel that, as stated in previous discussion, this attempt to gag the Ombudsman is not in the best interests of the people in the Northern Territory. We feel very strongly that this will be a backward step in how complaints regarding children are dealt with in the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson mentioned he was concerned there were two people, basically, doing the same thing.
I see that as a positive thing; that you have two people doing similar types of work, one with a degree of independence, another with a different degree of independence, as the minister alluded to. The more options you have for people to use in expressing their dissatisfaction with how services are provided to vulnerable children in the community can only be a positive thing. It is about ensuring, ultimately, children in our community are safe and that services are provided to them in a fair and equitable manner, as much as anything else.
Minister, I really do not understand the logic of you minimising the role of the Ombudsman when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. It simply does not make sense. It is not in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Araluen, the reason we do that is not to gag the Ombudsman. On the contrary, the Ombudsman still has the power to investigate matters relating to children, apart from where matters relate to vulnerable children.
You might think it is a good idea for two officers to investigate the same matter, but I believe it is a waste of time and resources. In that case, why do we not have the Ombudsman and Health Complaints Commission investigate the same matter? Why do we not have the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General investigate the same matter? Where do we stop?
We would like the experts to focus on their expertise. We do not remove power from the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to police. We recognise the expertise of the Ombudsman in relation to these matters, and the existing mechanism for dealing with complaints. The amendments do not remove the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to administrative actions of government agencies. The Ombudsman still can review decisions made by public servants in the Department of Children and Families. So, public servants who work for the Department of Children and Families can still be investigated by the Ombudsman and, indeed, all administrative actions of all government agencies. This is the proper role of the Ombudsman. I will support it because the Ombudsman is one of the pillars of our democratic system.
These amendments do not remove the opportunity for employees of the department to make a complaint. They can still make a complaint about an administrative action of the department, and an employee with a concern about a child can complain to the Children's Commissioner. That complaint can be about any vulnerable child, not just a child in the child protection system.
They are delineation of roles. The expertise on child protection stays with the Children's Commissioner, who will investigate any complaint about vulnerable children. The Ombudsman can investigate any other complaint about a child, but not vulnerable children. It is just a delineation, otherwise we have the same people doing the same investigation. I would like to have one person with expertise doing the investigation and providing their solutions, condemnation, or complaint to the government in order for these problems to be addressed.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, the minister said he was going to table the legal advice from the Solicitor-General. I am wondering if he could table the legal advice. This is not a legal advice, it is a letter from the minister and it is …
Mr Vatskalis: That includes the legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: That selectively quotes from the legal advice. I am wondering if you can table the whole legal advice as you promised.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am happy to table the legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, goodness gracious! When you say you were going to table a legal advice, why did you table a letter rather than a legal advice?
Mr VATSKALIS: Apart from selective speaking, selective hearing is one of the issues with the member for Port Darwin. I read from the letter and I tabled the letter that contains the legal advice. I am quite happy to table the legal advice with regard to the independence of the Children's Commissioner, and the legal advice with regard to the operation of the care and protection of children about the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government has nothing to hide. As I said before, we want the people to focus on their roles. That is the reason why we want the Children's Commissioner to focus on vulnerable child protection.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, blood from a stone. Thank you, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: You are welcome.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, at what point did you first publicly announce a commencement date for this legislative instrument of 1 July?
Mr VATSKALIS: This afternoon, when I was speaking, I said I spoke to the Ombudsman and told her I was prepared to delay the commencement of the legislation until 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah, okay. So, this afternoon is the first time we have heard that you determined that the commencement date should be 1 July, after speaking to the Ombudsman. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: Unlike the member for Port Darwin, I do not issue media releases preempting a decision of parliament. This legislation is being debated today. We do not know - it may not pass today for various reasons; it may have to be delayed until May or June. 1 July is usually chosen because it is the beginning of a financial year. The reason I chose 1 July is because I wanted to give the opportunity to the Ombudsman to finalise her investigation that is currently under way. That will give her adequate time to finalise her investigation and provide her report - and that is fair. It is fair for the Ombudsman to finalise her investigation, and also fair for all the other public servants and public service organisations to commence the operation on 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: What date did you sign this letter and forward it to Carolyn? The letter is undated.
Mr VATSKALIS: That letter was e-mailed last Friday.
Mr ELFERINK: Last Friday. So, the letter seeking – I do not have that legal advice, by the way. What was the date you obtained that legal advice?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have the date of when we received the legal advice, but I can find out.
Mr ELFERINK: Would it be fair, minister, to ask that you sought the legal advice after speaking to the Ombudsman?
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely, the last time we spoke with the Ombudsman was 7 March.
Mr ELFERINK: On what date did you introduce this bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: The bill was introduced in February, the last parliamentary sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, I remember that. Thank you for jogging my memory. That is why I have a problem. You introduced a bill which had in it, as part of its passage, that this act would commence on the date fixed by the Administrator in a gazettal notice. That date …
Dr Burns: That is the way it always is.
Mr ELFERINK: Not always. Let us get back to the issue. The point is the Administrator would have done it on advice from you or your government. If the Ombudsman had not taken the time to publicly complain that this legislative instrument would have had the effect of truncating her investigation, this matter would have been advanced much more quickly. What we are seeing here - and for people who are listening this is very important - is that the Ombudsman publicly complained after being verballed by this minister that her inquiry into child protection issues would have been stopped by this legislative instrument. The Ombudsman always intended to finish her review by April 2011.
The minister quotes the Solicitor-General and it is worth listening to this bit. The minister said the Solicitor-General has advised that:
So, here is the bouncing ball, ladies and gentleman of the Northern Territory; for those people who are listening. In February, the minister introduced a bill which will have the effect of shutting the Ombudsman up on child protection issues. Then, the Ombudsman complained bitterly about that outcome. The minister said: ‘No, no, that is not the case; of course you can finish your review’. The Solicitor-General’s advice says that will be the effect of this legislative instrument; it will truncate her powers. Now, all of a sudden, the minister pushes back the starting date to 1 July ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You have been caught with your hands in the cookie jar, minister. This is a clear attempt to shut the Ombudsman down and you have been caught out on your own time lines. You are a disgrace, and the only reason you backed down is Territorians were starting to see where the rot was setting in ...
Dr Burns: You were not listening in the last sittings!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin, once again, twists the truth. I have said all along I had a discussion with the Ombudsman. I gave a commitment that I would like her to finish her investigation. I also asked her how long she wanted so we could proclaim the legislation. The Ombudsman said she believed if she continued the investigation it would be in contempt of parliament because we introduced legislation. The Solicitor-General said she is not. I told the Ombudsman I was prepared to give her enough time to finish the investigation as promised, and delay the introduction of the legislation. However. it has to stop somewhere, and 1 July is the usual time legislation is proclaimed in all jurisdictions. There is no conspiracy theory. The only conspiracy theory is in your brain, if there is one.
Mr ELFERINK: There we have it. He just said it. He said he told the Ombudsman he was prepared to delay the introduction of this legislation until she finished her investigation. Clearly, it was his intent to start this legislation before the Ombudsman finished her investigation. It was only when this became a public issue that he backed down. That is what the original intent of this part of the legislation was - to silence somebody who had clearly demonstrated how flawed this government has consistently been in so many areas of service deliver. This is demonstrated evidence of this government’s attempt to silence an officer of this parliament, and that is why we do not support what this arrogant government is doing.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, he can spin as much as he likes. If I wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would pass the legislation and proclaim it tomorrow. Instead, I gave a commitment to the Ombudsman to wait until she finishes her investigation. I also told her I would get legal advice about her interpretation, which was wrong as proven by the Solicitor-General. I told her I was prepared for her to continue the investigation but there has to be an end, and I would delay it until 1 July, which is a reasonable date.
If I wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would have brought the legislation online as soon as possible. That would be the end of it because she would not be able to continue her investigation. Contrary to what you have in your little brain - the X-Files conspiracy - that is not what happened. I am prepared to work with the Ombudsman. I advised her of my intention to seek legal advice. I sought legal advice which said after we proclaim the legislation she could continue her investigation. I told her I was happy to wait until 1 July to give her adequate time to finish. She said, to her credit: ‘Every time we get a new complaint it generates more complaints, and I do not think we will be able to finish it by that time’. The legislation has to commence some time.
My interest is the protection of children, your interest is to play politics.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The minister has, basically, stated there has been a backdown due to public pressure. You were forced into a position where you were made to identify a date to delay the date of this amendment going through ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is nothing to be gained by silencing the Ombudsman. This is a very sad day for the history of the Northern Territory; this is a sad day for the protection of children in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman has kept this government accountable for several years now. The Ombudsman has kept you honest, she has kept you hopping; she has been a thorn in your side for years. She has done what I consider to be a marvellous job in keeping you accountable ...
Mr Vatskalis: I agree with you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Now, you intend to gag her, and take away her powers to investigate complaints around child protection. Shame on you, minister; shame on the government of the Northern Territory. I hate to see the repercussions for the children of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: I thought we were in the same House listening to the same things. Obviously, the member has been somewhere else. I know you are new in parliament. I understand; I have been there, done that. If I really wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would have this legislation commenced on assent - passed and assented, end of story. That means if it passed today, after today the Ombudsman cannot do anything.
For me, giving the Ombudsman another three months is not silencing; it is giving her an opportunity to complete her work. Despite what you said, I actually support the woman. I have a very good working relationship with the Ombudsman, and I will continue to do so, despite the fact that, in some areas, we argue and disagree. Even if you read the transcript of what she said, the Ombudsman said she could not give me a commitment when she would finish her investigation. Tell me: how long is a piece of string? I accept that. I said: ‘We have to proclaim the legislation; we are not sitting here waiting for you to finish the report. I am prepared to proclaim the legislation on 1 July’. Mind you, 1 July is only three months away and, even if today we discuss and pass this legislation, then we are happy to proclaim it on 1 July, not on assent ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! I am speaking, member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: You are on a warning, member for Greatorex!
Clause 26 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is quite important legislation in that it seeks to make some significant changes to the Darwin Port Corporation Act and also the Marine Act. I thank the Treasury personnel for making an offer for a briefing on this legislation. We were not able to coordinate a time that suited both, therefore, I thank them for providing a written briefing paper on the legislation.
I can flag at this time that the bill will be supported by the opposition. In the background to this bill, I understand that COAG approved the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement or CIRA. The CIRA is part of another agreement that is the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy, which is the SNENPA. I am not sure we have achieved that seamless economy just yet, so I wait with anticipation to see how COAG can cobble that together in years to come.
I note one of the objectives of the CIRA is to promote the efficient provision and use of ports and rail, which are both considered as nationally significant economy infrastructure. The CIRA has a requirement that each jurisdiction conduct a review of the regulatory framework around the Darwin Port. I note a working group from Treasury, the Darwin Port Corporation, the Department of Chief Minister, the Department of Business and Employment, and also the Department of Planning and Infrastructure was formed, and that review was completed, according to the briefing paper I received from Treasury, in October 2008. I am not sure if the date was correct given that the SNENPA was signed by COAG in December 2008. That seemed a little ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Treasurer, on the interjection.
I note under the SNENPA, the recommendations of that review into the regulatory framework of the Darwin Port were required to be implemented by March this year - that is 2011. It seems as though we really only just made it by the skin of our teeth. We are in March now and here is legislation which, no doubt, forms part of those recommendations. But, it is good we can deal with it now.
In relation to the bill itself, section 16 has been amended, largely to make way for new provisions included in this bill; those being provisions around pilotage services, which is the new Part VII, Division 4, of the Marine Act. Division 4 of Part II of the current act is repealed and replaced with a new Part II, Division 4, where this part deals with matters pertaining to the Harbourmaster.
In more specific terms, in clause 6, sections 25, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 26E, 26F and 26G are largely administrative arrangements around the appointment, functions, powers, annual reporting, independence of the office of Harbourmaster, and other matters relating to the office of Harbourmaster. I see nothing controversial particularly about those new provisions.
The new section 26A, however, deals with technical and safety standards for pilotage, and the provision of pilotage services. I see nothing particularly controversial about that section either. However, the section does make provision for an offence of contravening a standard made under section 26A(1) when conducting pilotage or providing pilotage services in relation to the port, where the standards referred to are standards of a technical nature or relate to safety.
The section provides for a penalty of 50 penalty units, which is equivalent to $6650. I was quite curious at the time of doing the research on this act. I know it has been fixed now, but it seemed a little incongruous that there can be a penalty of 50 penalty units for an offence around the safety of pilotage and technical issues within the port, yet, the government made the mistake then of imposing a penalty of 100 penalty units for parking offences, littering, and kids going into the wrong toilets in the waterfront by-laws. However, in any case, I know that has been resolved. I was being slightly mischievous.
More to the point is how this penalty compares to other states’ penalties and, even more importantly, is the potential scale and the implications of a breach of safety standards, and whether or not a $6500 penalty is commensurate with both the scale of the operations in financial terms, or the potential result of such a breach.
I have to admit, at first blush, I thought a penalty of that size, $6500, was probably erring on the very low side of the penalty scale. I have done some research on this and note that at least in some states - Victoria being one - the dollar equivalent of their penalty is similar to that proposed in this bill. In that case, Victoria imposes a penalty of 60 penalty units, which equates to slightly over $7100, which is similar to the penalty proposed under this amendment.
Going on to what I am going to say now is to save having to go into committee stage, because it is not the intention to take this bill to committee. However, if the Treasurer would accede to providing a brief third read to just outline the rationale taken by the government in determining the level of penalty that applies to this offence; that is, whether it was taken just on the basis of other states’ penalties just to keep it commensurate, or there were other issues that they took into account in reaching the decision of the 50 penalty units.
As well as that, the Treasurer might also mention if there are any potential offences that could arise from a breach of a technical or safety standard under this act. Are there any other acts that might apply and were they taken into account when setting the penalty for this particular offence?
Of the remaining amendments to the Darwin Port Corporation bill, I can see little that is terribly controversial, so I move to the amendments of the Marine Act. Apart from what are, effectively, consequential amendments, there are a number of more significant amendments as well.
Section 166 has been repealed and replaced with a new section that makes it consistent with new provisions around amendments dealing with pilotage. This section relates to a procedure on entering a compulsory pilotage area. It is the same as the case for section 171, pilotage licences and exemptions, and section 181 dealing with appeals of decisions.
The most significant amendment to the bill relates to the adoption of a new Division 4A relating to pilotage services in the Port of Darwin. Currently, there are no provisions to allow for pilotage services in Darwin Harbour, so this, I guess, is breaking new ground. In the amendment, for the first 10 years after the commencement of this clause, the DPC will be the exclusive provider of pilotage services for the Port of Darwin and the DPC may be appointed. After the expiry of that 10 years, another pilotage services provider may be appointed by the minister. If a service provider other than the Darwin Port Corporation is appointed, the minister must have regard to their capacity to conduct pilotage and provide licensed pilots. The pilots engaged by and under the control of the applicant have to meet any requirement prescribed by the regulations. I gather the regulations that will relate to pilotage services will come in due course - hopefully, not too far away.
In that section, the applicant must also undergo a criminal and financial background check which is to include the criminal and financial history of any company the applicant was a director of, or a holder of any of the management positions. That is a sensible and wise move to ensure the probity of operators is kept to the highest of standards. Written notice of the decision is to be given to the applicant including the reasons for the decision and the applicant’s right to appeal within 28 days about the decision.
These amendments go on to talk about the suspension or termination where the person appointed as pilotage service provider contravenes a condition of their appointment or no longer meets the requirement of appointment. Under those circumstances, the minister must give the service provider a reasonable period to show cause why the appointment should not be terminated once a decision has been made to suspend or terminate the appointment. The service provider has 28 days to appeal the decision.
Regulations may also provide for conditions on the service provider regarding insurance, capability, qualifications, and provision of reports to the minister. These conditions may be varied by the minister in order to ensure compliance with the act. The service provider again has 28 days to appeal their decision.
Also, subject to the minister’s approval, fees for pilotage services may be set by the pilotage service provider and published by Gazette notice. The service provider is to collect the fee from the owner, agent, or master of ships using the service, and the fees may be retained by the service provider.
Contained within the new section is a section about the commission of offences. A person other than a pilotage service provider will be committing an offence if they provide pilotage services. That limits the pilotage to an exclusive operator. It will also be an offence if the appointed pilotage service provider contravenes a condition of appointment. The maximum penalty for those offences is 100 penalty units.
There is a new section 184 also in clause 26 which provides for the imposition of pilotage fees and charges by the pilotage authority. The current section 185 clarified who was to pay the pilotage fees and charges. The amendment is that the current sections 184 and 185 are repealed by this clause as they are now provided for in the new section 181E.
The proposed section 184 is concerned with the provision of pilotage services in areas other than the Port of Darwin. Pilotage services may be provided by the pilotage authority subject to approval by the minister. The pilotage fees and charges may be set, collected, and retained by the pilotage authority.
That broadly outlines the content of the bill. In researching these matters, one discovers ports across Australia are varied when it comes to whether they are privately or publicly run, and there are a number of combinations with respect to how services such as pilotage are run in those ports. In the case of the Territory, we have a publicly-owned port with one single operator of pilotage services for a period of 10 years. I can certainly see advantages in this approach, as long as the selection of the contractor to provide those services goes through the most rigorous processes, with sufficient resources and a sturdy regulatory regime - and I wait to see any new regulations that will come out - to ensure services are professional and monitored appropriately.
I emphasise the importance of professionalism and appropriate monitoring, given some of the issues we have seen around the Darwin Port at East Arm in recent times. I am not going to go into that too deeply. We have seen another spill in recent days, so I encourage the government to ensure the regulatory regime set up around pilotage services in the Darwin Port area is sufficiently robust and monitored to ensure we do not get any of those safety breaches or breaches of technical specifications. I would hate to see the results of poor pilotage in the middle of our harbour - it could be absolutely disastrous.
Madam Speaker, that concludes my contribution to the debate. The bill will be supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first, I thank the department for two briefings they have given in relation to the amendment of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act. I certainly will be supporting the amendments. I am not particularly interested in going into committee stage either; however, I should make a few comments.
In the second reading, the minister said:
It is a strange statement because we are creating a monopoly for pilotage services which, in itself, does not create competition. That is a matter I raised during the briefings. I understand that simply the numbers of ships that require pilotage is relatively small compared to larger ports. However, it seemed to be a bit of an anomaly that the minister could say this was going to increase productivity and reduce costs of services. I simply ask a philosophical question: how, if you have a monopoly that is running the piloting services?
The other question I have is in relation to section 25. I do not think this was answered at the briefing. This is in relation to the appointment of a Harbourmaster – this is section 25(2) by the way:
I am interested to know whether a Harbourmaster needed any specific qualifications to be a Harbourmaster. Does one do a Harbourmaster course or have a degree in Harbourmaster-ing? Or do you have to have certain skills or qualifications that would allow you to be a suitable person for that? It is a very important job, considering the Harbourmaster is now a statutory authority. I am interested to know if there are any specific qualifications.
One other comment: I know the port has been interested in building a control tower as if it were an airport. I thought I might have the opportunity to ask for some figures about how many ships use Darwin Harbour. You have to remember some of these ships do not require a pilot. Obviously, we have a number of ships that come into Darwin Harbour. We had 1642 trading vessels and 3908 non-trading vessels in 2009-10. I divided that by 365 and, according to my calculations, that means per day we have five trading vessels or 18 non-trading vessels.
Bearing in mind that most ships can be picked up by radar or radio, and those ships that need to be brought into the harbour will be brought in by the pilots, do we need to spend the money on a control tower which might be a bit premature in the size of Darwin Harbour? It is not Sydney Harbour or Melbourne Harbour. We appoint pilots who will look after the safety. We have techniques to track ships coming in through radar and radio contact.
It was just an aside, but I thought it was a chance to at least ask the minister whether the control tower proposed for Darwin Harbour is still on the list of things that are going to be built, or is it actually premature and we could do without it for the time being? I know, Treasurer, you are always looking for a chance to save money. I am just putting some practical ideas about how.
Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the rest of the bill. It is an important change that now the Harbourmaster will be separate from the direction of the Port Authority, only reporting to the minister who will report to parliament. I am interested to see how that operates in practice. I support the amendments and thank the department for the briefings.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I want to add to a few of the comments to those of my colleague, the member for Katherine.
A concern in relation to this bill has to do with some competition about attracting overseas vessels to include Darwin in their routine ports of call as they move through Indonesia. I have been talking to a number of people who are concerned about the costs of the Darwin Port. There are a couple of things in relation to the bill before us; that is, in relation to monopolies and industry which are of concern.
We do not, as a rule, support monopolies, and nor does the ACCC. We would rather say instead of giving one organisation exclusive operator rights, there should be competition. If the monopoly is to allow government, through the Port Corporation, to maintain its running of the ports, then why would it need this legislation to be changed in this area? It could maintain the status quo. However, it is clear the agreement could be against the ACCC and what is happening to pilotage in other jurisdictions.
I refer to a news release issued on 3 December by the ACCC. I quote from that. In the first paragraph it says:
It went on to say under the agreement there were certain things that would have to happen. In another paragraph it said:
BMP being Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd. It went further and said that the ACCC acknowledged a number of things.
Another quote from the same media release said:
There is a proposed 10-year agreement in relation to this matter of pilotage. My colleague, the member for Katherine, has outlined some of these.
I also refer to a submission to the ACCC by Australian Reef Pilots Pty Ltd. It was a submission on the application by the Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd for exclusive provisions of services in the Port of Brisbane. There are a number of problems that operators and other competitors have around the country. For instance, I quote from the document:
Madam Speaker, there are comments on the public record in relation to inefficiencies at most ports around Australia. It is something that governments have been concerned about. They are trying very hard to get the costs down. Of course, the Port of Darwin and the Northern Territory has high transport costs due to our small demand. However, we should do everything we can to reduce those costs, and one of the things is to allow a little competition in.
I am led to believe there is a second tug operator coming to town to provide services, and the current operator, on hearing this news, has dropped prices by about 15%. I have not seen any documentation; that has come from industry. I have yet to actually confirm that is, in fact, the case. However, there is much anecdotal evidence out there which I ask the government to consider when it looks at these things. I just thought we should get this on the public record, because there are operators out there who have concerns about many of these things.
The Port of Brisbane has had some issues. There is more documentation available on this matter to demonstrate there should be competition in this area, and that it can actually reduce costs - along with lots of other things which are probably not relevant to this particular legislation. There are many ways in which we can reduce the costs, and also attract more shipping into the Territory and utilise efficiencies of larger operators - perhaps other port operators - that can reduce the cost so when people are required to come here, the costs of doing business reduce and they can actually make a profit.
That has been the biggest concern people have expressed to me. I ask government to take note of those things; that there are people out there - I am assuming they are talking to the same people as well. I am hoping they have taken on board that costs are high and the government should be doing everything in its power to reduce those costs.
There are a number of initiatives in place on our side we will be putting to various conferences shortly. Hopefully, we can encourage people to come here which will reduce the overall costs of these services to Territorians and give us the ability to facilitate Darwin as a distribution centre, and utilise the backloading that is available to us.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, as you have heard, our side will be supporting this legislation, but it is not without some concern. We have all seen some of the issues that have faced our port in recent times. It has been akin to being a place of spills run by dills. In fact, I have been told that it is a little like the Keystone Cops; there are poor practices and failure to act by this government. We have only seen recently the copper concentrate incident about which, apparently, word on the street is the Port Authority thinks it is untouchable; that this government really cannot touch it. Although we have heard recently that there could be some court action, as I said, the word is they feel a little untouchable.
We have seen many instances where the government has failed to act. If it had acted in time some of the serious issues at the port could have been prevented, or mitigated at best. We have seen the recent incident with the crane there and, subsequently, another contractor with a crane. We have seen this government has even budgeted for a new conveyor system they have still failed to install at the port.
The EPA recently put a submission in to the environmental sustainability of the National Ports Strategy. They give a great snapshot of some of the things that can happen in a port. In regard to the environment, I quote directly from the EPA submission:
That is where this legislation comes to the fore: where things need to be tightened up with our pilot services to ensure we do maintain a safe harbour. With INPEX on the horizon, increased population growth will happen in the Territory and, hopefully, with the increased investment in the Northern Territory, we will see a growing use of our harbour. The fact that we need to have strong environmental regulations in place is paramount.
To give you an idea of how this government has treated the port, particularly in regard to the environment in recent times, demonstrates very clearly the approach it has to our environment, which is pretty poor. We have learned that, even recently, we had another spill - an overflow of waste water from the port infrastructure which was secured by a balloon that had become misplaced or moved. Subsequently, the waste discharged into the harbour. We are fixing our environmental concerns or infrastructure to mitigate environmental pollution with balloons. That is how we are fixing things - with balloons.
The government’s approach to fixing things at the port is all about shooting the messenger. In some cases, it is even blaming the previous CLP government for the design of the original port. However, it needs to be said again: the original design of the port was for livestock and containers. This government shifted the goal posts and started using the port for other purposes but did not take into account the effect this may have on our environment and our harbour. This government shifted the goal posts and, until it takes action seriously – it has the money to do it; money has been budgeted – and pays more attention and is serious, other than putting balloons in drain pipes, we are in a whole lot of hell. There is budget for a new conveyor belt, and had that been installed we would not have seen the copper concentrate incident we saw last year.
I worry about the new marine supply base given if we cannot get the port in its current form correct, how we are going to get the environmental credentials and infrastructure in place for the new marine supply base. I sincerely hope this government has taken our environment seriously when designing this new supply base. We want to see the Territory prosper, to see development; we welcome investment in the Northern Territory. However, at the same time, our regulations need to be strong enough to support and look after our environment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill. As you heard, it arose from a COAG report for improving the productivity of ports, and it meets our competition and infrastructure reform agreement conditions arising out of COAG. As you heard from the member for Katherine, it was a working party through government of many departments, including the Darwin Port Corporation, which went through the recommendations in the improved regulatory framework. We have arrived at a series of very complex regulatory changes with this legislation to the operations, particularly the pilotage of the port. I thank the officers of Treasury who have undertaken the heavy lifting in this regulatory change, and also for the work they have done with Darwin Port Corporation and others.
Importantly, this legislation will allow for regulations to be made in the future which limit the functions of the Darwin Port Corporation. It will establish the office of the Harbourmaster as a statutory authority to be appointed by the minister. It extends the current functions of the Harbourmaster to make technical and safety standards for pilotage and the provision of pilotage services at the Port of Darwin. That goes to some of the concerns raised by the member for Brennan and others regarding the importance of safety within Darwin Harbour.
Making very clear powers for the Harbourmaster regarding technical and safety requirements is a very positive step forward in the safety of shipping in the harbour, as is requiring the Harbourmaster to perform his or her functions, exercising the powers to act independently, impartially and, importantly, in the public interest. Getting separation from the Darwin Port Corporation for those powers for the Harbourmaster does, obviously, put a greater emphasis on safety. They were issues raised by the member for Brennan: clarifying the criteria for stevedore licensing processes, allowing for appeals to be made on licensing decisions to the Marine Appeals Tribunal, and also clarifying situations where the Darwin Port Corporation can suspend or cancel a stevedore licence, as well as vary or impose conditions to the licence. It allows for appeals to be made to the Marine Appeals Tribunal.
In regard to amendments to the Marine Act, it will expand the jurisdiction of the Marine Appeals Tribunal to include hearing appeals against a decision by the Darwin Port Corporation to refuse an application for a stevedore licence, or a decision to suspend or cancel a stevedore licence, as well as vary or impose conditions to the licence. It establishes the Harbourmaster as the pilotage authority at the Port of Darwin. It clarifies the procedure on entering a compulsory pilotage area and for issuing and renewing pilotage licences and exemption certificates, including the conditions which may be imposed on the licences or certificates.
It gives jurisdiction to the Marine Appeals Tribunal to hear appeals against a decision by a pilotage authority to refuse to issue or renew a pilotage licence or exemption certificate, a decision to specify or vary a condition of the licence or certificate, or a decision to suspend or cancel a licence or certificate, establishing a single pilotage services provider within the Port of Darwin with the minister to make determinations on who the services provider would be. It appoints the Darwin Port Corporation as the pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin for an initial 10 years, and it clarifies the provision of pilotage services in pilotage areas.
We went out to extensive consultation on this legislation. Some 47 major stakeholders were contacted, and notices placed in the NT News. Only six organisations made submissions: the Australian Customs Service; the Australian Defence Force; Compass Resources; International Business Council; Chamber of Commerce NT; Maritime Union of Australia; and the NT Livestock Exporters’ Association. There were no objections to the draft review’s recommendations.
I will go specifically to a query raised by the member for Katherine who wanted to know how we set the penalty levels in this legislation. The purpose of this review was not to review the penalties. Most of the penalties were carried over from the previous legislation. Any new penalties were simply checked for consistency with the existing penalty regime. We did not change the penalty settings, we carried them over, and any new ones we introduced were checked for consistency with existing penalties.
Regarding the question and the suggestion from the member for Nelson of creating a control tower for the port, I can confirm the port will get its control tower. I have been advised that radar on its own is not sufficient, as it does not pick up all vessels. The provision of the control tower for the Port of Darwin is actually a safety issue. So, it does go to some of the concerns raised for the member for Nelson regarding the control tower.
I listened to the competition issues raised by both the members for Sanderson and Nelson. This is an important regulatory change in the operational requirements with the establishment of the harbour pass and overseeing pilotage. It will certainly encourage significantly, despite the monopoly of pilotage services for 10 years - and I will go to why in the sheer size of the Port of Darwin and its shipping compared to a significant sized port like the Port of Brisbane. You are literally comparing, in a shipping sense, apples with oranges, which is why the ACCC was involved in the Port of Brisbane changes, and no one has batted an eyelid at ours. It is just apples and oranges in comparing shipping trade. It comes down to economies of scale. The shipping movements in and out of the Port of Darwin are far too small for competition at this stage.
If you want to seek alternative advice than mine on that, I recommend you talk to Bruce Fadelli, a member of the Chamber of Commerce and of the Darwin Port Advisory Board, a person who has also had vast experience and knowledge of the import/export scenarios. He comes very strongly from the perspective of the smaller trader, the operator or small business person wanting to get value for their dollar in shipping freight in and out of the Port of Darwin. Go and talk to him regarding the sheer economies of scale of operating competitive services. You just would not do it. In fact, you would have quite a dire situation if you tried to do it in such a small shipping tonnage at this stage.
I am happy to put that into perspective for members, and talk about the actual tonnage and the amount of trading vessel calls in and out of the Port of Darwin. If you look at the total tonnes of trade, the port activities of, say, over the past five years: in 2005-06 it was 1.08 tonnes; in 2006-07 it was 1.46 tonnes; in 2007-08 it was 2.73 tonnes; in 2008-09 it was 3.77 tonnes; and in 2009-10 it was 4.58 tonnes.
The actual trading vessel calls were: in 2005-06 – 1295 calls; in 2006-07 – 1253 calls; in 2007-08 – 1547 calls; in 2008-09 – 1625 calls; and in 2009-10 – 1642 calls. So, you have seen a growth over that five-year period. In the context of shipping and berthing comparisons between the Port of Brisbane and the Port of Darwin, it is simply an apples with oranges comparison. Hence, you need certainty and security of service provision. That is why you have the monopoly trade by the Darwin Port Corporation. In the structural separations that have been provided here in the technical, licensing, and safety of the Harbourmaster set-up as a statutory authority separate to the Darwin Port Corporation, there is an important distinction occurring in the regulatory framework changes.
If there is, obviously, a dramatic change - and we know there will be growth. I noted the concerns of the marine supply base of the member for Brennan. That is a very exciting economic driver opportunity for the Territory. It will be a build/own/operate facility. It will meet world best practice requirement; that is, all specifications within the request for tender design that is out in the public domain at the moment. That includes world best practices in the environmental requirements. I have noted the concerns of the member for Brennan and I will put his concerns back through to key people I know who would be very interested in what he had to say. However, I have to say they are extremely unfounded, if he was to go to the level of detail in the request for tender design that is out in the public domain at the moment. So, just go and have a look on the website at that information.
Regarding the other queries raised, I point out that, within the existing Darwin Port Corporation Act - and this will not change; we are not changing this provision - the Harbourmaster can issue a pilotage exemption. That actually does occur. For example, right now, Perkins, which is now Toll, actually has an exemption because they have experienced masters based in Darwin Harbour, and they know their trade. They can ship in and out of Darwin Harbour safely. Whilst you point to what you think is a monopoly, there is actually the opportunity to provide exemptions within the existing legislation, and exemptions occur right now. Perkins Toll is one of the ones that currently has an exemption.
There was also a query from the member for Nelson of the Harbourmaster’s qualifications, because the legislation provides for the minister to be satisfied in the qualifications of the appointment of a Harbourmaster. In a practical sense, what I did was go to the most recent public advertising, of some time ago now - I will just see if there is a date on this. There it is. It was 10 May 2010. So, it was last year when the Port of Darwin advertised for a Harbourmaster and filled it, of course. The candidate must hold a Master Class 1 or equivalent, have at least 10 years relevant senior management experience, and have a thorough understanding of vessel traffic management and port legislative frameworks. The candidate will also be able to demonstrate superior project management and learn leadership skills. So, in some detail I have addressed the member for Nelson’s concerns of the qualifications required for the position of Harbourmaster.
I want to put in perspective the growth we have seen in pilotage in the Port of Darwin. Just five years ago, there were two licensed pilots at the port. There are eight licensed marine pilots employed at the Port of Darwin today. That includes the General Manager of Marine Services, who is the relief. This does not include, of course, our Harbourmaster. We have seen a growth in the number of pilots. I recall, from my days of the minister for Infrastructure when I had responsibility for the port, we were very fortunate in our recruitment drive, at one stage, for very experience pilots. I believe we are extremely well served by the pilots we have working in the Port of Darwin.
I know the member for Brennan raised spills, but they were not spills as a result of pilotage; they were onshore spills at the port. I recognise the member for Brennan’s concerns. The government shares his concerns. That is why there have been thorough and active investigations under way. Of course, neither reports the Darwin Port Corporation may be facing prosecution. I emphasise ‘may be’ because the government is not involved in those prosecutorial decisions.
We are undertaking the regulatory environment. We are increasing the efficiency and the transparency of the operations of the Harbourmaster, and pilotage and stevedoring licences at the Port of Darwin. This is a significant body of work that has taken a couple of years of complex drafting instructions, negotiations, and discussions across a range of agencies as listed by the member for Katherine. I thank all those involved in the drafting and getting this regulatory framework to this point.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the Chamber and I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 24 February 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals have been very vocal in their opposition to the watering down of oversight roles, and any reduction of autonomy of statutory officers. We made that very clear in the previous debate on the bill before the House debated between the Health Minister and the member for Araluen. We have repeatedly called on the Northern Territory government to release the 2004 review into the operations of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. Where that review is, I have no idea. It is sitting in the bottom drawer of someone’s office somewhere, no doubt; that is, if it even still exists in a hard copy somewhere. It was given to the then Health minister at the time in 2004 - I believe the member for Nightcliff - and it is yet to see the light of day. We have repeatedly called for the government to release that review from 2004, but it still remains a mystery.
The opposition will not be supporting anything that diminishes the check and balance mechanism of government - particularly this government. Only a government that has something to hide …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Only a government that has something grave to hide, that is sitting on a whole stack of dark secrets, would go about diminishing the powers of the complaints commissioner, let alone the Ombudsman and the Children's Commissioner, as we spoke about previously.
Nowhere in this bill does it allow the commissioner own motion powers of investigation, something I believe she recommended in the 2004 review which, mysteriously, has yet to see the light of day. I wonder why? Despite those recommendations, nowhere in this bill does it allow the commissioner own motion powers of investigation.
I ask the minister: what is wrong with allowing a statutory officer such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner to have own motion powers of investigation? If you have nothing to hide, why do we not allow the complaints commissioner own motion powers to investigate his or her own recommendations? Why is the government so opposed to allowing an independent body to apply a check and balance of the government? The question has to be asked. Territorians who utilise our health services have a right to know why this government is continually diminishing the role of statutory officers who apply a check and balance on the role of government. Why? It is a question the minister and, indeed, the Northern Territory government, should answer.
We need to highlight how grave this situation is; that the powers are ever diminishing from statutory officers and, in this particular case, the health complaints commissioner. We need to look at some of the failures in health over recent years this government has presided over. The number of elective surgery admissions has fallen under this government from 6395 in 2001-02 to 6244 in 2009-10. For those patients finally admitted for elective surgery, 5.9% waited for more than 365 days - up from 4.4% in 2001-02.
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock. I believe on a second reading speech the shadow minister is allowed 45 minutes. I have not been speaking quite that long.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you have been speaking for about five minutes. We will alter that.
Mr CONLAN: I am not suggesting I will go for the full 45 minutes, but you never know. Never waste an opportunity to highlight the failures of government and put our position on the record. We need to use every single minute, particularly the great expense it is costing this parliament - on any given day $7000 an hour; and God knows how much it costs to take this show on the road. The people of the Northern Territory, the people in the gallery, and the people of Alice Springs deserve to see their politicians working as hard and as long as possible. I will do my very best.
Let us look at the health roulette in emergency departments. For 2009-10, 11 332 patients who entered Territory emergency departments left without treatment. Can you believe the figure? - 11 332 people who entered the Territory’s emergency departments left without treatment; one in six of all attendances. One in six people who present at the emergency department under the Northern Territory Labor government – of those people who turn up at the Alice Springs Hospital, Royal Darwin Hospital, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Gove - is leaving without treatment.
There are other figures from various departments, agencies, and organisations across the country that suggest 1051 of those patients left hospital at their own risk. This is the state of our health and hospital system. This is the state of acute care in the Northern Territory. This is where the Territory is with regard to acute care. Over 1000 people are leaving emergency departments because they are not being seen on time. They have given up, walked out; it is too long. Of those 11 332, 1051 left at their own risk.
The data also shows the Territory has the lowest proportion of on-time admissions to emergency departments at 56%, well below the national average. The lowest proportion of on-time admissions to emergency departments is sitting at 56%. The national average is 70%. In 10 years, under this Labor government, on-time admissions have fallen significantly from the 70% achieved for the financial year 2001-02. We see on-time admissions significantly below the national average at 56%. The report notes the median waiting time to be seen in an emergency department in the Northern Territory is 38 minutes, and that is 15 minutes more than the national average. It does not paint a great picture for our hospitals, for the acute side of our Health department, and for those Territorians utilising our hospitals and our health sector.
We see, time and time again, hospital waiting lists, emergency waiting lists, and elective surgery waiting lists dragging the chain. In the State of our Hospital reports, in report after report, we see the Northern Territory last or second last on the list. Yes, it is a busy jurisdiction. Yes, we see a lot of people through our hospitals. However, throwing more money at it does not necessarily mean you are achieving results - and we certainly are not reading results.
We only have to look at the child protection side of things. We had quite a lengthy debate about child protection, the failures in child protection, and the Children’s Commissioner. I believe this is relevant to the debate, but I will not go on too long about it. We have seen the Children’s Commissioner stripped of powers - powers being further diminished to distance the government from any failures. Again, we are seeing it today with the health complaints commissioner.
This government has much to hide. Very clearly, this government presides over a culture of cover-up. We only have to have a look at some of the areas of cover-up this government has presided over. We all clearly understand why the government does not want to strengthen the powers of the health complaints commissioner. That means if anyone sitting out here in the gallery, or anyone listening to this broadcast, has an issue with the Health Department or the way you were treated in the hospital, or if you are unhappy with treatment you received by the department, or treatment you received in the hospital itself, and you raise that concern with the health complaints commissioner, if the government does not like what the commissioner has to say about it, or their recommendations, then the government will shut them down. In this case, it is a ‘she’. Nevertheless, whoever the complaints commissioner is, the government will gag the commissioner if they do not like the information.
Hence, the 2004 review. We are still yet to see it. That is seven years old. It is sitting in someone’s bottom drawer collecting dust. The culture of cover-up: we see the location of the new prison for the Top End; the costs and number of houses delivered through SIHIP - what a mess that was, an absolute debacle; the use of diesel at Channel Island; pollution levels on Darwin beaches; the sacking of Margaret Banks was a beauty - the sacking of Margaret Banks, the Education department head at the time; the Montara oil spill, once again under the auspice of the minister for Health; the future of RAAF Base houses - more cover-up; and the state of child protection. Where do we begin? We could do a whole hour just on child protection. We spent a few hours on it before, did not even scratch the surface of the failures of child protection under this government. There were the high pollution levels at Vesteys and Mindil Beach and, of course, the death of 800 cattle at Mataranka Station. Also, very interestingly, the government failed to provide the number of juveniles in detention and under supervision for the Australian government’s Juvenile Justice in Australia interim report for 2008-09. They are just some of the examples of the culture of cover-up.
I mentioned child protection. There has been no greater area of government neglect than the area of child protection. Our children at risk - your children, my children. That this government is in charge of child protection does not assure a parent to sleep easy at night, when you have a look at their track record. Since 2001, there have been five Child Protection ministers, four of whom were sacked. Four of those Child Protection ministers were sacked for their mishandling of the portfolio. They were not moved on, they were sacked because of their mishandling of the portfolio. Over the past 10 years, we have seen numerous reviews and inquiries into the Territory’s child protection system. Each report highlighted, once again, a system in crisis.
Despite promises by the government - promise after promise - that the recommendations of each report would be implemented to improve the child protection system in the Northern Territory, Labor once again has failed to deliver on its promise - failure after failure when it comes to child protection. Is there any greater failure or abrogation of duty? We have highlighted quite a number over the course of these sittings. Law and order is on the top of just about every Centralian’s mind at the moment. We have highlighted in this Chamber over the course of the last couple of days how pressing the need is to address law and order in Central Australia. But, if there is anything that perhaps is greater than - maybe they go hand in hand - the law and order issues across the Territory and, indeed, Central Australia, it is our child protection system and the care and protection of our children.
Labor has promised to implement all the recommendations over all the numerous reports but, again, we still see a system in crisis. The 2010 board of inquiry into child protection produced a damning report. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to that report. God knows where the children of the Northern Territory would be right now if it was not for the exceptional work done by the former member for Araluen, with the cooperation of the opposition. Where would those children be now if the opposition had not dragged this government kicking and screaming to that child protection report?
It showed an almost complete breakdown of child protection and - to use what has become a bit of a clich, the word ‘tsunami’ - a tsunami of need amongst neglected children in the Northern Territory. Some of the findings were quite alarming and very disturbing. The report included the rate of children on care and protection orders in the Northern Territory was at the highest across Australia in 2008-09, with 9.2% per 1000 children, compared to the national average of 7%. This is for the Northern Territory, a jurisdiction this size. While the proportion of notifications which resulted in an investigation has increased over threefold, the total number of substantiations appeared to have changed little across the years from 2003-04 to six or seven years later, to 2009-10.
There is a raft of findings, and I move to another one. Less than one-third of the notifications to Central Intake are processed within 24 hours, and 24 hours is the target period. Further to that, there were 785 outcome child protection matters that had been referred for formal investigation for which there was no record of the investigation having ever commenced.
Madam Speaker, my point is, our debate is about the Children’s Commissioner - the watering down of the powers of the Children’s Commissioner, the watering down of the powers of the Ombudsman and all statutory officers, the watering down of the health complaints commissioner, when we need it the most. We need the strongest powers invested in these statutory officers when you consider what is happening right before our eyes across the Northern Territory.
Child protection in crisis - what do they do? What does the government do? It waters down the powers of the Children’s Commissioner, diminishes the powers of the Children’s Commissioner and, at the same time, distances government responsibility from any findings that commissioner may come to.
We see a health system in crisis, acute care at the brink, with hospital waiting lists the worst in the country in many cases, second only to perhaps Tasmania or the ACT in other cases with elective surgery and emergency department waiting times. And what do we do? We diminish the powers of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. So, when you are spending all your time waiting in the hospital emergency department and you want to make a complaint, well, I do not like your chances of the government ever acting on that complaint because it will probably go into a report that will sit in the bottom drawer, just like the 2004 review has done.
We firmly believe the bill will further undermine the independence of the commissioner by stripping the commissioner of the ability to hire and fire. You will see that in section 14 under clause 9 of the bill, something we strongly oppose. I do not know why the government is so obsessed with stripping and diminishing power from these statutory officers. You really have to ask yourself what you have to hide. What is wrong with giving the health complaints commissioner some own motion powers of investigation? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to set their own budgets? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to hire and fire whoever they like? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to hire six AO8s, four AO7s, and three AO4s if that is what they want to do; if they think that is the best way to deliver health outcomes or at least compile comprehensive reports to be presented to the government and tabled in this Legislative Assembly for the benefit of all Territorians and all Territorians who use our health system? What is wrong with that, minister?
We think there is nothing wrong with that because common sense would tell you that there is nothing wrong with it. Only a government or someone who has something to hide would think that is okay and there is nothing wrong with that. Only a government that has presided over a culture of cover-up for so long - the raft of cover-ups that I have just highlighted, the list of failures in child protection, the acute care side of our health system we all use – and has presided over such failures would feel it is okay to diminish a statutory officer, someone who is there, supposedly independent, working at arm’s length to fight for you. I, who go in with a complaint, hope it will be heard, it will be presented to the government, and the government would do something about it. If the government does not want to do anything about it then, at least, the commissioner has the opportunity to investigate why nothing has been done about it or, at the very least, they can rely on the opposition to bring it to the attention of not only the government but the people of the Northern Territory.
No, this is not good enough. This is something the government is desperate to keep from us all. It is desperate to keep hidden its failures in health and child protection. What about the failures in law and order? Where do we start there? Madam Speaker, I will not push, but there are a number of law and order issues facing the community of the Northern Territory. What is the government’s response? What does it do? It fails to front a protest of people out the front. It fails to turn up. It brings an irrelevant motion about uranium mining in here and accuses us of playing politics.
The minister sits there and says to the member for Araluen, the shadow minister: ‘I understand. I know about this. I care about this. You are just trying to play politics’. Is that hypocrisy or is that hypocrisy? The government and the Chief Minister bring in these motions. They waste taxpayers’ time and money with motions that serve no purpose except to allow them a bit of chest beating, and attempt to wedge and portray all this division in the opposition. Again, we have a government that does not care about you, the Territorian. It is so obsessed with the opposition, so obsessed with its own cause, so obsessed with the culture of cover-up and ensuring the information you and I deserve, we all have a right to see, we all expect to be acted on if there are issues - all that information the government is so obsessed with keeping from you.
This is where we are as a Northern Territory in the 21st century in 2011: a government obsessed with not only its own power - drunk on power - but this unhealthy obsession with the opposition. The number of times we hear it mention the opposition, the Country Liberals, the CLP in a sittings is staggering. It is a worry and, if I were you, the people of the Northern Territory - I am; I live in the world we construct - I would be very concerned all they seem to care about – I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker. All the government cares about is itself; it is drunk on its own power and obsessed with the opposition. That is a worry.
When I say we have enormous failures in the acute side of health, this goes directly to where this bill comes into play. This is about diminishing the powers of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We saw the minister caught out today. The government introduced a bill to silence a report - no doubt another damning report from the Ombudsman. That is exactly what the minister did. He was caught out. Attention was drawn to him. He was caught out at the last sittings. All of a sudden, there is a little media because he is front-page Kon - he is chronicle Kon. This is the Health Minister each morning: he gets up, has his coffee, looks at the paper. There is nothing about health on the front page of the NT News, so he has done another great job; the health system is on track. That is the benchmark. That is the key performance indicator, fellow Territorians. That is the key performance indicator of our health system according to the member for Casuarina. That is his key performance indicator ...
Dr Burns: Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: If I was you …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: If I was you, member for Johnston, I would not – people in glass houses should not throw stones …
Dr Burns: Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business! Order!
Mr CONLAN: People in glass houses should not throw stones. We have a fellow who has presided over the worst health system. In fact, if it was any …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: If it could possibly get any worse it was when the member for Johnston took over the health system. We thought it could not get any worse. The member for Casuarina has done a pretty good job, but you are a hard act to follow, member for Johnston. You are a hard act to follow ...
Dr Burns: Where is your policy? Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: We have a number of policies; however, I am not going to pick up on the interjection at this stage ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr CONLAN: We see a government that opens the front page of the newspaper to see it is not there. What it would normally do is get one of its mates to write a good story so it can say: ‘Great, things are looking pretty good’. If there is nothing on the front page of the newspaper, it is a pretty good day for the health of Territorians. That is the government’s KPI – how many bad stories it gets in the NT News. That is the key performance indicator of the member for Johnston, the Chief Minister, the member for Karama, the member for Casuarina, the Minister for Health. It has been the key performance indicator for the entire term of the Northern Territory government: how much bad media it is receiving, and how to minimise it. It thinks it must be doing okay.
It is an absolute disgrace that we are seeing powers of statutory officers stripped just to cover their backsides. This is exactly what we have seen today when the minister went to shut down the Ombudsman by way of a legislative tool in the form of a bill. It is exactly what he was trying to do. The situation is pretty grave for Territorians, particularly those Territorians who utilise the health system - and there are many of them. Tens of thousands of them are utilising the acute side of our health system; in other words, our hospitals.
What we have at the moment - and this might be of some interest to those tens of thousands of people who utilise our health system - is there is no General Manager at the Katherine Hospital. We have no Medical Director at the Katherine Hospital. We have no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital. Fancy that! No General Manager, no Medical Director, no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital.
The Alice Springs Hospital General Manager position will soon cease to exist, and so will the General Manager position at Royal Darwin Hospital, according to a letter they have just received. Where does this leave the state of our hospital system? We currently have no medical consultant and no nursing consultant. The acute sector in the Northern Territory is in a complete state of flux. I will say that again. No General Manager, no Medical Director and no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital. Where does that leave the people of Katherine?
The Alice Springs Hospital General Manager position will soon cease to exist or move to some position - we are unsure because the government is obsessed with this so-called health reform. So-called reform - I use that word so loosely because it is anything but reform. It is a change in funding arrangements because the government rolled over, got a tickle on the belly, thanks very much. Same with the General Manager at the Royal Darwin Hospital. We are currently seeing across the NT no medical consultant and no nursing consultant.
We are in a complete state of flux, and all the minister can do; in fact, all the Cabinet and the government - the members for Johnston, Fannie Bay, Arafura, Wanguri, Daly, Karama, Stuart, and Casuarina. He has opened the front page to just see how many bad stories: ‘Is there a bad story in there about us today? If not, we have had another great day’.
I go back to 2007, where the then failed minister for Health, the member for Johnston - one of the worst, a very hard act to follow, the member for Johnston as Health minister. But, he is doing a pretty good job. He is the ingnue of failed Health ministers, that is what he is. Here is the media release, 9 February 2007: ‘Patient care must come first’. Well, we have just demonstrated that patient care is the last thing when it comes to this approach by the Northern Territory government.
By diminishing the powers of the health complaints commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner, and the Ombudsman, it allows the government to proceed with this culture of cover-up. Anything that might come to attention in the newspaper, in the public arena or, indeed, through the opposition can be buried - it can be shuffled to the bottom drawer and never see the light of day, just like the 2004 review.
The department is paralysed by its own reform agenda and, indeed, the national reform agenda. The minister does not know which way to turn. As I said, the General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital is on notice; so is the General Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital. They are on notice. Those positions are in a state of flux. Where are the people who hold those positions going to end up?
It is all about the National Health Reform and, indeed, the paralysis of the government. Local boards have been diminished; hospital management positions have been diminished; the gap between the doctor and the patient is widening, ever widening; and the accountability by the government is becoming farther and farther away. This is the problem. Local boards have gone. As a Country Liberals’ potential government and a Country Liberals’ opposition, we believe in local hospital boards. We believe in local boards to act as champions for the communities they represent. Who better to represent the community than those who live in the community? Who do you want representing your community - some bureaucrat on a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year in the Top End? Or do you want someone who lives and works among you?
The only ones who can represent your community effectively are the ones who live and work in your community. We believe in local boards - we strongly believe in local boards. This government has sought to diminish local boards. In fact, if it was not for a raft of amendments, supported by the member for Nelson in 2009, we would have, again, some seriously diminished boards. We fought rigorously to protect some of the integrity of the boards and at least keep them as local as possible. There are still a number of mechanisms in the new hospital boards bill which allow for the abolishment or the amalgamation of hospital boards. It is a big worry and we should all be greatly concerned about that. We firmly believe in hospital boards, they act as the champions for the community they represent.
We believe in a much closer doctor/patient relationship, not a close patient/bureaucrat relationship. It is about the doctor and the patient; it is not about the patient and the bureaucrat 2000 km away. It is about the doctor and the patient - bringing the doctor and the patient together - not about bolstering up the bureaucracy and the red tape that sees patients waiting at hospitals for hours and hours on end, and seeing some 11 300-odd leaving hospital without even being seen, and 1000 of those leaving hospital at their own risk. It is about bringing the patient and the doctor close together. That is what the opposition believes. We believe that is what the community wants; they want better, more convenient healthcare, not more red tape, not more bureaucracy – more convenient, better healthcare sooner. That is what they want.
I am exploring options about public/private partnerships when it comes to elective surgery. This is something the government is obsessed with: all public procedures going through the public system. It must be some Labor ideology; I do not know. Allowing the private sector to perform publicly-funded procedures, particularly when it comes to orthopaedic, ear nose and throat, and facial trauma, can take a great deal of heat and pressure off our public system.
I am not talking about last minute purchasing. The minister might say: ‘Oh, we already do that’. Yes, you might already do it at the last minute when you need to meet specific targets as it comes to the end of the financial year, or however you do it. You may well, but we are talking about a planned approach; an approach that is not just an ad hoc, last minute resort, to meet specific targets. We are actually talking about planning through the Department of Health and the private sector to perform public sector procedures. This would ease pressure on our public sector hospitals. It will free up beds and bring occupancy rates to a much more acceptable level, and a much safer level. Our occupancy rates are already well above 100% in many cases. Anything above 85%, as we all know, according to the AMA, is at dangerous levels.
So, this would free up those beds, bring occupancy rates down to more acceptable levels. And by beds, I mean real beds. I am not talking about bassinets or armchairs for chemo. I am talking about real beds - overnight acute in-patient beds. A bed is a bed. This is a mechanism and a tool to embark on public/private partnerships with the private sector.
I believe this approach will significantly reduce elective surgery waiting times. It will deliver enhanced and more well-suited healthcare for Territorians who have been deprived of it for such a long time - way too long: 5.9% of Territorians waited more than 365 days for elective surgery, which is up from 4.4% nine years ago.
There were 11 332 patients who entered Territory emergency departments and left without treatment. That is one in six. As I said, 1000 of those left hospital at their own risk. We are dragging the chain. It is risky business because it is people’s lives and their health we are talking about. Just like law and order, it is people’s lives, people’s health, people’s livelihoods. These are the big issues confronting Territorians, not wedge politics, not wasting taxpayers’ money trying to play some sort of game. Let us focus on real issues. This is what you will be remembered for: the government that took its eye off the ball and did not focus on the real issues. That is what people will remember you for, minister. That is the legacy you are going to leave.
This is your last chance. You do not have long. People are sick and tired of it. People have stopped listening. Many stopped listening a long time ago. This is the last roll of the dice for the ALP. Can it step up and really do something for Territorians? Can it leave a lasting legacy? When it comes to hospital waiting lists and better, more convenient healthcare, I do not think so, particularly if it is going to shut down the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. What hope do we have of providing better healthcare, more convenient healthcare for Territorians, if we are going to shut down the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner? We have no hope. What hope do we have of providing a good solid child protection system? What hope do we have of protecting our children if we are going to shut down and diminish the powers of the Children’s Commissioner? We have no hope; there is no hope. It is the last roll of the dice for front-page Kon.
Madam Speaker, it is pretty obvious the opposition will not be supporting this bill. I hope I have made that clear in no uncertain terms; that we will not be supporting this bill. In fact, I could not get far enough away from it; it is an absolute disgrace.
I make a pledge. I promise all those people out there, all those people in the gallery, all those people listening, that if elected to government, I or any one of us, whoever becomes Health minister, will not be shying away from the problems facing the health system by burying it in reports and shutting down statutory officers - whether it be the Children’s Commissioner, Ombudsman, or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We will not. Openness and accountability is the way to the hearts and minds of Territorians, not the culture of cover-up we have seen over the last 10 years.
We will not be supporting this bill; that is obvious. It is appalling the way the government has handled this situation and the way it treats Territorians, the health of Territorians, insults Territorians’ intelligence time after time after time, and the lip service it pays to Territorians, particularly us here in Central Australia. Central Australia is very much a part of the Northern Territory, but you would not think so sometimes.
I hope I have made my point clear. I hope those who have listened to this speech are a little wiser to the games and tricks of the Northern Territory Labor government, the length it will go to make itself look good, its drunkenness with power, and obsession with everything else except what really matters to Territorians. It is quite amazing how a government can take its eye off the ball.
We have had 10 years of Labor - 10 long, years of the Labor government. Ten long years of hard labour and all I can say is that Labor has to go.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I did some quick calculations - that drivel cost Territorians $5250. It was drivel because much of it was not true. Let us a look at some of the things the member said. He promised, when elected to government, they will open real beds. Really? The Country Liberal Party closed Ward 3B 16 years ago. It was reopened in 2009. Thirty beds - that is their record. The opposition wants people who go to hospital to be looked after. The reality is people who attended hospital and left unattended were people who could not have access to a GP. We have addressed that with super clinics. Who is opposing super clinics? The Country Liberal Party.
Let us look at some of the other things he said. He said Katherine Hospital does not have a general manager. The general manager went on sick leave. There is an acting general manager, and the new general manager will be arriving in April. We are currently recruiting for a director of medical services.
He said the principal medical and nursing advisors are not there. They finished their contracts. As happens in the Territory, people come and go, and we continue recruiting new people into these positions. He could not even get right who was the minister for Health in 2004. It was not the member for Nightcliff, it was a member from Alice Springs, Peter Toyne.
Let me tell you about Central Australian Territorians. The CLP botched the renovation of the Alice Springs Hospital which has cost this government $26m because the design and construct was stuffed up so badly. It did not check the company and we are now in court. He wants private/public partnership. After 27 years in parliament, where is the private hospital in Alice Springs? No one knocked on my door to establish a private hospital in Alice Springs. No one asked me to establish a private hospital in Alice Springs. We have a private hospital in Darwin working closely with the Royal Darwin Hospital, and we have some private/public partnerships utilising the theatres.
Who cut nurse numbers? It was the CLP. Who cut $2bn from the health budget in Australia? It was Tony Abbott when he was the minister for Health. Do not tell us what the CLP would do …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The last person to talk about the health sector should be you. It took you a year and a month to find out there is an oncology centre in Darwin and to visit it. You tried your best for that oncology centre not to become a reality, because you were playing up to some of your local constituents, who now, when they come up to Darwin, see the oncology centre and the Barbara James Hostel, and they admire it and are very impressed. How many complaints have I received about that from people in Central Australia? Zilch, none, zero ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: You are a truck, so keep rolling!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: He said they are not going to support this bill - that is their prerogative – and that somehow we are diminishing the power of the Ombudsman. Well, in this case, it was the Ombudsman who came to us and said she did not want to have the dual role of Ombudsman and health commissioner for several reasons: first of all, the workload and, second, because she perceived there was some conflict of interest between the two positions. So, we had to separate them and ensure some amendments in order for the health complaints commissioner to be appointed, like other statutory officers are appointed in the Territory.
He talked about the government changing the legislation for the employees to be public sector employees. As with the Ombudsman’s staff and the staff of most other independent officers, the employees of the commission are to be published as employees as defined in the Interpretation Act. This, in fact, maintains the status quo - nothing changes. What it was before, it will be now.
He said we gagged the health complaints commission. We cannot because the health complaints commissioner must provide an annual report to the minister for tabling under section 19. That is a requirement of the legislation, which I bet he did not bother to read. Also, the commissioner must provide an investigational report to the minister or to the Speaker of the House under section 65, which I bet he does not realise is in the act because he simply did not read it. Of course, the commissioner has to provide a report to the complainant, the provider, and the relevant provisional board. So, the health complaints commissioner is accountable to more than one person. He is accountable to the minister, to parliament, to the consumer, and to the provider. He has to provide reports on investigations that the commissioner decides are of significance to public health and safety. That is under section 65 of the legislation. On top of that, the Legislative Assembly - that is the parliament; that is me and you, all of us here - can refer any matter to the health complaints commissioner who must provide investigation reports to the Speaker for tabling under section 21.
The health complaints commissioner cannot be directed by me not to do things, because there are provision in the legislation that makes them investigate, report - that is in the legislation. If they do not do it, that means they are in breach of their own act.
The bill also puts, in statutory form, the commissioner’s capacity to hire consultants such as lawyers and medical experts outside the public employment sector. Consultants provide independent advice and are not employees for the purpose of the act. The bill also allows for the office of the commissioner to be held in conjunction with any other public office. The effect is that the Office of the Ombudsman is no longer tied to that of the commissioner.
The bill also makes amendments to the statutory law revision nature as identified by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Penalties and amendments are dealt with in a separate bill.
Let us have a look at the bill. The bill has a significant history. For the period from the commencement of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act on 10 June 1998 until 29 August 2010, the Ombudsman held the position as the Commissioner for Health and Community Service Complaints. This also meant the Ombudsman had the responsibility for the day-to-day administration of that act.
During 2010, the Ombudsman wrote to me indicating she did not want to be reappointed as the commissioner after her appointment expired. In not seeking the appointment, the Ombudsman raised the commission’s increased role and took the opportunity to highlight the review of the dual positions of commissioner and Ombudsman was desirable on the basis of potential conflict between the two roles, as there had been situations in the past where investigation by one of the two organisations had given rise to investigation by the other.
Further, in her annual report for 2008-09, the former commissioner noted that separate appointments of the commissioner and Ombudsman would remove actual conflict of interest, as well as public perception of conflicts, and provide the public with a more equitable health complaints service, given that one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries during this period of reform in delivery of health services.
That sounds familiar. The Ombudsman argued to have two separate people because one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries. However, the opposition wants the Ombudsman to actually do the role of the Children’s Commissioner, which I find rather surprising because the Ombudsman herself admits that it cannot be done by one person only; it needs two people to do the job properly.
It is generally agreed that the functions of Ombudsman and the commissioner are potentially incompatible, given the commissioner, like many other independent statutory officers, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman concerning some administrative actions. As a matter of policy and governance, the office of the commissioner should not be administered by the Department of Health, given the department is a provider of services that are subject to the commissioner’s complaint jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Administrative Arrangements Orders made by the Administrator on 9 December 2010 transferred, with effect from 1 January 2011, the functions related to the commission to the Department of Justice. Ministerial responsibility for the commissioner remains with the Minister for Health.
It has been identified that other than the Ombudsman, and to a more limited extent, the Auditor-General, most of the independent statutory officers relevant to administration of justice, such as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures, are appointed and removed from office without any involvement of the Legislative Assembly. I stress these amendments make no change to the powers of either the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner or the Ombudsman. Both positions retain the same statutory powers. The amendments have simply separated the position of the commissioner and the Ombudsman so the commissioner can hold any public office, including being the Ombudsman, or hold the position of commissioner exclusively.
Since the Ombudsman decided not to seek to renew her appointment as the commissioner last year, it was agreed by the Department of Health, Department of Justice, and the acting commissioner, that action needed to be taken without delay to separate the positions of the Ombudsman and the commissioner. As the nature of the position of the commissioner, the employees, and the method of appointment of the commissioner are related matters, it was decided to progress the administrative changes to the act sooner rather than later to ensure a smooth functioning of the office.
Last year, the opposition introduced a bill that focused on increasing the powers of the commissioner. The government believes that before such amendments can be made, a thorough statutory review of the operation of the act will be needed. This is anticipated to be finalised this year. This will include an updated report on the act by the Department of Justice and the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints, and encompass significant public consultation.
Additionally, a recruitment process is currently being undertaken to fill the position of commissioner. It is thought the future commissioner should have input in the next review. It is anticipated that any necessary amendments to the act will be introduced within the next 12 months.
The position of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner is very important. This is one of the avenues that consumers of health services, be it private or public, can seek retribution and advice, and then put their complaints. The reality is, some of these complaints are quite serious. We have a situation where people are dealing with malpractice, complaining about the lack of services, or the provision of inadequate or insufficient services. There has to be an avenue to make these complaints and for these complaints to be investigated by an independent person such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, in order for these complaints and issues to be addressed.
My measure for health efficacy and outcomes is not what the member for Greatorex comes up with here and performs about in front of parliament. He is a good performer, I must admit that. What I say is a good health service is when I see the outcome - when I see the reduction of deaths from renal dialysis; when I see people who undergo renal dialysis have the same life expectancy as those in Melbourne or Sydney - bearing in mind that the CLP did not allocate any funding for renal dialysis in the communities; when I see the rates of cervical cancer collapsing; when I see the infant mortality of Indigenous kids dropping by 35%; when I see people here in the Territory receiving adequate health services; and when I see services like RAPU, the Rapid Admission Unit.
I admit that our hospitals are overstretched. Our emergency departments receive one admission every 10 minutes. However, I remind you, that when we came to government, the health expenditure - and probably the member for Nightcliff remembers this very well as she was the Minister for Health in 2001 - in 2001 was $400m. Today, it is $1.2bn. The reason for that? Nearly 120 more doctors and a significant number of nurses. We introduced the nurses per patient ratio to have adequate nurse numbers looking after people in hospital.
Health is a tough portfolio, not only because it is big and difficult, but because we are dealing with people’s personal problems. In the Territory it becomes more difficult because it is more personal. The person who is treated at the hospital today may be my neighbour, my friend, my wife, or a person who I know very well, and this information will come to me firsthand. Also, having kids growing up in the Territory – and, hopefully, it never happens - I am a consumer; when my kids did something that was not very good, I sometimes turned up to the emergency department and had to wait because somebody who had a heart attack had priority over a person who had to have a couple of stitches.
I know it is very difficult. We actually have listened to the community. I agree with you that local input is very important. That is why I have instructed the department that there will be two local hospital networks: one in the north and one in the south.
With regard to the letters to the general manager of the hospital, nothing is going to change, but things have to be readjusted because now we have the Gove and Katherine hospitals and Royal Darwin Hospital in the north local hospital network, while Alice Springs and Tennant Creek will be the south local hospital network.
Madam Speaker, these are a number of amendments which some people might think are not significant, but I believe they will strengthen the position of the health complaints commission. Having a commissioner by himself or herself will provide a better service to our clients in the health system.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am sorry I did not know who the Health minister was in 2004; it is very hard to keep up. Labor has had 17 ministerial reshuffles and 141 ministerial appointments since the 2001 election, so it is a little tricky keeping up with what is going on. I apologise to the member for Nightcliff for the allegation she somehow presided over one of the worst Health departments in the Northern Territory.
It is hard to top the member for Johnston, the man who lives in a glass house and is more than happy to throw stones. He has a cloud hanging over his head like in the cartoon. We might get to that in adjournments, member for Johnston.
The minister talked about the wonderful things that have occurred in the Health department, about renal dialysis and, of course, that is great. Does that then somehow diminish the 800 or so outstanding notifications of child protection? I ran through a stack of child protection failures by the Northern Territory government. Somehow, the renal dialysis investment offsets the care and protection of children? One is great; it does not mean the other is okay by any stretch.
The achievements we have seen in health are good and, for the most part, the government is doing its job. Employing more nurses and doctors is the government doing its job. In 1950, there were 80 police officers in the Northern Territory. You would not be much of a government if, in 2010, you still only had 80 police officers. Of course, you are going to employ more police officers as the population grows and we face the law and order tsunami we have. Nevertheless, you are going to employ, recruit and attempt to retain more doctors and nurses as the population grows and we move into the 21st century.
I give the government its achievements. Renal dialysis is a great leap forward - a wonderful step. Perhaps it was an oversight by previous Country Liberal governments - they were building the Northern Territory. That is not an excuse; the Northern Territory government deserves credit where credit is due. However, does that mean the 800 or so outstanding child protection matters are okay? No, it does not. Does it mean the 11 533 people waiting in emergency departments is okay? No, it does not.
The minister said it is okay if I take my child there needing a couple of stitches and someone has a heart attack - we are okay; we are prepared to wait. Does it mean for those 1000 people who left the emergency department without being seen at their own risk - potentially life threatening - it is okay because we are seeing the person who potentially is having a heart attack? No, it does not make any of this okay. Because you have made some achievements does not mean your failures are okay. It does not mean your raft of failures is okay because you have made some inroads, because you have employed doctors and nurses. You are doing the job you are paid to do. It makes no difference to those children abandoned by the Northern Territory government who are at risk every single night.
For the government and the minister to suggest it has done much good and it makes everything okay - it is not okay; it is far from okay. The minister talks about the PATS and the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre - a wonderful centre, something the Northern Territory can be very proud of. It is something that was 10 years overdue. It was promised in 1999, from opposition, and it took 10 years to deliver. Nevertheless, it is there and is great. However, it does not make all the failures any better. It does not vindicate you from all the failures you have presided over, minister. It does not make one iota of difference to those children abandoned by the Northern Territory government. You should all hang your head in shame. The Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre is wonderful, no doubt about it; however, it does not mean the people of Central Australia are lining up to go to Darwin to use it. You have not been listening. It has not been on the front page of the NT News. Front-page Kon has not read it so, obviously, people are not requiring the services in Adelaide any longer.
People in Central Australia all of a sudden want to utilise the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre - untrue by a long way. Central Australians have enormous kinship with South Australia, like the people of the Kimberley have a kinship with the Top End. Speak to your Liberal counterpart in Western Australia; speak to your Labor colleague, the member for Kimberley, and ask her whether we can negotiate. Can we have a cross-border arrangement for people of the Kimberley to utilise the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and get some money to offset the cost for the people of Central Australia who still want to utilise Royal Adelaide Hospital despite the fact it is a well-overdue wonderful centre? I have been there, you know that ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It does not matter. You were 10 years too late in delivering it. It took 10 years to deliver. It was promised in 1999 by the member for Fannie Bay, the Leader of the Opposition.
The situation is the minister is diminishing local boards. He is taking local autonomy away from you and me as Territorians who utilise the health system. He is diminishing it. The bill is difficult to read and government will spin it any way it wants. It will say: ‘No, no, it is not all that bad’. If it is not that bad, why are you touching it, diminishing local boards; diminishing local control?
It talks about local hospital networks. Once again, we see the Central Australian community having to win the argument. Everyone has to win the argument with this government. It takes the high moral ground: ‘What we say is right, and you tell us why it should be otherwise’. The Central Australian community recently held their protest to draw the government’s attention to law and order. They had to do it with health, and with the local hospital networks because if not, we would have one local hospital network for the whole of the Northern Territory - a super board running our hospital. So much for locals being the champions of their community.
This bill goes a long way toward diminishing local control, local input, and the powers of our statutory officers and, in this case, the health complaints commissioner. We see it with the Ombudsman and, of course, the Children’s Commissioner. It is okay, according to the minister, because we have made some positive inroads. I am not diminishing the hard work that has gone into renal dialysis; however, that does not make everything else okay. It does not make all your other failures okay, minister.
I implore everyone in this Chamber, the member for Nelson in particular, the member for Macdonnell, and members on the other side of the House who utilise our public hospitals, who want independence and government at arm’s length, who care enough about it, to vote against this bill. This is not a good bill; this is not good law; it is not good legislation. It does not enhance the Territory at all. I urge everyone with a conscience who cares about the future of the Territory to vote against this bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, first I would like to correct the member. The backlog of children notifications is not 800; it is 237 because we worked hard to bring it down. We have made inroads, not ‘some’ inroads. We have made many inroads despite the best efforts of the federal government.
The member for Fong Lim tried hard. The problem was he had a very difficult minister to work with in the Liberal government who would not cough up the money. It took a federal Labor government to provide the money - not $13m, not $15m, nearly $25m. We have a state-of-the-art oncology centre with two linear accelerators. Why? People do not go to Adelaide any more because there is a waiting list. In Darwin, we do not a waiting list. In fact, my Liberal counterpart, Kim Hames in Western Australia, has asked if he can utilise our facility to send people from the Kimberleys and as far away as Broome. Currently, we get people from east of Warburton in Western Australia being treated by renal dialysis. Obviously, states like Western Australia recognise the good work we do with the health system. I tend to believe Kim Hames, who is a doctor, rather than the member for Greatorex.
Our health system is not perfect, but it is much better than the system the CLP had in place.
Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, through agreement with the opposition, the Occupational Licensing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 139) will be postponed to a later date.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I advise the opposition concurs that we have reached agreement on that issue.
Continued from 29 March 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: I note the member for Araluen is in continuation with 13 minutes to go. I advise honourable members that at 5.45 pm I will be suspending the House in readiness for Question Time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I commenced my speech addressing the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement on Tuesday, 29 March. Just to recap, the ministerial statement by the Chief Minister called Taking Real Action for Alice Springs was, indeed, an eye-opener for all of us that day.
As you will remember clearly, we gathered in a festive situation on Tuesday for the opening of parliament, and the Chief Minister had 300 or so angry residents out the front of the convention centre in Alice Springs expressing concern about particular issues that are included in the ministerial statement. He opened this statement by saying:
Well, Chief Minister, you did not get much warm hospitality on Tuesday morning, 29 March 2011. In fact, the hospitality you received was quite cold.
The Chief Minister has been dodging bullets shot from Alice Springs people of late. The law and order and antisocial problems on the streets in Alice Springs escalated from around late December 2010. As a result, a group formed - Action for Alice - which consists mainly of business people who felt the government was not adequately listening to their concerns about how their businesses were being attacked by people who had no regard for their property or businesses.
The crowd on the lawns of the convention centre requested the Chief Minister address them, recognise their issues and acknowledge their concerns, but he ignored them. It would have been satisfying for them to have the Chief Minister’s attention for a minute or two, but he shied away from that. He showed no courage, no leadership, and no conviction or real commitment to those angry residents and business people of Alice Springs who deserved more than they received on Tuesday morning, 29 March 2011.
The Chief Minister went ahead with his ministerial statement espousing the great successes of the Labor Henderson government and the marvellous things it has provided Alice Springs, claiming he has listened to the concerns of Alice Springs. I quote from the ministerial statement:
Well, it has listened and has acted, but only in the last few weeks; only since the advertisements from Action for Alice appeared on Imparja Television; only since the Chief Minister was publicly shamed, nationally humiliated, and drawn into having to respond.
In true form, the Chief Minister has turned it all around on the good people of Alice Springs - he calls them ‘the good people of Alice Springs’; I have heard him use those words several times - saying those people are putting the town down; they are trashing the town. He accused me of whipping up crime. He said that these advertisements on television were irresponsible and doing enormous damage to the local economy. This is not true. He has flipped the whole situation around to enable him to take no responsibility for the fact that law and order is out of control.
We all know something had to be done, and thank goodness Action for Alice has the troops together; rallied some support within the community, performed a great community service in illuminating the problems they are experiencing, and bringing it to the attention of the Northern Territory government. Had the Chief Minister listened to Action for Alice earlier, they may not have gone to the extent they did. They received national attention for their campaign and, unfortunately, the Northern Territory government had to respond. Unfortunately for them - fortunately for us!
I described, in the first part of my speech on Tuesday, the general mood in the town is one of cynicism. This town has lost faith in the Northern Territory government. It is suspicious; it does not trust this government to come through with outcomes for Alice Springs. However, we live in hope, and although people are very scornful of the words of the government, they still hope something will be done because we are not talking about simple matters of low meaning or value to the people of Alice Spring - we are talking about people’s livelihoods. We are talking about our children’s future and the safety of the town; how our children are growing up, what they are seeing, what they are experiencing, and the stamps imprinted on their minds they will take forth into their adult lives. It is very significant to all of us in Alice Springs. It is very important to the people of Alice Springs that the Chief Minister act and resolve these problems. I am stating the obvious, not something people do not know.
We heard about the community action plan from the government - an action plan put together a few weeks ago. It is a great action plan but, after 10 years of government, to come up with a community action plan for Alice Springs a few weeks ago does not really amount to much credibility. It is disingenuous of the Chief Minister to embark on a series of community consultations given so much time has lapsed and so many opportunities have been wasted.
People are attending these consultation meetings, business people have met, the youth people have met; however, the feedback I am getting is one of cynicism and scepticism. They attend because they feel they have to; they believe in the town, they want change to happen. But, do they think anything is really going to happen? No. The Chief Minister will say: ‘You are just being doomy and gloomy. You are just being negative and talking down the town’. That attitude is how this town has been treated for many years stretching back to the beginning of this government’s term in office.
The Deputy Chief Minister accused the business people of Alice Springs of being disingenuous. She said they were not genuine in their response. The Deputy Chief Minister said: ‘disingenuous of the business people’. The Deputy Chief Minister has been neglectful and is, once again, turning the argument around so she does not need to take any responsibility for this government’s lack of action, poor behaviour, mistreatment of Alice Springs, or maladministration of the law and order issues in this town.
There is no doubt that this town wants the attention of the government. We have yelled and screamed, and we will do anything to get your attention. We will tap dance on the table if it means you will truly listen and act when it comes to Alice Springs. The Deputy Chief Minister made some very disrespectful remarks: ‘We are giving you attention. You do not have to make a fuss’. Well, we do, and the proof is in the pudding. If we do not make these demands loudly and clearly, you do not listen. There is proof of that, and I do not need to list for the parliament today what that proof is - it has all been said before.
The Deputy Chief Minister spoke about the Kilgariff land development, which is very encouraging. I intend to be part of that design process coming up this week. However, what happened to the CBD rejuvenation plan on the table years ago? It was on the table when I was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council. I asked a public servant what was happening with the Alice Springs CBD rejuvenation plan. It has only been in the consultation process for five years - goodness me. What has happened to that? Obviously, the commitment was not there for funding and real change so it has been stuck in this very lengthy, very thorough, I hope, consultation process. We look forward to what the Labor government does with the CBD rejuvenation plan for Alice Springs, which would make a huge difference to this town. It is a very positive idea and has been on the agenda for years. People would psychologically, financially, and in all ways, benefit from a CBD that was brightened up and reflected a more positive, modern Alice Springs.
We always go back to alcohol because, unfortunately, this town is, in some ways, controlled by the alcohol problem in this community. The government define it for us time and time again. You do not need to define the alcohol problem to the people of Alice Springs - we know about it; we live it every day. It is a source of great worry, great heartache, great despair, and great loss for every one of us. It is highly disrespectful that the people of Alice Springs are lectured by this government on the desperate state of the alcohol problem. We know about it and have been trying to stem the flow of alcohol in Alice Springs for many years - five minimum, probably six or seven years now.
We have all been subjected to the alcohol restrictions that have failed. We have been used as guinea pigs. We have had to adjust our behaviour regarding when we buy alcohol and how much we buy. It was all on the premise that crime was about alcohol consumption and, if you reduced alcohol consumption, crime would reduce. There has been absolutely no evidence to support that. All the alcohol restrictions have done for Alice Springs is prove, without a doubt, alcohol restrictions do not work. They do not minimise crime in this town. I will be slightly more accurate: the alcohol restrictions this Labor government has put in place have not worked - they have failed. I say that with great regret ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I understand there has been an agreement between the government and the opposition that this debate would end at 5.45 pm. I remind the House, and the member for Araluen, of that agreement.
Mrs Lambley: You are going to cut me off at the knees again.
Dr BURNS: It is an agreement between us and your Whip. I am not trying to cut you off; I am trying to abide by that agreement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is unfortunate timing for you. I suggest rather than interrupt you once again we stop now. We will be suspending the House, as agreed, at 5.45 pm to allow members of the public to fill the gallery seats.
Mrs LAMBLEY: So, I get to speak again - part 3.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have an opportunity to resume your remaining 10 minutes of remarks at a later time.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Katherine to make a personal explanation. Honourable members, I remind you a personal explanation is not a debate and I ask you to listen with courtesy.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I provide a personal explanation about a number of allegations made through a letter written by Mr Michael Rowley and tabled in this parliament.
This matter of the purchase and subsequent sale of the vehicle in question was one of a contractual nature, and became a matter before the Katherine local court in 2003. Regarding the assertions made in Mr Rowley’s letter about this civil action, I need to correct the record and advise that, in this case, I was, in fact, the plaintiff. The author of the tabled document, Mr Rowley, was a respondent. The matter was settled in a court mediation process, and there are no further comments to be made.
In relation to other allegations that have been made, I can advise the House these allegations are not new. Mr Rowley made a complaint against police in 2003, some eight years ago, when I was still a member of the police force, and many years before entering public office. The allegations in his recent letter are the same allegations made at that earlier time. I advise this House that these allegations were, as per normal police procedure, thoroughly and rigorously investigated by the police as an internal disciplinary investigation. Most police officers, at some time in their career, have complaints made about their actions - I am no different.
During the course of that investigation, I admitted to making some mistakes; namely, I failed to transfer my driver’s licence from Queensland to the Northern Territory within the required time frame; I failed to transfer the registration of the vehicle purchased within the required time frame; I mistakenly put the wrong vehicle purchase date on the registration papers; and I was given access to the transfer of registration application for the purpose of completing a signature block. Notwithstanding the personal matters I was dealing with at the time, I was embarrassed - and remain embarrassed - by the mistakes I made.
These matters were dealt with fulsomely by the Police Ethical and Professional Standards Unit and were finalised. I trust no one would have an issue with the way the Ethical and Professional Standards Unit performs its duties and carries out its investigations.
Was I dismissed? No. Was I suspended? No. Was my rank reduced? No. Were there any punitive measures? Yes, indeed there were. I received a monetary fine of $750 and was placed on a 12-month internal police good behaviour bond. Were there any criminal charges? No, there were not. Knowing what I know about the internal police disciplinary process, if there had been any intent on my part, or if the seriousness of my infractions were such that warranted it, I would have faced criminal charges at the time.
There is plenty of precedent for police officers to face criminal charges if the circumstances warrant it. I did not face criminal charges. Did I pay my fine? Yes. Did I remain of good behaviour? Yes. In fact, within a few years I was promoted from senior constable to the rank of sergeant. That is how the system is meant to work: you make mistakes; you face the consequences of those mistakes. I can assure you the consequences for me personally, and for my family, far outweighed the punitive measures imposed by the police force. Natural justice allows us all to move on. This matter has been finalised for many years.
I have moved on, the police force has moved on; unfortunately, it appears Mr Rowley still feels, for whatever reason, a need to raise this matter. I have not had any contact with Mr Rowley since this matter was finalised. For me to contact him would be inappropriate. Therefore, in an offer of conciliation, if Mr Rowley would like to contact me to discuss any matters around this incident, I invite him to do so. I bear him no ill will.
For the record, I can also advise the House I have never altered records regarding my son, as alleged. My son has never had a DUI charge, and it is regrettable any person sees fit to refer to members of my family in their attacks on me.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues for supporting this definite matter of public importance.
Deception has not been visited on the Australian people like the deception relating to the carbon tax in a long time. Let us be very clear about the carbon tax, it, is driven by politics, by opportunism and cynical self-serving politics. It is the price of a single vote in the House of Representatives, and the price will not be paid by some big, nasty, corporate shark, it will be paid by all Australians - all Territorians. The deception started before the last federal election. On several occasions, the then Prime Minister ruled out the introduction of a carbon tax. On 16 August 2010, on Channel 10, Ms Gillard claimed:
Then, on the Friday before the election the Prime Minister stated categorically:
I rule out a carbon tax.
Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, said on Meet the Press on 15 August:
He said on 7.30 Report on 12 August 2010:
Sadly, on 24 February this year, the Prime Minister, flanked by The Greens, announced she wanted to introduce a carbon tax on 1 July next year. She said this might morph into an emissions trading scheme three to five years later; however, this carbon tax could be with us for years and years.
This is not a tax on big emitters; it is a tax on every Australian. It is disheartening that the Chief Minister has engaged in this deception. During Question Time which has just finished, the Chief Minister was asked whether he opposed the carbon tax. He said Territorians have nothing to fear, that this is a tax on those electricity generators who use brown coal in Victoria and Queensland. Clearly, it is a tax on more than just brown coal power stations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It is a tax on every industry that emits carbon dioxide. Those charges will be passed on to every single Australian in higher food costs, higher transport costs, and higher electricity costs. Every single Australian will be paying higher prices. What is even clearer is this tax will affect the Northern Territory to a much greater extent than anywhere else, unlike what the Chief Minister said.
I want to go through some of the deceptions visited on Australian people about this carbon tax. We quite often hear Australians are the biggest per capita polluters in the world. It is almost like every Australian now believes we are the biggest per capita emitters in the world. Julia Gillard said in the House of Representatives on 3 March 2011:
I have a swag of other quotes saying the same.
According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, the international body which conducts tests on what countries emit - all these things can be referenced through
In no way is Australian the biggest per capita emitter in the world. In absolute terms, Australia’s carbon emissions are 396 million tonnes. That is dwarfed by countries such as China, 6538 million tonnes; the United States, 6094 million tonnes; Russia, 1579 million tonnes; India, 1600 million tonnes; Japan, 1300 million tonnes; Germany, 841 million tonnes; Canada, 590 million tonnes; and South Korea, 503 million tonnes.
On a relative to land mass basis we are dwarfed by the rest of the world. Australia’s relative to land mass emissions - we emit 51.52 tonnes per square kilometre; China, 681 tonnes per square kilometre; the United States of America, 632 tonnes per square kilometre; Japan, 3500 tonnes per square kilometre; and the United Kingdom, 2249 tonnes per square kilometre. These are absolutely amazing numbers.
Other deceptions visited upon us by this Prime Minister, and some of the people promoting a carbon tax in Australia, are that the world is surging ahead and Australia risks being left behind; and that other countries are doing so much in relation to carbon taxes and an ETS but Australians are being left behind. The European Union has an ETS and, under the carbon leakage provisions, more than 80% of industrial firms covered by the ETS are exempt for 100% of their emissions.
In Canada, it failed. The failure of the US cap and trade legislation and the troubles besetting the western climate and emissions prompted an analyst to comment visions of emissions trading in Canada are fading in a puff of smoke. Korea has failed; Russia is failing; China has failed; and in India it has failed. Countries around the world are not leading.
Julia Gillard says a carbon tax - I cannot believe this one - will be a boon for Australian jobs. In a speech on 16 March this year she said it is the choice we face; action will protect jobs, inaction will cost jobs. Even her climate change expert and advisor, Professor Ross Garnaut, in a National Press Club address on 17 March said:
Even the government’s chief climate change expert, Professor Ross Garnaut, understands jobs will go overseas and it could lead to an increase in carbon emissions.
Do not just take his word for it. Access Economics said there will be 126 000 job losses. Acil Tasman, another respected company, said there will be a closure of 16 coal mines and the loss of 10 000 jobs in the coal industry. Acil Tasman has estimated in the first 10 years of the scheme 16 mines would close prematurely and, by 2021, there would be 9900 fewer people employed within the coal mining industry. Concept Economics said 24 000 jobs will be lost in mining. Frontier Economics said 45 000 jobs will be lost in the energy-intensive sector. Bjorn Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus, said in February this year Dr Glen from the Green Job organisation concluded:
The idea that somehow we are creating jobs by introducing a carbon tax is being proved wrong by so many experts.
There is a whole range of other deceptions. The idea about petrol - the Chief Minister said: ‘It is not going to affect the Northern Territory because it is only aimed at coal-fired power stations interstate’. One of the areas that will be hardest hit is petrol. The Prime Minister was extremely cagey about the inclusion of petrol in her carbon tax when she announced it on 24 February 2011. She said the matter was yet to be discussed and resolved. However, her own paper says it is on the table.
The Greens MP, Adam Bandt, the guy the Prime Minister has designed the whole thing for, let the cat out of the bag when he told Sky News on February 25:
Adam Bandt, The Greens MP, one of the people the federal Labor government is now totally in love with, has belled the cat.
Soon after the carbon tax announcement, The Greens climate change spokesman, Christine Milne, pushed for petrol to be included in the scheme, which earned her a rebuke from Ms Gillard. She said, on Sunday 27 February, Senator Milne’s comments on the inclusion of petrol were not appropriate in the sense that these discussions are still to come.
In relation to petrol, the government’s chief climate change advisor, Mr Ross Garnaut, had this to say in his speech to the National Press Club:
He said:
He also said later when questioned at the National Press Club by media people:
What he is saying is parts of Australia, particularly highly urbanised areas, have the ability to access public transport; however, places more remote will be paying an excessive amount for petrol. You have to wonder for a place with almost 30% of its population living in remote communities largely on welfare, and being desperate for access to transport fuels, what an increase in the price of fuel will do to those industries.
Ross Garnaut also belled the cat on where compensation will be. If you believe our Prime Minister, she says it will all go in tax cuts for low-income earners and subsidies for people on Centrelink or social security benefits. Ross Garnaut says first we need to subsidise the cost of transport fuels - that is a major one. We need to subsidise trade-exposed industries because he recognises jobs will go overseas from this. He says at least 15% of revenue raised has to go to carbon farming initiatives. Also, there has to be a sizeable chunk to subsidise renewable energy industries because, even though we are having a carbon tax on fossil fuel energy industries, the renewables will still need massive amounts of government assistance and the remainder - whatever little is left - can go to low-income earners and social security recipients.
I have outlined a whole range of different areas where the Prime Minister has misled the Australian people on this tax. One thing that is certain is very little detail has come out so far on this. It is a deception in itself that you announce a tax, you have to search for all of the detail from people like Ross Garnaut who is advising the government, and from people like the Australian Greens who are quite happy to bell the cat on a whole range of issues.
It is clear this is probably the most deceptive Prime Minister Australia has had since Gough Whitlam. She is an absolute appalling joke, and the deceit she has visited on the Australian people is unheralded.
I am keen to hear what members of the government have to say. For goodness sake, I hope the minister for Business speaks. Let us hope his Chief of Staff, David Halliday, has done a good job in providing him with plenty of speaking notes. I am also hoping the minister for the Environment might stand up, and likewise, Kieran Phillips has done a good job in providing him with some adequate speaking notes. Goodness me, these guys cannot think for themselves. Let us hope their staff are up to the job of defending the indefensible.
I would like to see the government defend Territorians in particular, although this is an issue bigger than just the Territory - this will affect the whole of Australia. We need to call this for what it is: a massive deceit on the Australian public. We need to call the Prime Minister out, get her to start putting some meat on the bones, because the reality is, whatever type of carbon tax she introduces it is going to hurt the Northern Territory more than any other place in Australia.
The Chief Minister is quite funny saying we went to gas a long time ago and, therefore, will be saved. The reality is, therefore, we will be doomed, because there are very few places we can make cuts to carbon emissions. It is very difficult to cut carbon emissions from the gas industry, so how are we going to grow energy if there are further taxes on carbon emissions?
I hope members of the government support this matter of public importance today, and I look forward to hearing contributions from the ministers …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Are you going to interrupt me, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr TOLLNER: You are a darling. Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, sadly for the member for Fong Lim, we will not be supporting this matter of public importance today. The matter of public importance is the failure of this government to lobby the federal government to stand up for the Territory and its citizens to prevent job destruction in the Territory, export of Territory industry, and the high cost of living which will result from a carbon tax deal; and furthermore, this government’s failure to condemn the Prime Minister.
I have quite a few notes on jobs and business in the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim is talking about the carbon tax and jobs, so I will abandon some of my notes that …
A member interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, yes, you have now cost my Chief of Staff a carton of beer, also Kieran Phillips a carton of beer, and there goes another carton of beer.
This debate has been around since the previous federal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and it has been the subject of a great deal of conjecture, not so much on the Labor side, on the Coalition side. Obviously, Malcolm Turnbull believes in climate change, as does a great body of academics and experts. The crux of this MPI is: do you believe in climate change? The member for Fong Lim is on the public record as not believing in climate change. Nice to see the member for Brennan is joining us as a believer in climate change. We have disparity on the other side of the House. The crux of the MPI is: is climate change real? If not, you should not put a carbon tax in place.
Our belief is that human-induced climate change is real. There is a need to take action and leadership ...
Mr Giles: What type of action should be taken?
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Braitling. I will list that, member for Braitling.
We need to take action, we need to reduce our carbon emissions, and that is happening within government in a whole range of areas ...
Mr Giles: Do you drive a car?
Mr KNIGHT: I drive a four-cylinder four-wheel drive, member for Braitling. I believe you drive a six-cylinder car. You need to be looking at your carbon emissions! Government has the green fleet policy and the green buildings policy. The Henderson Labor government has reduced its carbon emissions with a 20% reduction in fleet emissions. Government is looking at a whole range of other areas as well. Within the business area we have ecoBiz, which helps businesses convert to low-emission, low-carbon technology. That not only helps the environment, it helps the bottom line of those businesses because even though our power is the second lowest in the country, any less power we use is less gas generators are using.
That brings me to our energy sources in the Northern Territory; obviously, we are on gas. The majority of Territorians use power from gas turbines, which was not the case when Stokes Hill Power Station moved. One of the things I asked Power and Water when I became minister was why we used Channel Island because having your generation source closer to your population reduces the likelihood of interruption.
It is located, member for Brennan, at Channel Island because it was going to be a coal-fired power station - coal ships were going to offload the coal there. Luckily for us, the gas industry kicked off and we were able to source gas. Now, we have current gas sales agreements in place for 25 years. We will be looking at extending those as the contract moves through.
There is a great deal of conjecture about climate change. Malcolm Turnbull, at the federal level, is a very strong believer and supporter of climate change. Recently, Tony Abbott took the opportunity to talk with Malcolm Turnbull. It was quoted on ABC Online that he asked Malcolm Turnbull to embrace the new Coalition policy, which does not accept climate change, and Malcolm Turnbull refused to do so.
There is a split on that side of the House in so many different ways and for many different reasons. We are supporters and believers in climate change and we have to take leadership.
The member for Fong Lim talked about industry in the Northern Territory being lost. I mentioned today how well our economy is going; how businesses have been successful, how people in the Northern Territory have jobs, and how our retail trade figures are improving quarter upon quarter, which is good for business.
With a climate change policy, industries change, and settings change for taxation in particular industries - industry moves with that. The information technology industry is shifting and society is shifting with it; those industries are moving with it as well. The information technology industry is a classic example of Silicon Valley. A whole industry started almost overnight and changed the way business and society operated.
With a new low-carbon industry, Australian businesses will be first cab off the rank, able to reduce their running costs and get into new areas of the low-carbon industry. We will, hopefully, be world leaders and it is good to see Northern Territory businesses are taking up this challenge. A number of businesses in Darwin have moved to some new and efficient air-conditioning and lighting systems to reduce energy consumption. This is what you will see. There will not be job losses per se; industries will change, the focus will change, and people will change with it.
Programs run by the Department of Business and Employment allow for that. We have a lot of promotion with our October Business Month, with the themes generated from industry. As the focus changes to low-carbon technologies and more energy efficiencies, businesses will be seeking that in October Business Month presentations. The work we do with our upskills programs with businesses will see that focus - coaching of businesses in new areas. Also, the jobs plans - getting school leavers and adults transitioning into other sectors, with the training programs focusing on new industries that are low carbon. We have mechanisms in place to allow for a change in the focus of the industry. The Northern Territory is well positioned to make that happen.
The member for Fong Lim highlighted the Northern Territory government’s stance. I repeat what the Chief Minister said in Question Time today: we do not want to be any worse off with a carbon tax. We have gas. We want to be recognised for our leadership, and this goes back to decisions of previous governments. We want to show that Territorians have shown leadership in this area, and we want credit for having a low-carbon energy source. We want to be given credit for all the savannah burning technologies and work that occurs, because that is one of the biggest emitters of carbon in the Northern Territory. The work happening in northwest Arnhem Land with savannah burning is world-leading. We are very well advanced, but will be looking very closely at the makeup and final construction of a carbon tax. We will be lobbying for credit for gas. We do not want this to be at the expense of the brown coal-fired power stations of the east coast. We are well placed to make that happen, and are under no illusions about it. We will make a very strong stand about any impact. The Prime Minister has alluded to giving some relief to low-income earners and pensioners for any higher living costs incurred. We are aware of what is happening in the Northern Territory and will be taking that, very strongly, to the Prime Minister.
I have alluded to most of the member for Fong Lim’s matter of public importance. We do not support it. The premise is there is no climate change, thus you do not need a carbon tax. We believe there is human-induced climate change. We believe Australia and the Northern Territory needs to show leadership. It is something the world cannot ignore, and you will see the Northern Territory and Australia being world leaders in more efficient use of energy and lower energy operations for industry. Whether you like it or not, we have seen peak oil. Countries that depend on higher cost energy sources will ultimately pay the price for not converting to low-carbon, low-energy industry sources. Australia will be world leading.
Member for Fong Lim, I disagree with your matter of public importance. I respect you have brought it forward and have a view; you are the most vocal and hard-working backbencher on the other side. You are a man of conviction and good for you; however, we will not be supporting this MPI today.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague’s matter of public importance regarding the failure of this government to lobby the federal government in regard to the rights of Territorians and the impact the carbon tax may have. I would like to direct my comment to a part of the MPI - job destruction in the Northern Territory by this Labor government, and the possible export of Territory industry from the Northern Territory. I have mentioned these before, but I would like to get them on the record again because it is important people hear how the government does not really stand up for the mining industry in the Northern Territory.
I previously mentioned Arafura Resources, which has the Nolans Bore project just north of Alice Springs - a rare earth project. It is a scarce commodity and the company is hoping to be in production by 2013. It is 100% owned by Arafura Resources. There will be growth in this commodity as world appetite grows. It is a supply and demand issue but the company is confident it will be able to meet demand on the world scene.
Sadly, the processing operation associated with this project has gone to South Australia. The company wanted to have the processing operation in the Northern Territory, and looked at alternative options regarding where they could place it - whether it is Alice Springs, at site, or Darwin. It always wanted to stay in the Northern Territory but did not get any real help from the Northern Territory government in finding a suitable location around Darwin. As a consequence, it looked further afield and settled on the site in Whyalla. The company was only there for a short time before the South Australian government gave it major project status. That loss to the Territory is a project worth $750m, possibly up to a $1bn, with 200 to 300 direct jobs gone from the Northern Territory, and possibly 200 to 300 indirect jobs, plus all the service and supply that go with the associated operation. It was, and is, a lost opportunity.
Another example of lack of support of the mining industry by this government is the HNC (Australia) Resources potential project called Area 55. Potentially, there is a four-year mine life. It is a polymetallic oxide ore project. In January 2010, it was referred to the Commonwealth under a controlled action because of threatened species. Under the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, it was to be assessed with a full EIS. That is okay; the company has no issue with that. However, guidelines drawn up for the company to undertake the environmental impact assessment were unbelievably tough. The company has no issue with a rigorous, robust assessment, but what was put into the guidelines - which was a precursor to the EIS - made it such that the company would never be able to comply with environmental management and performance.
One the things in the guidelines, for example, was negligible impact on the environment. We are talking about an open cut mine. I have gone through the documents and spoken with the company. Wanting the project to have a negligible impact was mentioned 37 times. That is just not possible. We are talking about a four-year mine life; a project that would have employed many people bringing economic opportunities to the town of Batchelor.
I will give a comparison. The guideline documents given for Area 55, as it is called, were 55 pages long. The same guideline document for the INPEX project was 22 pages. That is not very balanced. The lack of support given to this company and the project from not only the government, but the mines minister in particular, is dismal.
Another thing is the government wanted the company to investigate - and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your town of Nhulunbuy, will find this interesting - bringing red mud from the Alcan project to neutralise the acid. It wanted the company to investigate bringing the red mud, either by road or sea, to Darwin. When the company pointed out to the government there were some fairly serious environmental issues associated with this, the government, through NRETAS, basically shrugged its shoulders.
The government talks about the Chinese strategy. The HNC project is a significant project in the Northern Territory with Chinese investment. The government talks about $120m in investment from Chinese operations and companies; $100m of that is invested in this project at Batchelor, so it is shooting itself in the foot when talking about the Chinese strategy.
Another area of lack of support this government has shown towards projects and potential businesses associated with the mining industry is the ‘faded lily recycling project’. Six months ago, a large mining company wanted 30 road train loads of recycled product delivered from Darwin to its site. The project was about recycling waste product off a mine site near Pine Creek to possibly go into construction material for roads, or concrete production. The company had discussions with the Resources department as to whether the product would be geo-chemically stable. Every time it went to the department, it took month upon month to receive replies.
The department recommended the company get some Australian standard testing done to see if the rock was acid mine drainage potential. The company did that and the department said: ‘No, that is not good enough’. The company questioned why it was asked to get tests done, which passed the Australian standards and guidelines. Another month passed and this small company was desperately running low on funding and still pushing the Department of Resources for approval to be granted so it could recycle this product and, sadly, no response was forthcoming.
This is not new in the Territory. People from the Top End would be familiar with the product called rooster red rock, which comes off the old Rustler’s Roost mine site. Also, pebble rock has been recycled off the old Woodcutters mine site. No one would want unsuitable material removed from a mine site, but the government has not helped this small business and, as a consequence, this business has ceased operation and put off six to 10 employees.
The other one is lost opportunity and lack of support, and I have mentioned this before. We have talked about Cameco Exploration Australia, which has a major exploration office in Darwin employing upwards of 25 permanent employees. This company has relocated its office to Western Australia for corporate reasons. The government knew about this for over 12 months, yet did not offer any incentives. It did not offer encouragement, it did not find out why the company wanted to relocate to Perth. The government allowed 22 to 25 permanent employees to leave the Territory, shut shop and take all that investment opportunity to Western Australia where, obviously, it was welcomed with open arms by the government as well as local business. Lost opportunity, lack of support and lacklustre is how this government deals with the mining industry, despite the hype and talk we sometimes receive.
In regard to the specific nature of this matter of public importance my colleague has brought before us, many questions are unanswered by this government. We do not know the economic impact this carbon tax will have on the mining industry. What is its impact on electricity generation, on oil and gas, and all the proposed new projects? Yes, the Commonwealth has indicated agriculture will not be included, but for how long?
We do not know if fuel is to be included in this regime. If it is, the increase in input cost could be dramatic on industries in the Northern Territory such as those that are high fuel users; for example, the transport industry, the cattle industry, and the commercial fishing industry. I do not see any comment, documentation, or detail from the Northern Territory government as to the potential impact on those businesses.
Whilst it is not included in the scheme, one of the biggest issues in the Northern Territory is emissions from bushfires - 35% of our emissions. I could not get a figure for Australia; however, the Northern Territory is the highest emitter from bushfires or wildfires. Again, I hear no comment from the government as to any possible negotiations or discussions it could have with the Commonwealth government to encourage further abatement schemes as we have in West Arnhem.
Other comparisons - 27% of our emissions come from static energy compared to 50% for Australia; 21% agriculture in the Northern Territory and only 18% in Australia. That is why it is important for the Northern Territory government to ensure agriculture is not included in this scheme. Also, 10% transport for the Northern Territory compared to 14% for Australia. Our land use is 3% low compared to Australia, which is 11%. However, there are still many unanswered questions as to what the Northern Territory government is doing to protect industries and jobs in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this matter of public importance is important and I urge the government to consider how it can assist industries, and to give full and frank details of the impact on industry across the Northern Territory, particularly the mining, oil and gas, and primary industries.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this very important matter of public importance. It is surprising that for such a topical issue government only had one speaker. It is surprising government is not even in the Chamber, except for the Leader of Government Business ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in this House.
Mr GILES: I did not talk about any member.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business is quite correct, member for Braitling. You made reference to the presence or absence of members and that is in breach of standing orders. If you would withdraw that, please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GILES: I find it surprising that members of government are absent from the debate on this topic. They should be participating ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Clearly, the member for Braitling was not referring to the absence or otherwise of members in the Chamber. He was talking about being absent from the debate, which is exactly what they are.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I ask you to withdraw as well. It is open to interpretation and I am asking you to rephrase, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Government is absent from this debate; it is not interested in it. Government had only one speaker, and it looks like only having one speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. You can resume your seat. I ask you to refrain from any reference to absence, in its most literal sense or otherwise, thank you.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Daly for participating in this debate where his colleagues did not. It is good to see him contributing. It is disappointing his other 11 colleagues have not spoken on this because it is the greatest risk to the Northern Territory’s economy we face into the future. During Question Time today, the Leader of the Opposition asked about GST revenue and a future carve-up by the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan. However, this whole carbon tax debacle threatens the economy of the Northern Territory and the lifestyle of Territorians.
The carbon tax is nothing but a tax. This great, big new tax the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is putting forward - the same tax she promised before the federal election would not occur - is the result of a marriage of convenience with The Greens Leader, Bob Brown. This great, big new tax will add at least 6.5 per litre to the cost of filling a car. For a 100-litre car, you do the sums. It will drive up power bills by $300 a year.
There is much debate about the cost of housing in the Northern Territory. This new carbon tax will add $6420 to the price of a new home, and we are estimating that carbon tax will come at $26 per tonne. This is the biggest threat to the Northern Territory economy; we already have high petrol prices, high cost of living expenses and we know the impact this will have on the transport section. My colleague, the shadow minister for Transport, will talk more on transport costs, particularly in rural and remote Northern Territory, where it will have an even bigger impact.
Look at the amount of carbon dioxide produced in burning fuels. By burning one litre of petrol, 2.3 kg of carbon emissions is produced; 2.68 kg of carbon emissions for every litre of diesel; 1.93 kg for a cube of natural gas; and 1.396 kg for a kilogram of coal. Do the sums - 6.5 per litre increase for petrol; 7 for diesel; 5 for natural gas; and 3.6 for coal. The government is focusing on coal, but that is the lower amount.
This is a great, big new tax for the Northern Territory, which will drive inflationary pressures. It is tantamount to economic vandalism in the Northern Territory.
We often talk in this Chamber about developing economies in the region and how it is important to develop industry. This carbon tax will slow development of industry in the Northern Territory, and slow development of industry on Indigenous land. This carbon tax will be the wild rivers of the Northern Territory. I repeat that: this carbon tax will be the wild rivers legislation of the Northern Territory. It will prohibit development of the Northern Territory. Many people are saying having this carbon tax will be great for Indigenous Territorians; the carbon tax will put the handbrake on development in the bush. It is not designed to reduce emissions; this is a wealth redistribution tax. This is taking money from the big companies which produce the emissions, using that wealth, and redistributing to individuals. That is what it is about. It is in stark contrast to the federal opposition’s direct action plan on addressing the climate.
We are not climate change deniers. This side of the Chamber recognises there is change in the climate all the time. How much is human-induced is debated on a regular basis. If we look at Tony Abbott’s direct action plan we see tangible investments which will limit the amount of emissions in Australia. Part of the Coalition’s direct action plan includes: capturing carbon in soil; planting trees – a simple thing such as planting trees; cleaning up coal-fired power stations; cleaning up gas from coal mines; making buildings more energy efficient; and a $10.5bn fund established by 2020 to commence buy-back of greenhouse pollution. This is about direct and real action by the Coalition, not about raising hundreds of millions of dollars through taxes for a redistribution model on the carbon tax.
The federal government, in seeking to raise billions and billions of dollars through this tax, will not make one iota of difference in reducing emissions. All it will do is tax industry development in the Northern Territory to extinction.
I would like ministers from the other side of the Chamber to advise us of the impact in the Northern Territory. We know the government’s approach to industry development. We have seen Arafura Resources remove itself from the Northern Territory to Whyalla - a $780m project gone. We have heard concerns about Dow Chemical; we hear about Magellan. I am keen for the government to talk about INPEX and what the carbon tax means for INPEX.
This is economic vandalism and terrorism on the Northern Territory. We will see negative development in the Northern Territory as a result of this carbon tax. We should be investing in the Northern Territory, investing in the bush, developing industry and creating jobs. Let the government talk about the price of clinker. What is going to happen with clinker and the production of cement? What is going to happen to the limestone plant at Mataranka? This will directly affect those jobs. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, spoke about the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of this carbon tax. Different reports from different industries give numbers of jobs to be lost.
We have not had the debate about how bad Australia is as an emitter. We are not on the world stage as an emitter. Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, on 8 March 2011 on ABC said:
That is completely wrong. According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than those of the United States of America on a per capita basis. It goes on:
The list goes on.
The deception by Labor is everywhere. Here is another one from Julia Gillard on Q&A on the ABC on 14 March 2011:
It is interesting to see they are closing dirty coal-fired power stations and replacing them - not just closing them down and leaving; replacing them with larger, economical, environmentally friendly and efficient plants. To say they are closing dirty stations - well, you have to tell the whole story. They are not just closing stations down; they are putting in place cleaner coal-burning stations.
It is interesting to look at China’s CO2 emissions. Not many people would know China’s offer in the Copenhagen discussions would have seen China’s emissions rise by 496% by 2020 based on 1990 levels. Here is tiny Australia, with umpteenth global emissions, and we are having a massive debate about a carbon tax which is going to completely destroy our economy, particularly in the Northern Territory.
I cannot believe the government has been absent from the debate on this, apart from the minister for Business, who did not touch on anything. This is of significant interest to the Northern Territory. A tax does not protect the environment; a tax does not reduce emissions. This is a tax on every single Australian in a wealth distribution model so Labor can start pork-barrelling electorates at the next election. That is what it is about. This is not setting up anything to address emissions in Australia, it is about raising revenue.
Warren Truss, Leader of the Nationals, had 21 questions for Kevin Rudd on Labor’s CPRS tax. I have gone through the list and found 16 or 17 that are still reflective of Julia Gillard’s carbon tax. I will read through those before my time runs out:
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. Member for Sanderson.
Mr GILES:
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Braitling, it is the member for Sanderson’s call.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the MPI on carbon tax. In the Chamber today, the Chief Minister talked about climate effect, climate change, and climate deniers. This MPI is about a carbon tax - we are not here to debate climate change. The Chief Minister said it should not cost more for families in the NT to have a carbon tax. Unfortunately, the realities of the proposed carbon tax will mean more cost for Territory families.
In fact, the calculations are running at about 6.5 per litre for fuel if a carbon tax is about $26. That is an oil industry number, and it calculates for every $10 of carbon price the impact on the retail price of fuel will be 2.5. Even Professor Ross Garnaut agrees. He told the National Press Club in 2008 that the impact of a $20 carbon price would be 0.5 per litre.
The impact from a carbon tax will have the biggest effect in the Territory because we are reliant on transport of all types. The federal government has not yet formally signalled that transport will be included in its carbon pricing arrangements; however, it seems inevitable it will be included - a major concern for Territory families. Transport is one of our major sources of emissions, and the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee said it wanted it included, and it is believed The Greens will agree.
The policy is not only to include transport and for it to be taxed, the government wants to end the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which is due to be extended to cover most businesses from 1 July this year, where there are big concessions on excise rates. When you look at the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme and the flowchart here, a number of industries and businesses can receive a 38.143 per litre reduction in the cost of fuel. Those industries are: agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining, marine transport, rail transport, nursing and medical, generation of electricity, and non-fuel use.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 38.143 per litre is a substantial amount of money, and if this goes as a result of The Greens’ pressure on the Labor government in Canberra, that will affect Territory families.
Most of us can see how disastrous that will be for all Australians, particularly Territorians. If transport is included, and if it goes hand-in-hand with The Greens’ call for an end to the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, even with a 5 per litre for $10 of carbon price, the impact on the Northern Territory is going to be dramatic. Not only would it increase fuel prices at the bowsers, it will cascade through our economy. Everything that moves by road, rail, air, or coastal shipping will be more expensive and, for the Territory, that is just about everything. Because goods will reach us after a longer journey than is the case for most Australians, the price impact will be huge and will compound our historical problem of paying considerably more for our goods than the Australian average.
I refer to the Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch policy platform document where, during the 2008 election campaign, Labor promised to achieve a reduction in the cost of energy for the Territory. Since that promise was made, the price of electricity has increased by almost 25% over the past two years. The price of water has increased by 40 and will increase next financial year by 20%. That is already having an impact on Territory families.
Look at things like the cattle industry, the mining industry, the costs of transporting cattle and other goods from the Territory to its ports. Nearly every part of tourism sees people flown or driven to places. Even the emerging Aboriginal tourism industry will be hard hit. The cost of living - everything around the Territory, road, rail, sea or air - will increase.
The government mutters about relief measures but has not been specific. Under the old Rudd plan the idea was to provide 10% price impact relief for the first three years. After that, all bets were off. What has been suggested this time, even from Professor Garnaut, is a one-off reduction in fuel excise and then as Mr Oakeshott would say: ‘Let the market rip’.
The attitude of the Independents is one of the most unsettling aspects. The position of The Greens, which will hold the balance of power in the Senate from July this year, is clear and deadly. Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor are no better. Mr Oakeshott has consistently said in parliament he wants to let the market rip and let the signs fly. Mr Windsor had a bill in parliament in 2008 for a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, which is way ahead of the bipartisan support of the 5% target. Thus, Labor could be led by the nose by The Greens in the Senate and the Independents in the House - a very scary thought.
Another impact for the Territory will be power prices. Many in our major population centres are reliant on air-conditioning, and every new house - when eventually built - has air-conditioning. It is certainly a requirement. As opposed to heating in southern homes, we have air-conditioners, heavy users of electricity not only for domestic use, but for every office and shop. Estimates are the average household would have a $300 a year power increase if the carbon price is $26, a number Professor Garnaut has recommended.
As with the cascading impact of the fuel price, the same is true of the increases in power prices. Think of supermarket cold rooms, abattoirs - everything that uses refrigeration to keep food cold and transport it to the Territory. Even services will be hit. If the office air-conditioning bill increases, so will the advice to help you ease the impact. Energy-intensive manufacturing will face the same problem.
The tragedy is Labor and The Greens think that forcing Australians to emit less greenhouse gas by making it more expensive will work. It appears perhaps it does not. The starkest example comes from the very easy debunking of the claim by Prime Minister Gillard and Mr Garnaut that China’s efforts to reduce carbon intensity of its economy is something we need to match. Emissions in China, already the world’s biggest emitter, will virtually double between the 2005 figure of around five billion tonnes to 10 billion tonnes in 2020. Whatever Australia does will not make a huge impact. If we want to reduce global carbon emission at all, it might slow the growth of emissions in a totally irrelevant amount.
This is a world problem – Australia is a tiny emitter. The big emitters - China, India, the US and Europe - need to lead the way. For Australia to lead the way and put serious strain on its economy while competitors do nothing does not seem fair on Australians, business people, and especially the Territorians the Chief Minister says should not be harmed by increases in cost.
The member for Daly inferred there is no climate change. The climate changes all the time; we all know that. He believes we will be world leaders in more efficient use of energy, there are no job losses, and new programs the Department of Business and Employment run will focus on the changes for this new industry. He believes that is what business wants. However, with the carbon tax an enormous amount of retraining will be required. We have not heard talk on increased trade schools, increased positions at CDU, research grants, engineering scholarships, architectural scholarships and other incentives needed if government wants to introduce a new carbon tax.
The member for Daly said brown coal-fired power stations need to be cleaned up - we need to get rid of those. Two years ago I was fortunate to visit the Bayswater Power Station in New South Wales, then controlled by a Labor government. The people running it quite openly said they were not going anywhere for 35 years. It produces 42% to 44% of New South Wales’ power requirements, and they said there was nothing in the pipeline available to replace them or that much power in the next 35 years. That came from people running the organisation.
Looking at the cost to the community, and the fact the Chief Minister says this should not cost more for Territory families - the few things I have put together in this short period of time indicates if this carbon tax is introduced by the federal government it is going to be a disaster for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will leave my contribution with a quote from the Prime Minister where she said there would never be a carbon tax while she was leader. She has done a complete backflip. What do we have? A carbon tax.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I come to this debate with an average understanding of what is happening, which is one of the issues regarding this carbon tax the federal government has not sold to people.
I will give two examples where our government has to show industries will not be adversely affected by changes caused by a carbon tax. We have, for instance, Mataranka lime, an important industry which supplies lime for Ranger Uranium. The National Lime Association of Australia Green Paper on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme tells you common to all lime is a generation of high temperature - 800C in the kiln requiring energy intensive use of fossil fuels releasing 33% greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of lime: calcination of the limestone in the kiln where the calcium and magnesium carbonate are converted to oxides, releasing 62% of greenhouse gas emissions per tonnes of lime.
The paper says:
That statement hits the nail on the head, and that is the concern. If a carbon tax means the price of lime increases to a point where it is cheaper for Ranger Uranium to import it from China - China is one the biggest producers of lime in the world - what happens is (1) it is more than likely we lose jobs, and (2) by getting it from China, which is probably far less efficient at producing lime and reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted, from a global point of view, it means we have increased pollution in the environment.
A note at the end of this document talks about an emissions trading scheme, but a point has been made:
That area needs to be looked at. Australia goes off, whether half-cocked or not, saying we will introduce a carbon tax and, if the rest of world does not, we are sitting there like a shag on a rock. The lime association stated it clearly: you have to have global commitment to a cost of carbon, otherwise we are literally blowing in the wind. I would hate to see this country lose jobs and buy lime from overseas because we decided it was a good idea - hand on the heart - good for the environment. If no one else goes with us, what is the point? We need to look at that.
Another area close to my heart is an industry in the Northern Territory, and you could apply it to others - vegetables. You might say: ‘Huh, vegetables’. We grow vegetables in Alice Springs, quite a lot in Katherine, and in Darwin. You could apply some of what I will say to the agricultural industry as well. The government initially said the carbon tax would not apply to the agricultural industry. However, what parts of it do apply? That it is the difficult question.
I found this Vegetable Industry Carbon Footprint Scoping Study which was done for the industry. It is interesting to go through because you have to ask yourself: what is required to produce vegetables? Well, you need fertiliser. What is the cost of fertiliser production? You can put some energy uses on that. Fertiliser is a fundamental requirement for most vegetable production in Australia. Organic might be okay to some extent; however, even that will have a carbon emission. So, fertiliser production. This document tells how much energy use you could associate for each crop when you put fertiliser on.
Look at agrochemical production; for instance, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators. To produce them requires a considerable amount of energy and most are based on oil. There is another energy requirement. Will farmers be taxed on that? Do not forget those chemicals have to be moved around using diesel.
Electricity generation: whether you produce electricity yourself - which would probably be by diesel, although you may use some renewable generation – the reality is you are not going to weld a couple of fence posts using solar or wind; you are going to need diesel. If you are going to have electricity through the mains, you have no control over how that electricity is produced. If it comes from the Bayswater Power Station, you will pay extra because Bayswater Power Station will have a carbon tax.
If you irrigate your crop it will require pumping. The pumping will require either electricity or diesel. Will that attract a carbon tax? Again, those areas need to be looked at. If you harvest your crop, you will buy a tractor - you are going to buy machinery to harvest your crop. Will the cost of that equipment be affected by a carbon tax? You will need to store the product; if you have cool rooms which require electricity, where does electricity come from? Will that be taxed as part of this scheme?
You will have to package goods. What will the cost be? Most packaging plants will be run on electricity. Will you be paying extra for the cost of your packaging? You also have basic transport. You may not be included in basic transport involved in the harvesting of vegetables, but there is a truck that will bring your fertiliser, chemicals and cartons which will be run on diesel and will be paying a carbon tax, and a truck will come to take your goods to market, and it will be paying a carbon tax. There are also manufacturing products, so if you buy boxes to put lettuces in from a company in Brisbane, they will have a carbon tax because they will be produced using electricity, which will more than likely come from a carbon source and, therefore, pay a carbon tax.
You want to build a shed - that is fine. You need roofing iron, timber, and cement. Cement is one of the highest energy products in the world - all will be taxed for the amount of emissions to produce those products. Will a farmer be taxed on the building materials required for the shed? How many of those will have a carbon tax? If most do, regardless of whether the direct costs - harvesting the crop - are not taxed, there are so many outside influences you would have to say the cost of vegetables would go up.
There is the manufacturing of machinery, transport inputs - and on it goes on. There are emissions from the soil. When you use nitrogen fertiliser, you get nitrous oxide emissions from the soil. You have to remember greenhouse gases are not just carbon dioxide - other gases will cause emissions.
I have picked out two industries which may not be very big in the Northern Territory; however, we rely on these industries as part of our small economy, and we want them to keep going. It is a requirement of this government to ask what it would cost. What are the chances of us losing the Mataranka lime facility? Will a carbon tax mean we drive it offshore? The same with the vegetable industry. If vegetables become so expensive, are we going to import them from countries where they do not have a carbon tax and operate on cheap labour? There is no requirement in some countries to check overuse of chemicals in the production of products, especially pesticides. How much carbon do they emit in the production of vegetables? Much more work has to be done by the federal government before it introduces a carbon tax to show us we will not be worse off as a country, or as a Territory, with the introduction of this tax.
Sometimes we live in cuckoo land. People talk about the carbon tax and I ask: ‘What is the alternative to fuel for cars?’ We do not have an alternative. We will still be using diesel and petrol. Will there be a carbon tax on that because we have no alternative fuel in the short term. People might say electric. Electric is okay for a car; however, carbon emissions occur from the production of electricity so it does not make any difference to carbon emissions.
The Chief Minister said gas is clean. I remember your previous Chief Minister saying the Northern Territory produces a green, clean form of energy called gas. Check on the carbon emissions from the LNG plant at Wickham Point. Check on the amount of gas burnt off when you use gas. It is not clean; it is less dirty. It is a matter of how you explain something. It is less dirty is probably the best way.
Using gas for vehicles, for industry and for electricity still produces carbon. Our problem today is we do not have a substitute for large base power. Unfortunately, the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and all the problems associated with the earthquake and tsunami, have probably put the nuclear energy debate back a way. However, that will not be the end of the debate because no one has said: ‘If we get rid of coal, what is there to produce base power? What is there to produce aluminium?’. Aluminium is one of the highest energy materials we produce. Cement is one of the highest energy producers and you will not make that out of wind, you will not make it out of solar. Not only because sometimes the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but the mammoth amount of batteries you need to store the power to produce it would be unbelievable.
That does not mean they do not have a part to play. However, if people are fair dinkum about getting rid of gas and coal as a source of energy, they have to look elsewhere. The debate about nuclear will happen when things have settled down and there has been discussion as to why the Japanese nuclear power station failed.
When Henry Ford built a car and the wheel fell off, we did not stop building the T-Model Ford. We said we had better fix that because people might die. As with any industry, one moves on when there is tragedy or mistakes and improves it.
I hope out of this issue with the nuclear power plants in Japan we look at the safety requirements of power plants to see whether new technologies could make them safer. We should not say it will not happen. We need to look at the safety issues and what alternatives there are. If someone can give alternatives to cement production, how to produce aluminium without a major source of electricity like coal, oil, gas, nuclear or hydroelectricity, please let me know.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth is it does not matter whether you believe in climate change or not, this tax will not make one iota of difference. In fact, even if Australia was able to stop its carbon emissions completely, it would be like a scratch on the backside of a pig. That is about as much difference as it would make ...
A member: A what? Scratch a what?
Mr CHANDLER: Back of a pig.
A member: How big is the pig?
Mr CHANDLER: A big pig. It is a big pig, a Central Australian pig.
The Prime Minister announced her government would introduce legislation to implement a carbon price, and we know that is a carbon tax.
Let us stop for a moment and examine climate change. First, do I believe in climate change? I have said time and time again I believe in climate change. Scientists can tell you through carbon dating and through core samples the climate has changed and will continue to change. How much of that is caused by mankind? Well, the jury is still out on that because for every bit of scientific evidence to prove one thing, you can prove the other side of the argument.
From books I have read, from research I have undertaken, it has been one of the most complicated journeys I have been on. A book titled The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climate Change and the Corruption of Science was a wonderful insight into one opinion regarding climate change. It pointed out many years ago we had a spike in a number of things around the world – rainfall, temperature and so forth. It showed our climate, at that time, was changing; however, it returned to normal and we went through some cooler years.
The climate is changing. Does human habitation of this planet have any effect on the planet? Damn right, it does! That is where we, as a parliament, and governments around Australia and the world, need to have strong regulations in place to ensure we do the right thing by our environment; that people involved in producing energy do everything possible to mitigate damage to the planet; and that we have due process
It is important to know what this carbon tax - I will not say proposed because we know there is a deal with The Greens - the watermelon party; green on the outside, red on the inside. The deal Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, has entered into is remarkable. I do not care whether you are a conservative voter or a Labor supporter. Everyone would agree a strong government needs to make decisions; a strong government needs to do what it considers is right. The situation in this country today is shocking, similar to the Northern Territory, where we need strong negotiation with Independents to let a government do what it should do: make decisions.
It is important people in the Northern Territory know what this carbon tax covers, and the first is stationary energy - things like power stations. Do we have power stations in the Northern Territory? You are damned right, we do. It will have an effect on them. The transport sector, road, rail and air: how many things in the Northern Territory are flown in or brought in by rail or road? This tax will have an impact on those services which will be passed on to the consumer. It will cover industrial processes like manufacturing and processing; emissions from non-legacy waste; for example, waste disposal facilities - fugitive emissions.
Although the Prime Minister has said farming emissions will not be included, will costs rise for our farming sector? You are damned right, because it still uses energy, it still requires transport. It will buy fuel regardless of whether it is grain farming or pastoralists or horticulturalists - any business that creates a living off the land will be affected by this tax.
If science proved this would make a difference, we would all agree. However, we cannot do that because it is wrong. This is a money grab. This Labor government has borrowed so much money recently it needs ways to pay it back. It has to start paying the mortgage, and the mortgage on this country is higher than it has ever been. The only way it can raise funds is through more taxes and, this tax, hidden in an emotional issue like climate change, is about as low as you can go. It is like stealing a dummy from a baby.
This tax will not stop the climate from changing. It is all about a deal between Labor and The Greens. Science is still out because for everything I have read suggesting the climate is changing due to the impact humans have on this planet, I have found equally compelling evidence to demonstrate it has nothing to do with it. When you see the emissions from volcanoes and other natural events which occur each day, you wonder how that scratch on the bum of a pig is going to make any difference whatsoever ...
A member interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: I will stop picking on pigs, I am sorry. Do humans impact on our planet? They do, absolutely. In some books I have read, humans are like a virus on the planet, overtaking every part of it. However, over the years we have learnt lessons.
I have used this argument time and time again. When I first came to the Northern Territory in the 1980s, I flew here in a Boeing 727, JT9 engines, which were pretty thirsty. Many tonnes of fuel were used to fly that 727 to Darwin. Today, engines are becoming more efficient and, to bring the same number of people to the Northern Territory on an aircraft today will use far less fuel. Aircraft flying around the world use far less fuel today than in the 1970s and 1980s. The old Boeing 707, with its jet engines smoking out the back, is replaced today by larger aircraft, far more efficient engines, and more people can be transported for far less fuel.
The lesson in that is, as we evolve as a nation and as humans, we use smarter technology. We get smarter, our engines are getting more efficient and we are finding better ways to do things. And, yes, renewables are a part of that journey.
If the government was absolutely fair dinkum about this tax, every last cent would be going into renewable energy sources, not paying it back to other people. I struggle with that argument. I can understand by introducing a tax you may change someone’s habits. For instance, if electricity rose dramatically people would be forced to use less electricity. However, by giving money back to people so their habits do not change and they use as much electricity as before, how does that change or reduce the carbon dioxide going into our atmosphere? It does not.
In this country, and around the world, we should support renewable initiatives. They are part of this journey. We should also be looking at new technology. We should be looking at ways to burn the fossil fuels in this country in better ways. There is technology which burns coal at higher temperatures so emissions are less. That is the type of technology Australia should be looking at if we want to reduce our emissions.
My worry about this tax, and any future trading scheme, is if there is money in it people will make money out of it. Humans will find ways to undermine, manipulate, or rip off the system - guaranteed. However, there is a real danger in trading air because what will be next - oxygen? This new tax is all about money and nothing about saving our planet, I cannot stress that enough.
If I was convinced this would have a positive effect, I would be the first to jump on. I care about the environment. As a father, I care about the future we leave for our children. We need to do the right thing by our environment, but we need to be practical because it can make a difference. If that means changing a light bulb, or using a more efficient car, it makes sense. If we spend money on technology, if we invest in renewables, over time, that will make a difference.
We are evolving; we are getting smarter. Over 20 or 30 years we have become better in what we are doing. That journey will continue. We will get better, we will get smarter - we have to get smarter. However, if you think this tax the government intends to introduce - which will impact severely on the lifestyle and livelihood of every single Australian - is good you need to wake up to yourself because it is idiotic.
This is a tax and nothing more. It has nothing to do with saving our planet; it is about paying the mortgage. How much will be syphoned off by a new government department in administration fees? This will fund a completely new department.
How much of this tax is going to make a difference? I say very little. We should be looking at renewables like solar, geothermal, new innovations in aircraft, cars, trucks, ships and trains, air-conditioning units, motors, things like heat pumps, hot water systems, and finding a better way to burn coal and better ways to generate electricity. There are answers, but they can only be found through funding and investment, and governments need to fund investment in renewables to reduce our carbon footprint on the world. This tax will not do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, people need to know this tax is on stationary energy. It is going to affect the transport sector and industrial processes. It is going to affect every mum, dad and child living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, or any other state in this country. We cannot do this alone, and I have to mention the pig again because this tax will have no effect whatsoever on the climate, just like the scratch on the backside of a pig. If it did, I would be first on board.
I want to protect our environment, but that can only be done through strength of regulation, strength of process, and allowing due process to occur. This is a tax and nothing more.
Discussion concluded.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank the many people who have contributed to making the fifth regional parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs a success.
On behalf of all members of parliament, I thank everyone who visited our parliament this week, from the students who attended as part of the parliamentary education program to the busy Central Australians who took the time from their work day to view the proceedings. To have the Chamber gallery so full each day confirms the interest the Alice Springs community has in its parliament, and the importance of ensuring as many Territorians as possible have the opportunity to see their members representing them.
It was my pleasure to host a welcome reception with the Chief Minister on Monday before the sittings, and also to meet and talk to many Centralians. I particularly thank His Honour, the Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC and Mrs Tessa Pauling, for attending the opening ceremony and the function on Monday night. I also thank the Deputy of the Administrator, Dr Pat Miller AO, for her welcome to country as an Arrernte traditional owner. I thank His Worship, the Mayor, Mr Damien Ryan, who has been here for almost every session of the parliament over the last three days. I am not sure these sittings were intriguing and inspiring; however, I look forward to other members’ comments on that.
I thank the Alice Springs Town Council Band for serenading us as our guests entered the convention centre, and I thank Ms Liese Gordon for organising this. Thanks to Ms Julie McEllen, Ms Glenda Ross and Ms Wendy Pierson of the We R 1 Choir for their performance of the National Anthem. The performance from Drum Atweme, made up of students from Yipirinya School, was fantastic, and I thank Principal Ken Langford-Smith and the group leader and mentor, Mr Peter Lowson, for making this possible, especially as it was a school day.
I congratulate and thank all the schools that entered the Legislative Assembly Central Australian primary and middle schools art competition themed 2011 - 100 Years of Being a Territory. I particularly congratulate Acacia Hill School and Braitling Primary School students who shared first prize, winning $2000 each for their school. I know that money was well received and will be well spent in those schools. Ross Park Primary School students were awarded $500 as runner up and, following the display of artworks at the Yeperenye Shopping Centre, the people’s choice prize of $500 has been awarded to the Gillen Primary School. I extend my congratulations to the winning schools and all those who entered. I thank Ms Nicole Walsh from the Yeperenye Shopping Centre for her coordination of the exhibition and works.
The Parliamentary Education staff provided educational programs for over 600 Central Australian students over the last three days, and there was also a program leading up to that, so they have been working very hard. In particular, I thank Ms Caroline Cavanagh, Mrs Jan Sporn and Ms Karen Parker for the hard work they put into those educational programs.
I acknowledge the volunteers assisting this week with the Parliamentary Education program: Judy Cotton, Darren Pittaway, Sharyn Elkin, Grant Butler, Allan Murray, Geoff Sloan, Annette Hill, Kellie Clear, Samantha Disbray and Anne Scherer. In particular, I thank Tracy Guerin from the department of Education who assisted in organising the volunteers.
It would be remiss of me not to thank the staff of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, in particular Ms Christine Clissold, for their resourcefulness, hospitality and assistance in ensuring members and staff have been well looked after.
My sincere thanks to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk for the organisation of these sittings. It is a significant project and requires considerable planning and organisation on their behalf. It particularly requires very good humour throughout the process - which is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.
Some people especially involved in organising the sittings are members of the staff in the Building Services area: Robert Donovan, Stephen Castillon and Joanne Burgess. They have been working for about six months to get the sittings together. Their task continues tonight with the pack-up of the Chamber. I encourage members not to leave too much rubbish around because they will be taking down the whole Chamber tonight. If you feel like you want to help, you could put in an hour or so to help the staff.
I particularly offer my condolences to Robert and his wife, Marie, who was here earlier in the week, who very sadly had to leave Alice Springs today following the death of Robert’s mother-in-law. I am sure all members join with me in extending our condolences and best wishes to their family.
The Table Office staff continue to help us to a very high standard. I appreciate the efforts of Graham Gadd, Annette Brown and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, Steve Stokes. Some people we have not seen this week are Hansard. Helen Allmich and her staff have been beavering away in Darwin and have very remarkably provided excellent Hansard records for us. It must be even more difficult doing it from afar. At least here you can ask a member what on earth they might have been saying; however, from Darwin you do not have that luxury.
I thank the Statehood staff for the displays they put together: Dennis Meehan, Nora Kempster and Matt James for their enthusiasm.
The information desk has been a hive of activity and I thank Legislative Assembly staff who manned the desk offering helpful advice and assistance to all: Russell Keith, Robyn Smith, Nhi Tran, and especially Jane Gunner who does so much behind the scenes to ensure the procedural aspects of the sittings go well.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my staff, Amy Robinson and Vishal Mohan Ram, who I know supported all members and ensured they had dinner on time. Thank you very much to those staff.
Our IT needs have been quite considerable in these sittings. I acknowledge Mark Trobbiani, Gary Wall, Will Finteln, Peter Dinham and Kamil Ciechanowicz for their patience with those of us who are less technologically blessed - particularly me - than others. They responded quickly when assistance was required. The Audio Technology staff, Tom Williams and Leigh Bramall, have also kept things rolling along smoothly.
I thank the security staff who ensured our safety throughout these proceedings. There has always been a presence in the Chamber and around the precinct. I add our thanks to the police, who have been very helpful and ensured our continued safety. We all appreciate that, and I am sure you join with me in thanking them.
Finally, I thank the people of Alice Springs. I love Alice Springs and it is wonderful to be here again. Next time I come I hope there are not quite as many mice. The Deputy Clerk was telling me he had some M&Ms yesterday which were completely eaten by mice, and we have seen quite a few around the Chamber. I am hoping at some point the mice go away and the normal Alice Springs returns.
Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone in Alice Springs for the sittings being so successful.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also pass my thanks on to all those involved. Also, ditto on the list of names.
I have another matter I wish to raise tonight. I would like honourable members to cast their minds back to the ancient history of 24 February 2011 - just a few months ago. A question was put to the Minister for Local Government by the member for Katherine in the following terms:
I remind honourable members of the answer to that question. The minister said:
Then there are some interjections and argy-bargy. Ms McCarthy went on:
It is now 9.03 pm. We are well into adjournment debates in the March sittings at Alice Springs. It is the last day with less than an hour of parliament to sit and I have not heard one peep from the minister, or any member of government, in relation to what is singularly called the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of the Northern Territory.
The monumental stuff-ups by this government in relation to management of the investigation into the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of the Northern Territory are legion.
The Ombudsman provided evidence to the people of the Northern Territory for the poverty of this government’s response to that issue, which made international news. Nevertheless, despite the promises of this government for full and frank disclosure as to the circumstances surrounding the investigation, and further investigation by the special investigator, Ray Murphy, we are still deaf as to what occurred because, like the promises of the Chief Minister on so many issues, the promises of the minister responsible for this matter are hollow, shallow, and simply incredible. I do not mean that in the nice sense of the word; I am talking about beyond credibility.
Surely, this government, after its crushing international embarrassment as a result of the circumstances surrounding animal husbandry issues at Mataranka Station would, as a matter of import and urgency, not forget in the space of one month the promise made to the people of the Northern Territory around demonstrating its capacity to deal with this issue. Yet again, this government has shown it has the attention span of a media release when it comes to these issues.
I am disappointed, dismayed, and disbelieving of this government. This particular issue will brand this government and cover it in shame from now until the day it is turfed out of office, whenever that may be. It goes to show it is more interested in hairstyles, media releases, and image than important issues. If the government intends, in the next half-hour, to dump this report on the Table, then even more shame on it To bury a report on the final day of sittings would be nothing more than an attempt to dodge responsibility in relation to this issue.
This government should be ashamed of itself. There are so many advisors in the back room - I had a quick sticky beak around the door the other day. You have no idea how many people - I suppose you would having seen inside those rooms - the government has brought with it, between the whole of Cabinet, the whole of Caucus, and all the staff, the ‘psycho-pants’, as I once called them. It is ‘sycophants’; but someone called me ‘psycho-pants’. The collective union of brains in that room have not, between them, been able to remember the promise of the minister - let alone the minister herself - to deal with this issue.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government sneaking in here at the very last moment and dropping this report on the Table. Has it simply forgotten, or does it hope everyone else will forget? In any instance, what has been achieved in relation to the Mataranka cattle station is nothing shy of disgrace upon disgrace wrapped in embarrassment and covered in shame.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, before I adjourn I place on record how well these sittings have been conducted. Congratulations, Madam Speaker; you have handled the sittings, despite all the going on. Congratulations to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, and the community of Alice Springs.
Once again, we have been subjected in these sittings to the same old school CLP party line on Aboriginal affairs. There are subtle differences in the nuances when you compare the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion speech yesterday with the speeches made by the members for Braitling and Fong Lim.
The Leader of the Opposition is trying hard to sugarcoat the ideology in his policy message so as not to undermine his long-standing attempts to ingratiate himself with selected male Elders or leaders. These attempts date back to his call, in the relatively early years of this government, for it not to proceed with removing the promised marriage defence to the offence of having sexual intercourse with a minor. That purportedly pro-culture stance, one which echoed the public pronouncements of one East Arnhem Elder in particular, makes a mockery of the Leader of the Opposition’s statement of concern in these sittings, delivered with wooden and shallow solemnity, about child welfare, similar to the stark contrast between his claimed strong stance on domestic violence, and the pathetic, pleading complicity revealed in the transcript of his telephone conversation with Leo Abbott.
The Leader of the Opposition’s early and fulsome support for a new paradigm in Aboriginal affairs policy, courtesy of Dilak in East Arnhem Land, coincided with its promotion in The Australian newspaper and articles by the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite journalist. It is a shame the Leader of the Opposition did not first talk to Gawirrin Gumana about that one. However, when it comes down to it, the member for Blain’s position on Aboriginal affairs is the same as the rest regarding the issues he seeks to raise by way of criticism of Labor governments. Left wingers - blah, blah, blah; pro-welfare - blah, blah; anti-economic development - blah, blah; anti-intervention - blah, blah. I refer to those issues in that way because they are ill-founded and result in the real point of difference in operational policy not being identified, let alone explored.
The members for Fong Lim and Braitling are more straightforward, without any pretensions to originality or independence. They channel the one-dimensional, broken-record rantings of Bennelong Society extremist Gary Johns, and those of his fellow travellers like Helen Hughes. While I know in advance the odds are against me when it comes to injecting some sense and focus into the debate, and that the most likely outcome is my words will be distorted and misrepresented at some future time, part of the reason for the attempt is my name has been directly brought up in the context by all three members I have mentioned.
Another part of the reason is I was absolutely sickened by the behaviour of the member for Fong Lim, who has a reputation of being a bully when it comes to women standing up, towards the minister …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows she has made an unparliamentary comment, and I request you ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, could you withdraw and reword please?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Bully?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the way you framed it; if you could reword it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Is thug the same phrase? I withdraw. The behaviour I am referring to occurred not long after the member for Johnston delivered what I thought was one of the best speeches I have heard on Aboriginal affairs policy - calm, insightful, measured and crackling with the effortless authority of someone who has done the hard yards, working with and for the benefit of Aboriginal Territorians, including his time at Maningrida.
When it was his turn to speak, the member for Fong Lim could not help himself, drivelling on in his generic way about remote communities, perpetuating the lazy stereotype - and this man is lazy. I remember having the same debate with the member for Fong Lim when he was member for Solomon, and he said last night how he welcomed the intervention and fully supported it. I remember when he was on radio talking about this, and I asked the member for Solomon if he had read any of the legislation - I am talking about 500 pages of an intervention legislation - and embarrassingly, the member for Fong Lim, the then member for Solomon, admitted he had not but still supported the legislation. To this day, the lazy member for Fong Lim probably still has not read any of that legislation. How ill-informed and lazy this member is.
He will probably continue to support it, because, as he said - and why I took offence - I am a representative of what I believe is the most vibrant electorate and I join will all of my bush colleagues. We hold vibrant and diverse electorates ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would like the member for Fong Lim to say to Aboriginal people: ‘You live in hellholes. Why don’t you get out of these hellholes …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: My percentage is much better than yours, member for Fong Lim, you bully. You love this stuff because it gives you a chance to beat your chest and allows your testosterone to run ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arafura well knows she repeated an unparliamentary comment and I would like you to ask her to withdraw it, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, just withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. However, the member for Fong Lim is doing it all on his own and his reputation precedes him. I would like to put on the record the minister for Indigenous policy is polite, engaging, and always tries to see the good side of people; she works hard and the member for Fong Lim owes the minister for Indigenous policy an apology for his behaviour. She did not deserve his drivel and aggression last night. The Leader of the Opposition, who has failed to show leadership to date with all the independent members of the CLP, should stand up …
A member interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … if this is CLP policy …
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The Leader of the Opposition should state whether it is or not, and an apology should be issued to those hard-working Aboriginal people who do not see their communities as hellholes. I find it offensive that CLP members - have a go at us if you like; have the discussion and debate about Aboriginal affairs and policy; however, keep your insults to yourself and get on the ground and inform yourself.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, given I have limited time I will not be responding at this stage to that which has been uttered; however, it will have a response. I will say the anger demonstrated in those comments could be channelled into producing results for the benefit of children suffering in our community and let us have a result. That would be a better channelling of anger rather than ideological wars ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I put on the record some words from a letter written to the Chief Minister. Not surprisingly, our Chief Minister has not, to my knowledge, responded, nor in fact did he respond to the call of the people of Alice Springs during the time parliament was here to reflect the will, interests, and concerns of this community. Shame on the Chief Minister.
I trust there has been at least some consideration, maybe even by the Chief Minister, of the matters raised in this letter. If not, they will be on the Parliamentary Record and I trust the author of this letter who has taken the time to serve this community will have a response. I quote from a letter dated 11 March 2011:
…
high-budget productions have been undermined as a result of your government providing subsidies, not available to Territorians, to interstate and overseas crews (many of whom, as it happens, have operated here illegally, without proper visas);
the relatively favourable pay and conditions offered to NT government employees …
Perhaps all the characters out the back providing advice to this appalling government.
I place that on the record. He is a man I have respect for. The arguments are compelling and the evidence is clear - this is an example of the way government has gone about its business. Government wonders why there is such anger in this community and why the business community was so offended when the Chief Minister lectured it – it already finds it difficult and makes significant contribution to this community - to do a little more. Pull the ads and invest in programs - offensive in the extreme.
To my knowledge this letter has not been responded to. I commit this to the Chief Minister, and hope there will be a response for Mr Curl.
Madam SPEAKER: Could you seek leave to table it because we are in adjournment. Thank you.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this letter.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this brings to an end the Alice Springs sittings. What a fantastic time we have had. The Red Centre is far from red at the moment; it is green and more beautiful. I have listened to many stories from people, from our radio announcers to the locals, saying it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience to see the Red Centre so green and beautiful, presenting many great camping opportunities.
I take the time to thank the many friends I have in Central Australia, from my time as a police officer in the Red Centre. At one time I was the Officer-in-Charge of Kintore Police Station, a very remote station some 500 km due west of Alice Springs. The thing you gain most from being in a remote community is friendship. You get to know the people around you, your neighbours, and you connect with the community from which you come.
I still enjoy seeing people from the Kintore community walking around Alice Springs, and meeting and having lunch with people I call friends - people I worked with in the desert. Of course, further to that is the fact I formed great sporting relationships in this town. I competed recently in the Masters Games in this town, and took home two bronze medals in ten pin bowling. I presented hundreds of medals to people in Alice Springs during the Masters Games.
Today, we heard some very goods news from the Labor government - it supported the Finke Desert Race community. This year will be my fifth attempt at the Finke Desert Race - a great race founded in Alice Springs, not an imported or created event from somewhere else, but put together and supported by local people which has grown to an international event. Antony Yoffa, Damien, and the entire Finke committee have done an amazing job over many years. It is a fantastic event which I will continue to support. As the shadow minister for Sport, I support the Finke and the Masters Games in Alice Springs. It is a great centre for sporting competitions. It is an amazing place to visit - short term or long term. I look forward to the lush green fields attracting many tourists this year. I am sure the grey nomads will come, stop off at the lakes on the way, and admire such a beautiful place.
Whilst in Alice this trip, as I always do, I had lunch and breakfast at some fantastic cafs. A friend introduced me to a new caf in the Todd Mall. I had lunch there two days in a row because the pumpkin salad was so fantastic I had to go back for more. I hope I pronounce it correctly; it is Katja’s Kafe and is tucked down a little lane just off the Todd Mall. If you walk past Papunya Tula it is on your right-hand side. A small caf, very nice and does fantastic meals. I have enjoyed their salads over the last two days. Always remember when you come to remote areas, you can walk through the desert, or you can walk through the main streets, and find niche spots wherever you go. They are beautiful places.
The sad fact is whilst we have been in this Chamber we have seen very little from the Labor government. We have seen puff pieces, floundering acts from the Labor side, and very little real response from ministers. As shadow Construction minister, I raised concerns over the condition of the Stuart Highway. Whilst here, I spoke on two radio stations about the matter. It is in an extremely dangerous state of repair, and yes, we have more rain coming. However, that should not stop us from fixing the roads. Many areas of the Stuart Highway are down to one lane. This is our main arterial road, a supply route; it is essential.
Only two weeks ago, the Barkly Highway had been closed for one full week. Transport companies wear the cost until it comes to delivering the goods to your door, then the customer pays the on-flow cost. The government must plan its infrastructure better. It must deliver a better response to crisis and a better network for Territorians. Territorians already do it hard under a failed 10-year Labor government, but if they do not pick up their game, unfortunately, we will be stuck for another 18-odd months under this failed 10-year Labor government.
Madam Speaker, crime in this town has been horrific. I have lived in this town and have visited Alice Springs for over 20 years. It has not been a good place lately. However, it is full of people with great spirit, belief, and trust that this town will become great. It will become great again. We have seen this week a change driven by the people who came to the front steps of parliament to voice their concerns about this failed 10-year Labor government. The disrespect the Chief Minister and the Minister for Central Australia showed those good, hard-working people of Central Australia was a national shame. It was a national shame that the Chief Minister did not front those good Centralians and say: ‘I am sorry, I will do more’. The Chief Minister failed to do his basic duty: respond directly to the people; speak with the people, and allay their fears.
Instead, a week ago we saw the Chief Minister slap them in the face and tell the victims of crime they should be paying for programs for offenders. That is a national shame. Victims deserve better, whether it is in Alice Springs or anywhere else in Australia. You do not treat victims the way this Chief Minister has treated victims. They have a right to voice their concerns and have done so, and I do not believe the Chief Minister has listened. If he had listened, he would have fronted the crowds and spoken.
I love the Red Centre; it is an absolutely beautiful place. I have friends I will be speaking with tomorrow before I leave - quickly drive around and catch up with a few more people for a few more coffees. I probably will not sleep for a week after the amount of coffee I have to drink from friend to friend; however, it is important to see your friends while you can. There are many. This is a great town. Central Australia is a beautiful place which, unfortunately, I do not spend enough time in, because the other great place, of course, is the seat of Drysdale, part of Palmerston, the place I love. Unfortunately, I will not get back to my schools tomorrow morning. I cannot wait to visit my schools and see the kids and enjoy my time with them, because they are much better guests than the government.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you to the residents of Alice Springs. It has been a joy to be here and I look forward to my next visit which I hope to be very soon.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank all concerned with the Alice Springs sittings: the LA staff, security, the police and those who have been watching proceedings. There are a couple of gentleman on both sides of the Chamber - I do not know whether that is indicative of your political positions; however, I thank you for your interest and the time you have spent carefully listening to debate today. Thanks to all concerned.
Tonight I want to talk about the Top End and something evoking the Top End. About a week or two ago, I had the privilege to attend the Maurice Rioli Foundation Dinner, and Luke Morcom - I have known Luke for many years; he is an Imalu Tigers supporter - recited a poem at Maurice Rioli’s funeral. As it was such a beautiful poem I thought I would recite it in Alice Springs. The desert is beautiful; also the Top End is beautiful. It says:
That paints a beautiful picture of the Top End, and an area familiar to the member for Arafura - her home electorate. I table Luke’s lovely poem.
On Saturday 19 March, I attended the St John’s Presentation Ball. The debutantes were presented to the Most Reverend Bishop Eugene Hurley and Mrs Natasha Griggs, the federal member for Solomon. They made a great couple as they were presented to all the students. Also present were Sr Elizabeth Little, Chancellor for Governance; Ms Jane Sheehan, Chair of the Board at St John’s College; Fr John Kelliher, MSC; Br Gerry Burke, St John’s College board member; Mr Michael Avery, Director of Catholic Education Northern Territory; Mr Greg O’Mullane, Deputy Director of the Catholic Education Northern Territory; and Ms Mary Cutjar, Senior Consultant, Catholic Education Northern Territory.
The hard-working staff of St John’s College organised the night; however, special thanks go to Year 12 coordinator, Mr Tony Walton, and dance teacher, Ms Bronwyn Graham, who worked tirelessly, and the students danced really well together - it was great to see. Our thanks also go to all the Year 12 teachers, in particular the homeroom teachers, Ms Wendy Rawlins and Mr Macpherson.
The families and parents really supported the night; some came as far away as Papua New Guinea. It was a very important milestone for Year 12 students. I commend St John’s College, and I table the program for the night so my colleagues can see the wonderful work and the names of all the students who were presented that night.
I am proud to talk about the multicultural events I have attended recently at schools in my electorate. On 17 March 2011, I attended the Jingili Primary School Twilight International Market, a feast of international food and culture. The markets are an annual event - an opportunity for students to appreciate the richness of other cultures. Once again, it was great to see the community in force; it was a true testament to the sense of community which exists at Jingili Primary School.
Apart from the principal, Carin Symonds, who does a fantastic job in every way for the school, I extend my sincere thanks to the staff and committee who each year have organised the markets and Harmony Day activities: Larelle Gilbert, Judy Grills, Katie Howe, Yiota Devriadis, Judy Morgan, Susan Taylor, Leslie Turner, Kay Baldock, and Miss Patu Wart for her efforts in teaching some of the Year 5/6 girls the very graceful Balinese dance which was greatly appreciated by all present. It was a great night. The event raised money for the school, an outstanding event by any measure.
The Wagaman Primary School also celebrated Harmony Day on 24 March 2011, and I was pleased to be there on the night. Congratulations to principal, Michelle Cody, staff, committee, students, parents and the community for their fantastic efforts. The theme, Everyone Belongs has a strong message of togetherness for the community and the school, and is a great theme for Harmony Day celebrations. The evening was all about sharing food, entertainment and activities with friends and families from various cultures. I acknowledge the fantastic work of Emma McLean and Chloe Pangquee as the evening’s masters of ceremony. Also, to the Polynesian group who performed the hula dance - great performance by Gloria, Grace, Shona, Shae and Sophia. They were all different ages and really enjoyed dancing. There was also an Indonesian cultural dance performed by Year 4/5 Fulton girls. Congratulations to everyone involved for their great contribution to such an important community event.
On 26 March 2011, along with a number of others including the Chief Minister, I attended the Harmony Day soiree at the Darwin waterfront. There was a good turnout to the event; many people, many activities and much enthusiasm. I compliment the organising committee. The weather held off, and it was great to see such a large crowd enjoying the night. I even saw one young bloke, he was about that tall - the Indian community have a custom of using coloured powder for celebrations and this young bloke about this high was covered in just about every colour of the rainbow. I said to his mother I hoped she had a photograph of the night to show him when he was about 20 years of age. He could look back and they could both have a smile about all the fun they had on 26 March 2011 at the Darwin Harmony Day soiree.
It is great to be the member for Johnston; it is great to celebrate the electorate; and it is great to celebrate the diversity of the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record my congratulations, and those of the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory, to Barry O’Farrell and the team in New South Wales for their historic win in the New South Wales election.
It was a drubbing of Labor that was well and truly deserved. It had been 16 years in the making, and it was about time the government in New South Wales changed. It was not as a result of any one particular thing; it was the result of the concentrated effort by Barry O’Farrell’s team in bringing together a great team of people. It was also as a result of the massive failures by the Labor government over so many years in New South Wales. To go from the majority Labor had down to an expected seat number in the House of just 20, with a Liberal Coalition win of some 69 seats, was an absolutely outstanding effort.
I am not going to dwell on it; it is an outstanding thing Barry O’Farrell has done. On behalf of the Country Liberals, I say congratulations to Barry O’Farrell and his team.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I put on the record tonight my thanks to you, the Clerk, and all the team who have worked so hard to bring these sittings to Alice Springs - a big wave to everyone up the back - it is an enormous logistical exercise; it takes much time, planning and hard work to bring these sittings to Alice Springs. The operation of the Assembly this week has pretty much run like clockwork. There have been no failings in any of the workings as we go about our business.
It is well regarded by the teachers who bring the kids to witness democracy and their parliament in action. I have spoken to many teachers over the last three days who think it is a fantastic opportunity for those kids, who would never get to experience parliament, to come here. It feeds into much of their course work and assignments they will do in the future, and they will never forget the day parliament came to Alice Springs. On behalf of the teachers and kids who have had a great experience, my heartfelt thanks to everybody. It has been a very successful three days. The debate has gone backwards and forwards, as always, in Alice Springs.
From a personal point of view, I thank each and every one of my team. It has been a very hard three days; however, we are a government with a significant reform agenda. With some of the legislation introduced into this House during these three days around education, alcohol reform, even establishing our port as a marine supply base into the future, we will look back on these sittings and say some of the most significant social and economic reforms the Territory has seen for many a decade had their genesis in the legislation introduced into the parliament over these three days.
So, to all my team, thank you. To all the crew who came from Darwin to support the government, I place on the record my thanks. Everyone has worked a really hard three days.
Regarding Alice Springs and the Territory, the reform agenda of my government continues. I thank all the people of Alice Springs who have attended over the last three days to witness their parliament in action. Hopefully, they have taken away that democracy is strong in Alice Springs, the debate is lively, and we all want to move the Territory forward - some with more hysteria than others. It has been a good three days.
To you, Madam Speaker, the Clerk and all your team, thank you very much.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister. Thank you, Alice Springs.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangements – Members for
Arnhem and Braitling
Pairing Arrangements – Members for
Arnhem and Braitling
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me a document relating to pairs for the entire sitting day for the members for Arnhem and Braitling. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips. I table this document.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Yirara College students in Year 8.4, with their teachers Ms Sarah Johns, Mrs Suanne Tikoft and Mr Mark Bensted. Also, Centralian Middle School Intensive Needs Unit, with teachers Mrs Marg McHugh and Mr Barry Georgeopoulos. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 160)
(Serial 160)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend Part 4 of the Education Act, enrolment attendance and participation, in order to modernise and restructure existing provisions and, in particular, to include a range of new provisions to enhance the capacity of the Department of Education and Training to deal with the issue of school attendance.
The bill makes the act more workable and enforceable in relation to school enrolment, attendance, and participation including:
(1) making it compulsory for parents to attend formal meetings to discuss their children’s enrolment, attendance at school, or participation in an eligible option;
(3) where appropriate, making a child of or above the age of 14 years who lives independently of their parents personally responsible for complying with the enrolment, attendance, and participation requirements under the act;
(4) providing the ability to issue a compliance notice to a parent or child living independently informing them of their legal obligations under the act in relation to enrolment, attendance and participation and requiring them to comply with those obligations, failing which they will commit and offence; and
(5) providing for the sharing of information between Northern Territory government agencies and other bodies to better facilitate timely support for parents and children in relation to school attendance or participation issues.
International evidence demonstrates that attending school regularly, finishing school, and going on to further education and training leads to better job prospects, higher incomes, provides young people with more life choices, improves wellbeing, and makes them more likely to be active and productive citizens.
Statistics show there are persistent challenges for certain groups of Territory students who are not attending school regularly enough, or for long enough, to improve their life prospects. Average attendance in the Territory is about 82% while attendance in urban centres is about 92%. Attendance at very remote schools, other than in the 20 growth towns, is 76%. Average attendance in the 20 Territory growth towns is 56%. There is a steady drop-off in participation and retention in very remote schools from the middle years.
There is growing concern amongst many senior Indigenous people that children in their communities are not attending school and not gaining the competencies needed to participate confidently in their own community and the wider world. If we are going to meet our key educational objectives we must address the basics: getting every child enrolled in a school and, then, attending school every day.
In October last year, I announced the Territory government’s Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy. For the first time the Territory has a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address enrolment attendance and participation. It sets ambitious targets and details key strategies that we are implementing with parents, schools, and communities to improve the participation of our young people in high-quality education that is available to them. Already, we have implemented widespread reforms. We now have a specialised process for recruiting teachers to our remote communities, as well as enhanced rewards to keep them there to reduce teacher turnover as a factor impacting adversely on attendance and participation.
School planning and accountability processes have been overhauled, and principals are now accountable for the development and implementation of an attendance plan for their schools. Initiatives have been implemented to make schools safer, welcoming places such as the establishment of positive learning centres, school-wide positive behaviour programs, and Clontarf and Sporting Chance academies. We are making school more relevant by linking education to real jobs and futures through initiatives that encourage school attendance such as Beyond School Guarantee, Work Ready program and VET in the Middle.
School attendance must be enforced. Sending children to school is the responsibility of, first and foremost, parents and families. Parents must ensure every child attends every day. The Department of Education and Training will work proactively with parents and families to help get their children to school. The bill outlines comprehensive procedures aimed at helping students and families re-engage with school. Unfortunately, there will be a number of parents and students who, despite the very best efforts to assist them, will continue to do the wrong thing, and strong measures will then have to be used.
This bill significantly increases the penalties for offences against the enrolment, attendance, and participation provision in the act, and brings them more in line with those in other Australian jurisdictions. Breaches of these provisions will be serious offences. The penalty for a first offence will generally be 15 penalty units or $1995, and 20 penalty units or $2660 for second and subsequent offences. In this bill, penalties are also modernised by being expressed in penalty units rather than in the dollar amounts as is the case in the current act.
The requirement for a child to enrol in and attend school or participate in an eligible option now extends until the child turns 17 years. There will, accordingly, be a number of young people who, despite the best efforts of their parents, will be beyond the control of their parents. Such children should, therefore, be responsible for their own actions if they fail to comply with the enrolment, attendance, and participation requirements of Part 4 of the act. Currently, such a child can ignore these requirements with impunity. This bill rectifies that situation by providing new provisions and creating new offences in relation to a child of, or above, the age of 14 years who is living independently from their parents and who does not comply with the requirement of Part 4 of the act. The definition of ‘living independently’ includes a child aged 14 or above who still lives with their parents but who the parents cannot properly control, as well as a child who no longer lives with their parents. The maximum penalties for the offences committed by a child will be one-tenth of those applicable to an adult.
The increased focus on enrolment, attendance and participation matters, the infringement notice scheme, and the number of new offences introduced by this bill will likely give rise to a greater need to commence proceedings for offences against Part 4 of the act. This bill will now provide for the Chief Executive Officer to give consent to proceedings for offences relating to enrolment, attendance, and participation. My consent, as minister, will still be required in relation to proceedings for all other offences against the act.
As I said earlier, before pursuing a prosecution, government agencies will first act to support families to ensure that a child is enrolled, attending, or participating satisfactorily. Therefore, it is vital that they have up-to-date information about the child and their family so the support offered can be targeted, timely, and appropriate. Departmental officers and other agencies, including other jurisdictions, need to be able to confidently obtain and exchange information for the purposes of supporting parents and children to comply with Part 4 of the act. Therefore, a new provision in the bill will ensure that the Chief Executive Officer may, without offending the privacy provisions of the Information Act, obtain and use relevant information about a child and their family from any person or body, including non-government schools and other government agencies and bodies in other jurisdictions.
This is a very important provision as it will ensure the collection and use of relevant information to support families to comply with the act is not hindered. The provision will also ensure that the department can more confidently exchange information with bodies such as Centrelink, in line with initiatives such as the Student Enrolment Attendance Measure, or SEAM initiative. The sorts of strategies the departmental officers use to collect the information and put in place approaches that support families to comply with the act include requiring the parents or child directly to provide specific information, meeting with parents and/or child to plan ways forward in relation to enrolment, attendance, or participation, and reminding parents of their legal responsibilities in relation to Part 4 of the act.
The bill also provides that the Chief Executive Officer may direct a parent, child and other relevant persons to attend a compulsory conference to deal with enrolment, attendance and participation issues. Failure to comply with a direction to attend such a conference without a reasonable excuse will constitute an offence ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students?
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Year 5/6, Larapinta Primary School, with their teachers, Mr Kenneth and Mrs Smith. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Dr BURNS: This provision will significantly enhance the capacity of departmental officers to meet with parents - and particularly recalcitrant parents - and children living independently, with a view to entering into a family responsibility agreement or similar in relation to the child’s failure to attend school or participate satisfactorily in an eligible option.
The bill also provides for the Chief Executive Officer to issue an information notice to a parent or a child living independently, requiring the parent or child to provide information about the child’s enrolment, attendance, or participation. Failure to comply with a notice will constitute an offence. The Chief Executive Officer may also issue a compliance notice to a parent or a child living independently advising them of their legal obligations under the act, and requiring them to comply with those obligations. Failure to comply with a compliance notice will constitute an offence.
The ability to issue these notices will significantly enhance the department’s capacity to seek and obtain information about a child, and to make the parent or child living independently aware of their legal obligations, and enforce those obligations. This will, in turn, reduce the need to issue infringement notices or commence proceedings for offences under Part 4 of the act.
Legislation is only as good as its implementation and, in order to implement this legislation, it is important that departmental officers have sufficient authority to liaise effectively with recalcitrant parents and children living independently with a view to motivating them to comply with the requirements of Part 4 of the act. This bill will now permit an authorised person to deal not only with parents but with a child living independently, not only with enrolment and attendance issues, but also with a child’s failure to participate satisfactorily in an eligible option. Of particular significance is the new provision which permits an authorised person to direct a parent or child living independently to enrol the child in a school within a specified time frame. Failure to comply with such a direction will constitute an offence.
In order to support the authorised officers in the role the legislation creates for them, the bill also creates offences for hindering an authorised officer, and for providing misleading information or documents to an authorised officer.
I have referred consistently to offences relating to Part 4 of the act and the seriousness of breaching the provisions of the act. To enforce many of the provisions under the act, it would normally be necessary to charge the parents and have them summonsed to appear so the charge could be heard by a court; any fine may then be imposed by the court up to the legislated maximum penalty.
As a component of the comprehensive Every Child, Every Day strategy that addresses school enrolment, attendance, and participation in the Northern Territory, the Department of Education and Training will also now be able to issue infringement notices to adults of two penalty units, which equates to $266, for a range of existing and new offences under the act in accordance with the Education Infringement Notice Regulations, which also will be amended by this bill. The capacity to issue infringement notices will provide effective, cost-efficient and responsive methods of summarily enforcing offences. Infringement notices also provide a method of enforcement without the cost and delays associated with prosecution, and they have the further benefit of motivating parents to comply with the legislative requirements.
There are also some additional administrative matters which are addressed in this bill which will facilitate the implementation of this legislation. They include the enhancement of the existing, but limited, provisions applicable to what will now be termed ‘home education’, and provisions which will, for the first time, enable the department to ensure that a child enrolled in a distance education centre such as the Northern Territory Open Education Centre or a School of the Air, participates fully in the programs offered by such a school.
The bill also provides, for the first time, that an adult student, not just a child, can be expelled from a school. The bill also provides, again for the first time, that the CEO can direct that a child be enrolled in a specified government school, or not be enrolled in a specified school where the CEO reasonably believes the enrolment of a child may constitute a risk to the staff or other students in a school, or where the CEO believes the specified school is able to better meet the particular child’s needs.
The bill also significantly enhances the penalties for employing, or permitting to be employed, a child of compulsory school age at a time when a child should be attending school. The bill also significantly increases the penalties for employing, or permitting to be employed, a child in a manner that would make the child unfit to attend school or unable to properly benefit from their instruction when they are at school.
Finally, there are some consequential amendments proposed in the bill, together with some minor amendments of the kind normally dealt with in statute law revision legislation. These amendments modernise the language used in the remainder of the act but do not affect existing legislative policy or the legal effect of the provisions so amended.
Apart from the 2009 amendments to implement the National Youth Participation Requirement (Learn or Earn) and those in relation to the registration of non-government schools, the Education Act has not been significantly amended since its enactment in 1979. These amendments will deliver a contemporary, targeted, and robust set of reforms which work hand-in-glove with the full set of initiatives that comprise the government’s enrolment, attendance, and participation strategy. Every Child, Every Day is what we are about. Together, they will deliver a comprehensive set of measures which address the management of enrolment, attendance, and participation issues which threaten the futures of too many of our young people.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Bradshaw Primary School students Year 5/6, together with their teachers Ms Brooks, Mrs McMaster and Ms Ward. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 157)
Bill presented and read for a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Audit Amendment Bill is to strengthen the statutory framework that supports the Auditor-General, and to align the Audit Act with contemporary audit practices and principles. Honourable members will agree that, for an Auditor-General to be effective, it is vital he or she is supported by a statutory framework which reflects contemporary audit practice and principles so that the Auditor-General can continue to serve this parliament effectively by providing independent assurance that public funds are being utilised appropriately, and that government’s objectives are being met.
Whilst minor amendments have been passed by this Assembly since the commencement of the act in 1995, the way the public sector operates and delivers its programs and services has evolved considerably. For this reason, I instructed officials from my department and Treasury to undertake a review of the act to consider matters such as the statutory framework, independence, audit scope and coverage, and the term of appointment of the Auditor-General. The review also considered and was informed by recent jurisdictional reviews of audit legislation.
I am pleased to say, in many ways, the act as it currently stands is consistent with other jurisdiction’s audit legislation. However, the review highlighted that the act focuses the Auditor-General’s audit scope to audits of agencies. While this possibly reflects the structure of the Northern Territory Public Sector at the time the act was established, since that time we have seen the passing of legislation - for example, the Government Owned Corporations Act that provides for the creation of entities that are not agencies. Whilst other Territory legislation provides that the Auditor-General is to be the auditor of these entities, it is considered prudent that the act be amended to clarify that all entities that are deemed to be under the control of the Northern Territory are subject to the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction.
To achieve this, the bill inserts the definition of ‘Territory-controlled entity’ into the act and broadens the Auditor-General’s audit scope to enable the audit of financial statements, compliance with statutory obligations, and performance management systems of any entity that is deemed to be controlled by the Territory. The definition of a ‘Territory-controlled entity’ is relatively straightforward. It includes any agency, government business division, government-owned corporation, a Territory company, and any subsidiary body of these entities. However, the most significant aspect of this definition is that it will also capture any ‘body’ that a government may create in the future; for example, a trust, partnership, or any other special purpose vehicle which the Territory may control and utilise for the purpose of delivering its projects or significant service provision activities.
More recently, some jurisdictions have updated the coverage mandate of their respective Auditor-Generals to take account of the new ways in which their public sectors are operating. In particular, Western Australia and Tasmania have passed legislation to broaden the audit jurisdiction of their respective Auditor-Generals to be able to examine the expenditure of monies by entities that lie outside the boundaries of the public sector. These jurisdictions have, effectively, provided their Auditor-Generals with the power to ‘follow the public dollar’ so they can examine or investigate the use of public monies where it flows from government to a non-government body for the purpose of meeting government objectives. The ability for an Auditor-General to follow the public dollar is considered an important audit mechanism in view of new ways governments are developing to finance and deliver their projects, programs and services.
There is little doubt that the use of new structures such as public/private partnerships, joint ventures, strategic alliances and partnerships with non-government organisations play an integral role in assisting a government to meet its objectives. However, as these new structures change the way in which the public sector operates, it is important the Auditor-General can continue to provide the necessary assurances to government and parliament that public monies are being utilised appropriately and that objectives are being achieved. Accordingly, my government considers our Auditor-General should also have the power to follow the public dollar.
To achieve this, the bill inserts a new provision into section 15 of the act providing that, at my request, the Auditor-General can be asked to conduct an audit of the performance management systems of an organisation that has received public monies from an agency for the purpose of delivering projects or undertaking significant service delivery activities on behalf of the Territory.
I am not suggesting the Auditor-General should become the auditor of all non-government organisations; rather, from time to time, it may be necessary for the Auditor-General to undertake an audit of the performance management systems of an organisation to provide assurances to government and parliament that where significant programs or public monies flow to a non-government organisation they are being used appropriately.
As I previously indicated, these audits may only be performed at my request. While some might suggest the Auditor-General should have the power to conduct these audits as he or she thinks necessary, I believe the requirement that audits of this type be the subject of a ministerial request is justified as it provides an appropriate and necessary safeguard to ensure, before such an audit commences, a public interest test is first satisfied.
As a consequence of broadening the Auditor-General’s jurisdiction, the bill also makes amendments to sections 16 and 24 of the act to extend the reporting obligations and right-of-reply provisions in relation to a report of an audit by the Auditor-General to include Territory-controlled entities and non-government organisations.
The capacity to execute the role independently and free from influence is fundamental to the effective functioning of an Auditor-General. In some jurisdictions, independence of an Auditor-General is explicitly stated. In others, such as the case of the Northern Territory, the legislation is silent, although there is an implied understanding of the Auditor-General’s independence. My government has no doubt about the independence of our Auditor-General. However, it is prudent to ensure the act is explicit about the Auditor-General’s independence and discretion to be able to prove his or her duties in relation to the range of matters on which this parliament seeks assurance. Anything that would prevent the Auditor-General from inquiring into matters that fall within his or her jurisdiction would reduce this independence.
Accordingly, the bill inserts a new section into the act providing a strong and explicit statement of the Auditor-General’s independence. It stipulates that the Auditor-General is not subject to direction from any person in regard to the performance of his or her functions and powers, and the Auditor-General is free to act independently, impartially, and in the public interest at all times. Further, in exercising his or her functions and powers, the Auditor-General is not subject to direction by anyone about the types of audits of public monies that may be conducted and how they are conducted, the making or reporting of an audit, what can be included in a report, and the priority given to audits. This is a fundamental element of transparency.
However, it is also important that this independence does not preclude the Auditor-General from being able to accept suggestions about his or her annual work program. That is why the act provides the capacity for the Auditor-General to be asked to undertake special audits on a specific issue relating to an agency, or an audit of a performance management system of a non-government organisation.
The review also considered matters relating to the term of appointment of Auditor-Generals. Across jurisdictions, the term of appointment of Auditor-Generals varies between seven and 10 years. The exception to this is South Australia, whose Auditor-General holds office until 65 years of age. More recently, some jurisdictions such as Western Australia and Tasmania have amended their audit legislation to increase the term of appointment of their respective Auditor-Generals to 10 years.
Our Auditor-General is appointed for a fixed terms of seven years and, with the exception of the Ombudsman, all other Northern Territory statutory officers are appointed for three to five years with the capacity for extension. To provide consistency with the term of appointment of other Northern Territory statutory officers, and the longer term of appointment of 10 years recently adopted in the audit legislation of Western Australia and Tasmania, the bill changes the term of appointment of the Auditor-General from a fixed term of seven years to a term of five years with a capacity of a single reappointment of no more than five years. In view of the change to the term of the appointment, the bill also contains a transitional provision which provides that, at the end of his current term, the Auditor-General may be reappointed for a single term of not more than three years to bring his maximum tenure to 10 years.
While some might suggest the capacity for reappointment may compromise the Auditor-General’s independence, it is my government’s view that, in conjunction with the broadening of the Auditor-General’s audit scope to follow the public dollar, and the inclusion of an explicit statement of the Auditor-General’s independence, there is no suggestion that eligibility for reappointment will compromise the Auditor-General’s independence.
In conclusion, I believe the bill strengthens the statutory framework which will support our Auditor-General in the performance of his or her functions and enable him or her to adapt to the changing context of the way the public sector operates. Importantly, the broadening of the Auditor-General’s audit scope to be able to audit all entities that are controlled by the Territory, in addition to the ability to follow the public dollar, will significantly improve public sector accountability and increase transparency, and enable the Auditor-General to continue to provide the independent assurance that this parliament requires: that government activities are carried out and accounted for consistent with its intentions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 155)
(Serial 155)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act 1981 to remove the requirement for annual inspections and licensing of Northern Territory residential aged-care facilities, referred to as nursing homes in the act.
There are seven licensed residential aged-care facilities in the Northern Territory that undergo annual inspections conducted by a team of three delegated officers from the Department of Health’s Aged and Disability program and Environmental Health. The inspection teams are appointed by the Chief Health Officer and use a standard assessment tool to evaluate operational standards. Facilities that satisfy the standards are licensed by the Northern Territory to a certain capacity of placements.
The licensing of private hospitals is also the delegated responsibility of the Chief Health Officer, but is an entirely separate inspection process to that developed for residential aged-care facilities. The proposed amendments to the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Act ensure continued legislative direction to the Northern Territory’s private hospital, protecting the health and welfare of people accessing private medical or surgical treatment. The proposed amendments to this act serve to align the Northern Territory with regulatory arrangements already in place in other Australian jurisdictions.
The Australian government Aged Care Act 1997 regulates all residential aged-care facilities through a mandated accreditation process which is conducted by an independent body, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency (the agency). Accreditation assesses facilities against four standards: management systems, staffing and organisational development; health and personal care; resident’s lifestyle; and physical environment and safe systems. Within these four standards, residential aged-care facilities must satisfy a total of 44 expected outcomes. The evaluation process may also include consideration of whether the facility meets other responsibilities under the Aged Care Act. Facilities maintain their accredited standard through the submission of a plan for continuous improvement and annual self-assessment.
The agency monitors the facility and will make one unannounced visit each year to ensure the plan is being implemented and the accreditation standards continue to be met. The Northern Territory process of licensing nursing homes is not as comprehensive as, and to a lesser extent duplicates, seven areas of the accreditation process, placing additional burden on both the department and residential aged-care facilities.
Due to the broad nature of accreditation, all other Australian jurisdictions have discontinued licensing, deferring responsibility back to the Australian government. As a part of the National Health and Hospital Reform agenda, aged care has been identified as a key objective for reform across Australia to ensure consistent and equitable access to aged-care services for all older Australians. The primary reform measure is the Australian government taking on funding and policy responsibility for all aged care. This reform will see the development of a one-stop shop, providing centralised access to aged care by 1 July 2012. The Australian government will also assume sole funding and policy responsibility transitioning from this date.
Northern Territory residential aged-care facilities’ licences expire on 1 July 2011, making the introduction of this bill timely.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 147)
(Serial 147)
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, today I respond to the bill introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 22 February 2011 by minister Vatskalis as Health Minister, called the Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill, (Serial 147). This was introduced just five weeks ago, and is legislation directly connected to an undertaking the government made to implement the whole of the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report, which was a report about child protection services in the Northern Territory.
The Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010 and was a story of systematic failure of the Northern Territory government to adequately service children at risk of abuse and neglect in the Northern Territory. This government has a long history of not responding to the child protection needs of the community. This report has been the most recent report during the Labor government’s reign. The Growing them strong, together report followed many other reports of a similar nature.
So, this Care and Protection of Children (Children’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill the government has put forward is a very important bill. It is about the future of child protection services in the Northern Territory. I take this matter very seriously because some of the content of this bill is quite alarming. This legislation is due to commence on a date fixed by the Administrator. However, no specific time frame was mentioned in the minister’s second reading speech with regard to when this legislation will commence. This also is a significant issue, which I will come back to later.
The purpose of this bill is to implement one of the urgent recommendations, Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report. The recommendation directed that the Children’s Commissioner is to be given own motion powers, the ability to compel documentation and witnesses for all functions, not just for investigating complaints, and to allow a broader role in monitoring government decisions relating to any future inquiries into child protection or wellbeing established under the Inquiries Act.
The role of the commissioner is fairly well recognised. It came about as a result of the assent of the new Care and Protection of Children Bill in 2007. The new Children’s Commissioner position was established in December 2007, and the person holding that position currently is Dr Howard Bath who is well known within the child protection sector in the Northern Territory.
The function of the Children’s Commissioner is to investigate complaints about services required to be provided to protected children by service providers, to monitor ways in which service providers respond to reports made by the commissioner, and to monitor the administration of this act insofar as it relates to protected children. The Children’s Commissioner also has a role to monitor the implementation of any government decision arising from the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, and to report to the minister on a matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) which I just mentioned.
The Children’s Commissioner has a responsibility to monitor the implementation of the act, and to provide a mechanism whereby people can complain about services to protected children in the Northern Territory. This was recognised in the Growing them strong, together report as being fairly limited. Recommendation 136 in the Growing them strong, together report is as follows:
- That the Northern Territory government reviews the roles and functions of the Children’s Commissioner in the light of this inquiry with a view to amending the act to address the needs for:
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, there is no photography in the Chamber. Thank you. Member for Araluen, please continue.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you. This bill achieves the majority of Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report with one exception: the commissioner has only been given the power to receive submissions on the Growing them strong, together report and not ‘monitor’ government decisions relating to the implementation of recommendations. The commissioner has also been denied powers to monitor decisions relating to any future inquiries established under the Inquiries Act relating to the child protection system or child welfare, nor to any recommendations made by other judicial bodies or like subjects.
The role of the Children’s Commissioner needs to be expanded to fulfil Recommendation 136 because the government undertook to do so. We have a crack forming in the government’s commitment to implement this recommendation. The government has found one word within this recommendation which has given it an opening to allow it not to fully implement this recommendation. The word the minister mentioned in his second reading speech is ‘may’. I hold the government to account to implement the recommendation as it reads.
The Ombudsman has a very important role in our community in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman is an invaluable referee in ensuring Territorians are protected from the excesses of government. The size of the Territory, the complex interaction between government services provided by agencies, and the expanded definition of ‘vulnerable children’ means even if not specifically investigating a service provider to vulnerable children, the Ombudsman may be prevented from fully investigating a complaint because a service being complained of is, at some point, provided to vulnerable children.
This legislation is an attempt to exclude the Ombudsman from investigating any matters the Children’s Commissioner will now be able to investigate. In plain speech, matters that will be investigated by the Children's Commissioner at the moment can also be investigated by the Ombudsman but, through this legislation, the Ombudsman will be effectively gagged, with the exception of matters involving children and the police ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students?
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Braitling Primary School students Year 3/4S, together with teachers, Mrs Newman and Mrs Schrama. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Mrs LAMBLEY: This restriction of the role of the Ombudsman contained in clause 26 is the most concerning aspect about this bill. It means this government is trying to gag the role of the Ombudsman; trying to gag her contribution to investigating matters regarding services to children, services around child protection, services that affect the lives and wellbeing of children in the Northern Territory.
The role of the Ombudsman is not only a grievance mechanism; it is an investigation and complaints process. It is about leading to improvements of services for children in the Northern Territory. It is also about ensuring when mistakes are made they are picked up and rectified.
When this bill was first brought forward by the government on 22 February 2011 there was a reaction within the community to the fact that the Labor government was trying to gag the Ombudsman:
- The amendment proposed by the Henderson government to the Care and Protection of Children Act prevents the Ombudsman from investigating anything that can be investigated by the Children’s Commissioner … This includes all services provided to vulnerable children and any matter that may form the grounds for a complaint against child protection workers or the agency as a whole.
Just after the Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010, there was an horrific documentary played on the ABC Four Corners program called - goodness me, the name escapes me. It was about the Northern Territory child protection services; the fiasco that has been the child protection services of the Northern Territory. Dangerous Territory it was called. In this documentary, they interviewed a social worker from the Royal Darwin Hospital called Susan Mansfield. Susan Mansfield was a courageous advocate for children’s rights. She came out publicly, probably against the best interests of her personal career and aspirations for moving on in her career in social work. She came out publicly and spoke against the government’s handling of a particular case that came to her attention in her role as a hospital social worker. Susan Mansfield went to the Ombudsman because she felt the Ombudsman was the truly independent place to go for her type of complaint. Her complaint never, ever received the satisfaction she believed was required within the system. There were many allegations around how Susan Mansfield was treated within the Department of Children and Families regarding bullying and harassment. None of those have been formally substantiated, but the allegations were certainly there.
The Ombudsman played a critical role in helping Susan Mansfield get her case represented, in a way - because Susan Mansfield was not knocking on the door of the Ombudsman’s office for her own interests. She was there because she believed a child who was in the care of the hospital that she was involved in case managing, was not receiving correct care. She had gone through the normal process of venting and airing her concerns, trying to get some positive outcome for this child. She got nowhere and, obviously, she felt she had to take the extreme measure of taking this case to the Ombudsman.
I mention this case which was graphically described and presented on the Four Corners program, Dangerous Territory, because it was horrific. However, it also demonstrated the absolute necessity of having the Ombudsman there as an alternative complaint mechanism for the welfare of children in the Northern Territory.
This government has had 10 years of systematic failure when it comes to the provision of child protection services. There have been many reports presented to the public - and some not presented to the public at the government’s discretion - that demonstrate there is a need for this government to become more transparent about what it is and is not doing. Howard Bath wrote a report in July 2007 called The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit. This report was commissioned by the government after another case was reported in this Dangerous Territory, the Four Corners program; after the girl whose case was presented in this report died at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
This government asked Howard Bath to provide this report, The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit. It was presented to the government in 2007 and the government has never, ever, to this day, brought this report forward to be scrutinised and read by the public. The reason for that is because it had something to hide. It wanted to hide its lack of response to the needs of children in the Northern Territory - the maladministration, the systematic failure in providing child protection services in the Northern Territory. That is just one example of why we need an Ombudsman who is at arm’s length and independent to stand up for children in the Northern Territory.
Of course, we had the Little Children are Sacred report that came about in 2006 as a result of the identification of child sexual abuse throughout the Northern Territory as being at an horrific, alarming rate. This came about through one courageous woman in this wonderful town of Alice Springs. I will never forget watching this ABC Lateline program, which was on 15 May 2006. Dr Nanette Rogers told her story - a genuine story from someone who witnesses these sorts of things firsthand. She told of the problem of violence and sexual abuse of children in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. This caused an outcry throughout Australia - a national outcry asking how this could be. How could we, in this day and age, in 2006, have an horrific and alarming rate of child sexual abuse going on in Australia? In a western civilised society, how could this be?
It was as a result of the courage of Dr Nanette Rogers to speak out. I know she was given a hard time by this government too, because I suppose, effectively, she was a public servant. She had the courage to stand up and put her case on the public record. She took an enormous personal risk to identify this problem. As a result of what Dr Nanette Rogers did, the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, announced an inquiry into child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities under the Inquires Act.
The report that came about from this inquiry was called the Little Children are Sacred report. I am telling you this story to graphically describe the failure of this government - and I repeat this time and time again, because there is no other word; it is failure - to respond to the child protection demands of this community of the Northern Territory. The Little Children are Sacred report came out and, once again, the whole of the nation was horrified. How could this be?
There were 97 recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report and, of course, the Northern Territory government came up with its own plan to close the gap of Indigenous disadvantage within the community. But it was as a result of the Little Children are Sacred report that the need for a Children’s Commissioner was identified.
The Northern Territory government was flying by the seat of its pants, embarrassed. Ministers were moved, shuffled sideways discreetly. We have had four ministers responsible for child protection in the last 10 years. We saw various ministers shuffled around again and discreetly moved into the background while the next minister was presented to the community of the Northern Territory. The next minister had to attempt to explain their way out of this horrific hole that has become the story of child protection in the Northern Territory.
This brings us, basically, to where we are now. There have been other events that were certainly noteworthy, but here we are with the Growing them strong, together report, which has been out for almost six months. The response to the Growing them strong, together report was put together quite cleverly. They divvied up the 147 recommendations into three groups. You had the urgent six-month group, the 12-month, or 18-month - gosh we have not got to that stage yet. But, they were divvied up into three groups according to time frames. There were 34 recommendations within the urgent category.
As I said before, this particular Recommendation 136 is a part of the urgent bucket of recommendations, so the government is scrambling to get it through. Five weeks ago we were given this bill and, although I attempted to negotiate a briefing with the government, with me being down here in Alice Springs it just did not happen for various reasons, which I have some regret about because briefings are what good governance and the democratic process is all about. I believe I have done enough research on my own part to come up with a fairly reasonable and well-researched response.
The history behind this amendment to the bill has been a long and intense one when it comes to child protection. That is why we need to get right the role of the Children’s Commissioner. It has to be just right because, if it is not, we will lose the ability to effectively monitor the implementation of this Growing them strong, together report and other inquiries’ reports that will, indeed, come about if this government is to remain in power. So, we have to get it right and we have to ensure the Ombudsman is not gagged.
What is the Country Liberals’ position? In February 2010, the opposition introduced the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Investigative Powers) Bill. It was sponsored by the former member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, who I saw in the Chamber earlier. She presented this bill. She had amazing insight and understanding of child protection services in the Northern Territory. She, too, was a courageous advocate for youth justice and child protection services. So, before the Growing them strong, together report even came out, Jodeen Carney could see the looking, tweaking, and improving the role of the Children’s Commissioner was essential - it was a critical part of the whole equation. Jodeen Carney had great insight and she introduced this amendment bill in February 2010.
However, of course, the government hid behind the fact it had commissioned this inquiry. I might add, the inquiry’s Growing them strong, together report was collated, researched, and written by three people, Dr Howard Bath, the Children’s Commissioner, Professor Muriel Bamblett, and Dr Rob Roseby. The government cleverly hid behind the fact it had already commissioned this inquiry, and it could not possibly move in favour of the bill introduced to parliament by Jodeen Carney because it wanted to see what the outcome of this inquiry was. It hid behind this great anticipation of what the Growing them strong, together report would hold.
The purpose of this bill, at the time, was to give the Children’s Commissioner own motion investigative powers - the ability to decide what he needed to investigate, to investigate complaints about the adequacy of the police or FACS’ response to a complaint regarding child welfare, and to receive issues referred to him by the Child Death Review Committee. So, there was an understanding, even in February 2010, that this government had to be monitored, and could not be trusted in what it said it was going to do and what it really did in practice.
Jodeen Carney was on to that and very cleverly crafted this amendment bill to look at allowing the Children’s Commissioner to investigate issues he felt were necessary in the services provided to protected children, and giving the Children’s Commissioner powers to investigate other matters in response to complaints of a child welfare nature.
Debate on this bill occurred in August 2010, before the Growing them strong, together report was released in October 2010, and the bill was rejected.
After the final report was released, another opposition bill, the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Additional Functions) Bill 2010 was introduced in parliament by me. It was released incorporating the amendments from the previous bill presented by Jodeen Carney, and it was adjusted to accommodate many of the recommendations from the Growing them strong, together report. This bill was also negatived by the government in February 2011 after it introduced its own bill. So, the race was on. Once the Growing them strong, together report was released to the public on 18 October 2010, the race was on for the government because the pressure was on them to at least commence the implementation of all 34 urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report before 18 April 2011. Tick, tick, tick.
You have a matter of weeks, minister, to come up with proof to the community of the Northern Territory, to the people who have been anticipating your response, that you have been true to your word in implementing at least the 34 urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
This takes me to why, again, should we be asking for a report card from this government? Why should we have to stand in parliament? Why should people have to ring me, write letters to the editor, jump up and down like the people of Alice Springs did on Tuesday morning to receive a response? I asked in parliament late last year for the government to provide regular updates, to put something in the paper about the progress of the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report recommendations. However, it is only when we jump up and down that we get a response. I would like a response for the community of the Northern Territory now. I would like to know where the government is up to in its progress – a progress report on what is happening – because things have gone very quiet of late.
Going back to the role of the Ombudsman, the government intends to take away many of the current roles of the Ombudsman relating to responding to complaints regarding child protection issues. When the government was questioned on this, the Child Protection Minister, Kon Vatskalis, gave a very interesting explanation as to exactly why the government has cut short the Ombudsman’s role in dealing with complaints regarding child protection services. Parliament was told that the current Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards, supported the government’s attempt to gag her. That was very rapidly and promptly refuted by the Ombudsman. She said: ‘I did not say that; that is not true’. She did not support, at any point, her role as the Ombudsman be restricted or reduced by this government. That was an interesting debate last time we met in February 2011. It was on these lines that we, as opposition, asked the minister to explain who was lying here. Who, potentially, was lying - the Ombudsman or the minister?
However, I suppose the more important point in this matter is why the government would want to exclude the Ombudsman from dealing with complaints around the services provided to vulnerable children. She can deal with complaints regarding police involvement around the services provided to vulnerable children, but no other complaints. Her role has been trimmed from this big to this big. Why is this so? Why do you want to do that, minister? What good will that do for children in the Northern Territory? What are the advantages to children in the Northern Territory to gag the Ombudsman? What are children going to get out of this?
My response is - nothing. Children in the Northern Territory will in no way benefit by the Ombudsman being gagged. Because of that, my only conclusion is this government is still on the run - this government is running away at high speed from anything, any mechanism, any position, any person who looks like saying it the way it is; calling them out, tripping them over, exposing them. That is the only reason. I have thought long and hard about it, minister, and this is my conclusion. The only reason why you want to gag the Ombudsman is to shut her up so she does not cause you any more trouble. The Ombudsman has been a thorn in your side for a long time, for many years - not just in the area of child protection. She has not only spoken out about child protection, she has identified many other significant failures of this government. She is not your friend and you want to get rid of her, marginalise her, reduce her role so she is, basically, silent - zip, she cannot say anything.
- The Northern Territory Ombudsman has labelled an official inquiry into child protection ‘a faade’ and accused the Henderson government of trying to muzzle her.
This is taken out of The Australian on 8 February 2010:
- Ms Richards, who is investigating complaints concerning 35 children in the care of the Department of Family and Community Services, said the crisis was far from historical.
‘There are at least four matters that have been reported to me that are very similar to the history of child protection services and the condition of the neglect of children to what the coroner found in one of those recent cases’, Ms Richards told The Australian.
‘The issues are not confined to 2005 and 2007. As I am aware, there are still children at risk and there doesn’t appear to be appropriate ability in child protection services to respond’.
Why would you not want to shut her up? She is exposing you, revealing the facts, revealing failure, that you have lost control of one of the most critical departments in our society: the protection of children. She has made your life very difficult.
I am not saying the area of child protection is easy. I am a social worker. I have never worked specifically in the area of child protection, but I know this is difficult. But, you guys have made a feast of it. You guys have made something look very difficult; you have made a sham of it. I love the description the member for Fong Lim used last night in one of his speeches where he said Indigenous policy in this country needs to be shaken out of the tin, emptied of all its contents and put back into the tin. That is what needs to happen with child protection in the Northern Territory. We need to empty it out and start again, because the problems within the child protection system are so systemic, so ingrained, so entrenched, you guys have no hope. You are just trying to put bandaids on it. You are trying to react, to respond to the half-a-dozen reports that have been slapped in your face over the last 10 years, damning you and telling the world and Australia how useless you are. You are on the run and you cannot think straight.
This is an example. This attempt to gag the Ombudsman is, indeed, an example of you not thinking straight because, in a democracy, you need checks and balances. You need mechanisms to monitor and review, in an objective way, what you are doing. It makes what you do transparent. It makes people who are sitting in the gallery understand what really is going on from an outside perspective. You need those mechanisms in place. To gag the one person in the Northern Territory who has tried to make these issues transparent, and respond in a constructive manner - and I know Carolyn Richards has held her breath many times. She could have gone in much harder and more frequently, but she has not, because she knows it is a tough business and the solutions are not there in front of you. She knows these problems are entrenched and very complicated, but she also knows you are not doing a good job, even if it is hard.
The Northern Territory Ombudsman has slammed child protection authorities for failing to save ‘the most vulnerable Territorians’. That was a quote from the Northern Territory News on 9 November 2010 after the ABC Four Corners program Dangerous Territory. The Ombudsman was featured on Dangerous Territory, that Four Corners program and, once again, she spoke out nationally about her concerns about child protection - the tsunami of need in the Territory when it comes to child protection.
‘Ombudsman hits out at child protection failures’ was an article about her Four Corners interview:
- She tells Four Corners: ‘I think it would be fair to say that in at least 80% there was an inadequate response, and in 50% no response at all to what any normal person would consider was a risk-prone, terrible, neglectful, harmful situation for any child.
That comes from the Four Corners program Dangerous Territory. That is what they are calling us, dangerous Territory - dangerous for the people we should hold in the highest esteem, the children of the Northern Territory. I will not become emotional.
‘So, let us gag her. Let us shut her up. Let us block her from telling the truth, for exposing us. Let us prevent her from having a say about child protection services in the Northern Territory. Let us get rid of this constant reminder of our failure and incompetence’. Well, to get rid of the Ombudsman from hearing complaints relating to the child protection industry is a crime in itself, a huge disservice to the community, and bordering on criminal.
Child protection workers throughout the Northern Territory – and I am getting to hear from some of them - are ringing me. If they are not ringing me directly, they are coming to me indirectly. Child protection workers in the Northern Territory are not a happy bunch. They feel frustrated, they feel unsupported, they feel like they are a part of a body which does not have the capacity to listen to children, let alone the people they employ. Who will represent those people? Who will represent the Susan Mansfields of the Northern Territory? Who will assist them to continue to do this very important work in our community?
I know for a fact there are many child protection workers who have contacted the Ombudsman. This is a fact. You can ask the Ombudsman if you would like confirmation of it. I know for a fact she has received many complaints from very distressed, well-meaning professional child protection workers in the Northern Territory, saying: ‘Please help. Please help us to rectify the problems in the child protection system in the Northern Territory. No matter what we do, who we talk to, no one listens and no one wants to take on board our concerns’.
The Ombudsman is not only hearing complaints at present about the services provided to protected children of the Northern Territory, but much of her work in relation to child protection is working with employees of the Department of Children and Families. To take away the Ombudsman means those people do not have a voice. Most of those incredibly dedicated child protection workers are social workers, people who have a similar professional background to me, who usually hold their hearts in their hands. They will not have a voice. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think the people of the Northern Territory will think that is fair either.
In closing, we will only support this bill if the government accepts our amendments, which I would like to take to committee. We see this as a very important bill and, if the government gets this up, this will be a very sad day in the democracy of the Northern Territory. It will be a very sad day for the welfare of children in the Northern Territory because we will no longer be able to live in comfort knowing there are mechanisms in place to ensure transparency, and that complaints will be dealt with properly. There will be no mechanisms to ensure any future inquiries into child protection will be done at arm’s length.
The government has put together this wonderful group of people to be a part of their reform monitoring committee - a title something like that. It is a group of distinguished professional people in the area of child protection, some of whom I know will carry out their jobs with great esteem and conscientiousness. However, those people have been appointed by this government. They will be provided material from this government and be asked to preside over things this government identifies. They will not be independent. This will not be a true, objective monitoring of the reforms of child protection in the Northern Territory. If this government is genuine about reforms in child protection, they will not gag the Ombudsman and they will allow the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the Growing them strong, together report, and also any future inquiries into child protection.
______________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Centralian Middle School students in Year 7 together with their teacher, Ms Majella Bowden. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the bill, only because I have had a look at the bill and my other Independent colleague and I have spoken about it this morning. I had the opportunity, through him, to have a look at the legal advice the ministers received. I am happy with the legal advice the government has about the Ombudsman not losing all the powers and the Children’s Commissioner being independent. That is the only obstacle I had when I was looking at the bill.
It has now guaranteed me what I needed to know; the fact that he has his own motion power, and it does not take away any other investigation the Ombudsman can have except for child protection. Child protection will now come under the Children’s Commissioner. It is only appropriate to have the investigation conducted by the Children’s Commissioner not be done by two people because you could have contradicting investigations being conducted.
One of the recommendations of the inquiry was more powers be given to the Children’s Commissioner. In this debate we can get into talking about what the government is going to do and what the opposition is putting up. However, in light of where the government is going, which is about child protection, it is the silent voices of our Territory children ...
Madam SPEAKER: May I remind honourable members there are no phones, thank you.
Ms ANDERSON: Most of the core business is Indigenous kids in the Northern Territory. Looking at the recommendations the minister adopted, the government has taken into consideration all the aspects of the inquiry quite seriously. I would not be standing in this parliament praising the government if I knew, as an Indigenous politician and Indigenous mother, grandmother and aunty to many kids in the care of FACS, that the government was not doing anything.
I congratulate you, minister, for taking on the recommendations of the inquiry. We have had many inquiries. This is really serious business, and the silent voices we have are the kids of the Northern Territory who are the future generation. All they want is safe homes and safe, loving families. They want to be able to sleep in a normal warm bed like everybody else. They want to have loving parents no matter who they are. They are not fussy about whether their carers are black, white, Chinese or Sudanese. They just want loving people to look after them.
I have many families in care of FACS. It is really hurtful for people to say these children should be only placed with Indigenous families. That is not correct. These children just want to be loved. Sometimes, they are in a situation where mum and dad are drinking, mum and dad do not have homes. That is why I object to building so much infrastructure and wasting so much of Territory taxpayers’ money to build up something we know will perpetuate this problem - the town camps. We have no certainty and no assurance that the amount of money we put into housing infrastructure in these town camps will ensure at least 60% or 70% of the kids will be safe.
The government needs to move down the path of mainstreaming the town camps so they are suburbs of this town, so there is safety, so there are Sudanese, Chinese, or other Aboriginal people or white Australians living next door to these people so they can report neglect if children are running around knocking on other people’s doors in the neighbourhood asking for food because their parents are drinking.
I have several nieces who live near a creek who are drinking now, and I know their father has custody of the children. The father is a traditional owner of this country, but the father is an alcoholic. How many times do you keep reporting this same case over and over again to the Department of Children and Families? You become fed up. Last Saturday was a classic example where I drove past a house, and the kids were all playing outside being a nuisance to neighbours’ property, asking people for food. The father was sitting with 10, 15 other people drinking inside their home, which is supposed to be their safety zone, somewhere they can feel safe.
What do we do as adults, politicians, or human beings? Do we continuously report the same case to the Department of Children and Families? It is obvious assessments have been done of these children. I gave my commitment to the person who was working with these children and, along with FACS, took them out to Papunya and got their grandmother to look after them. However, at the end of the day, the grandmother is half deaf, has no employment, and no control over the children.
As I said in the briefing in the minister’s office at the last sittings, we have to be very careful where we place these children because, sometimes, we place them with elderly people. We know the lightning speed of a two-, three-, four-, or five-year-old child compared with a 79- or 80-year-old grandmother or great-grandmother, who has to get up if there is a car coming. There is a collision before the 79- or 80-year-old can actually get up to save that child. You have 80-year-old people walking around the community looking for these children because they are at the waterhole or playing down the road. They should not be there. Then, you have the problem of grandparents living not in a house but inside a humpy. Then, the children turn up to school with snotty noses and not fed, and not clothed properly. Then, the teacher, through the reporting mechanisms, reports that to FACS.
What do you do? We are in a no-win situation with some of these families and some of these children. I believe there really needs to be aspects, minister, where, through the Indigenous people you have now employed on remote Aboriginal communities - which is good - you have a mechanism in place where that Aboriginal person actually identifies, acknowledges, respects, and understands your legislation. Also, there is someone they can work with on the community to ensure there is an education strategy to allow the whole community to participate, engage, and be part of driving any kind of reform to make their lives better, and to understand child protection.
Child protection is not just about abuse; it is about neglect. If the mother is sitting down gambling all day long, or if the father and mother are on ganja and the child is just roaming around, or the mother and father are drinking, that is all neglect. That is all reportable. Instead of just leaving it up to the teachers, nurses, police, and youth workers, we really need to drive home with an education strategy on the communities to allow Indigenous people to understand child protection and neglect; that they cannot sit there and gamble all day while the child is sitting there hungry; that someone will report that child.
I have said in parliament repeatedly: the important factor of any kind of legislation the government introduces is educating the community. It goes back to education. It is all very well for us to pass all this legislation in this House, but if we do not transfer what we put into this House out in a very simple form to these communities and have a targeted education strategy through a DVD or something like that - and at that meeting I had with your staff, minister, I suggested some kind of DVD where you could have a play where people are talking about child protection, and talking in language about how important education is. That is something else, minister, you might be able to pick up on. DVDs are not really expensive, and people have all the technology on communities to have a look at that kind of stuff. Maybe we can have a deal with Imparja or NITV that we air all this kind of educational material on their programs, because that is the key.
One of the keys is, as a government, you have the duty of care to pass legislation in this House. However, another duty of care we have is the education material we urgently need to send out to communities. While the Education minister is here too, that is another part of what we can take up through enrolments at school, urging the communities to be responsible, participate in their children’s education because, as we all know, education is the key. Education opens up lots of avenues for all of us. It is not through not going to school that you have politicians sitting inside this House. We have actually all had a good, quality education, and that is the key. That will open the door; many avenues open up for people, and they can then start changing their lives. Everything else falls into place through a good, quality education.
It is good to see so many young Aboriginal people in the gallery here today. I hope you can take back all these messages to your families and the people you live with, your mums and dads. Pass on all these messages to the young kids you hang around with that child protection is really important. We have to use that avenue, even through these children, to talk to their peers as well so they identify what neglect is, and identify at a very young age what abuse is. It is through these people and these young adolescents we can also pass on the message. I believe it is really important.
Minister, I take this opportunity again to congratulate you for taking on the recommendations, but with a view that we must understand we should not just be placing children with black families; we should be placing them with loving families, people who can love them.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am, at the outset, astonished that from government we have no speakers other than the minister who, some months ago, placed this matter on the Notice Paper for discussion. On an issue as important as matters surrounding child protection, you would expect to see government ministers, one after the other, leaping to their feet to discuss the issues that surround these matters. However, their thundering silence on this issue behoves a thinking which, in my opinion, is much more sinister than the member for Macdonnell would have us believe.
I am not sure what the member for Macdonnell has seen, but if the government was interested in trying to win over this House, it would be a matter of courtesy that things like legal opinions would be tabled in this place so all members could read them. They have not, they have been withheld. We have not seen this legal opinion. Why not? Because government has decided to deal with this issue as a numbers game, so it withholds information. This is contrary to the philosophical approach one would expect from a government which was genuinely interested in dealing with these issues.
I am concerned about this legislation, and I am concerned about the fraud that is being perpetrated through the bill which is in this House at the moment. Let us …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am concerned about the use of the word ‘fraud’ by the member, and I ask you to rule on that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I would ask you to re-word, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘fraud’. I am sorry they are offended by the word ‘fraud’; perhaps deceit would be better. … the deceit which is being perpetrated on the people of the Northern Territory.
The first thing I remind honourable members about this particular bill is it does intend to take away powers from the Ombudsman. It is worthwhile and useful to pause for a moment to consider who the Ombudsman is. The Ombudsman is an officer of this parliament. She does not work for the government; she does not work for anyone else but this parliament. Her function is quite simple. Her function is to review how government, or the executive arm of government, does its job. She does so thoroughly, relentlessly, and comprehensively. In her pursuit of those ideals, she has, on repeated occasions, been critical of this government and its capacity to deliver services within the boundaries of the legislation described - legislation passed by this House. It is for that reason she is an officer of this parliament and not an organ of the executive arm of government.
The Children’s Commissioner, whilst government claims to be independent, is attached to the executive arm of government. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed this minister thinks both the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman are incapable of communicating with each other.
The reason the powers of investigation are being withdrawn from the Ombudsman is because this government is sick of critical reports. So, rather than deal with the issues she raises, they seek to strip her powers.
Is she currently investigating child protection in the Northern Territory? Yes, she is. And she is due to report in the not-so-distant future. The minister says she will be able to complete that report. On her reading of the legislation, she says, no, she will not be able to complete that report ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. If the Solicitor-General has that view, and you want to convince us of it before the debate in this House, show us the Solicitor-General’s view - weeks, days, months before the Health Minister came into this House and said: ‘Well, the Solicitor-General has a different view’.
If he wants our support for these bills, walk across the floor of this House, figuratively speaking, come and speak to the shadow minister and, then, make those bills available. But, you do not do that. What the minister does is selectively deal with this as a political issue. That is at the core of this legislative instrument: it is about making this a political issue.
I heard the interjection from the minister: ‘The Children's Commissioner does not answer through government; it answers to the House’, will be his allegation. I remember when the government was in opposition it had great problems with the Electoral Commission being attached to the Department of the Chief Minister, and it used to whinge about it endlessly. Indeed, it actually made the Electoral Commission an independent statutory authority after coming to government because of its deep concerns about the relationship between government and these independent authorities. But, no such rule for the Children's Commissioner.
Let us examine what we are talking about. Let us put this into context for a second. Not only the Ombudsman, but also the Coroner, has dealt with issues relating to the failures of this government dealing with child protection issues - repeated ongoing failures. I remind honourable members of the Coroner’s investigation into a young girl by the name of Deborah Melville. The reason I mention this – I will prefix my comments – is to remind honourable members how serious this stuff is.
Deborah Melville was a 13- or 14-year-old girl who was in the care of this minister – or one of this government’s ministers; they have had so many for child protection ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I will actually pick up on that interjection. This is also part of the problem I have with this government. The CEO’s care was an amendment made to the act not that long ago because the minister no longer wanted to be responsible. It wanted to wash its hands because, once again, it did not want to be responsible. This government does not want to be responsible and, like Pontius Pilate, it washes its hands and takes no responsibility: ‘It is under the CEO’s care’.
When Deborah Melville was in care, I think it was before the change of the act. In any instance, who does the CEO answer to, minister? You? Or are they some sort of vigilante health organisation that run independently of your government? Because that is the argument you are proposing with that facile dodge of the facts.
Deborah Melville died under the care of this government. She died in a back yard after having been visited by workers who were overworked, underpaid, and under-supported by this government. She died as a result of an infection in her femur and thigh which, on autopsy, discovered had as much as a litre-and-a-half of pus in it. That is what we are talking about. That is how serious these issues are. Yet, the government deals with it as a political issue. It says we have to work together, but it withholds Solicitor-General’s advices, it withholds information and, now, it starts to attack the very bodies which have investigated them in the past.
This is an attack on the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory. To suggest …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you mind if I acknowledge these students please?
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alice Springs Steiner School students, Year 6, together with teachers, Ms Stowe and Ms Yffer. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, to suggest otherwise would be errant and wrong. The justification for this change is that by some magical principle the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, who is a qualified and practising lawyer, cannot talk to Dr Howard Bath, a man of eminent repute, and organise between themselves the order in which they choose to investigate matters. It would go something like this: ring, ring, ring, ring, ‘Hello, Howard, this is Carolyn’. ‘Hello, Carolyn, what can I do for you?’ ‘I have a complaint about a particular issue. Can I have a meeting?’ That is how difficult it would be, and that is how difficult it is to deal with these issues. However, the government would paint a picture that somehow Dr Bath and Ms Richards would be incapable of coming to an arrangement by the fact the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner both have the power to investigate roughly the same area of government performance. Arrant nonsense!
The real reason the government is trying to cut the Ombudsman’s throat is simple: what the Northern Territory government is trying to do is silence somebody who has, on repeated occasions, found flaws with this government’s capacity to perform.
Eight hundred cows died at Mataranka cattle station, the Ombudsman investigated and was critical of government. So, what does this government do? It attacks the Ombudsman; shoots the messenger. That is exactly what is proposed in this legislative instrument. It is a furphy to suggest two intelligent, capable, educated, qualified people could not determine a hierarchy between them in relation to the investigations they have.
This is not a transfer of powers; this is an attempt to silence an Ombudsman who has had the courage to challenge this government. When Sue Mansfield challenged this government she was attacked and criticised inside the Health department because of the political nature of this government and the way it affects Northern Territory public servants. Nanette Rogers had the same experience when she had the courage to call it for what it was.
The child protection area, at the moment, is buried under a mountain of fear caused by political interference and an attempt to deal with the message and not the issue. This is about dealing with the message and not the issue.
To reinforce this opinion, I quote from the minister’s own second reading speech. It is a lengthy quote:
- … it is appropriate that the Commissioner for Public Employment, and not the Children’s Commissioner, have a role in relation to the significant number of recommendations which relate to staff training, development and attraction, recruitment and retention strategies. The board of inquiry, at Chapter 13, proposed that there be a monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations and this ‘may’ be a function of the commissioner.
The government stressed ‘may’ and the reason is because government does not want to do that. Government thinks Dr Bath, eminently qualified person that he is, cannot really get his head around staffing issues whilst keeping an eye on the other bouncing ball he is responsible for. Nonsense! It is about retaining control of the processes as much as possible and restricting power to government.
I further quote:
- Acknowledging this important function, government has created the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, which has been established to oversee government implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations.
There we have the government setting up its own committee to investigate how the implementation is going. Does Dr Bath get the right to investigate how the implementation is going? No, Dr Bath is not given that right, he can only hear submissions. In essence, Dr Bath, the Children’s Commissioner who has these investigative powers, has to sit in his office in regard to the implementation of the board of inquiry’s recommendations and, if someone shoves something under his door or into his in-tray, he can have a look at it. However, he cannot generate that himself. We see the tight stranglehold of the executive reaching that little further into the processes of the idea of having to protect children. That is what makes this bill so reprehensible.
I do not know what the member for Macdonnell has been told, but we are being sold a pup. We are being asked to believe this is all sweetness and light. The government’s desperation on this issue goes one step further. In response to a question to the Health Minister in this House, we were told the Ombudsman ‘supported these changes’. No, she did not. What she said to the minister was changing the powers was his prerogative, which means he has the power to pursue these things with the support of the majority of members in this place. The majority of the members in this place? No wonder they are having little backroom chats with the Independents, because they know we would be …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: We would be critical of this particular issue. Yes, I am smiling because this is the Independent …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, if you have a point of order you may go to the lectern but, otherwise, cease interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well may the member for Nelson be sensitive to these comments. I am not at all surprised. He is the man who enables this government, with this awful track record, to stay in power. He is the man who has struck a deal that ensures even the Labor Party does not have the capacity to remove the current Chief Minister, no matter how bad and incompetent he is. This man who feigns a care about responsibility – no that is unfair, and I withdraw that. This member, who says he cares about so many matters in the Northern Territory and, then, keeps saying in this House all of the things government has to do without actually taking on any of that responsibility for himself by becoming a minister of the Crown, loses credibility in that process.
I digress. Getting back to the issue, the Ombudsman will have her powers removed. There is a motion on the Notice Paper dealing with the way this minister dealt with the Ombudsman’s integrity. He verballed her in this House. He said she said something she did not say, in defence of his deceitful representation of this legislative instrument.
I know the member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Child Protection, has amendments to push through this House. If those amendments do not succeed, we will oppose this bill because it is about managing the message rather than managing the issue. This bill is about making sure and certain the Labor government does not look bad. This bill is about silencing critics and criticism. This bill is about taking away from the people of the Northern Territory the transparency they were promised by this government. I will not abide or stand by and watch this government pursue these ends. Whilst they might try to bury their message in these sesquipedalian second reading speeches, as far as I am concerned they have betrayed the people of the Northern Territory by attacking a person who has had the courage to stand up.
The casualty list is growing: Nanette Rogers, Susan Mansfield, now Carolyn Richards. Who is next? Who is the next person in the crosshairs of this government who has the audacity to challenge it or stand in its way? We know how low it can go; we witness it every day.
Madam Speaker, I plead with this government to make good on its promise to openly deal with these issues in a cooperative fashion. I see no evidence of it. To the contrary, I see evidence of these matters being avoided. If you continue, as a government, to engage in conduct which is to deal with message and perception rather than the reality, you will lose the faith of the people of the Northern Territory but, much more importantly, there will be more Deborah Melvilles. That is what is at stake here. I will not place my name against legislation which is designed to make things look good rather than the real issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I note it is 11.50 am. We will break at 12 o’clock, but you can continue your remarks after Question Time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important bill. I believe we have to keep this debate to the essence of what we are trying to do; that is, to protect children. Naturally, there are some other agendas in this which, I believe, need to be touched on. My approach is, and has been, in relation to this bill what I call a commonsense approach.
The Growing them strong, together report had a number of recommendations, and the legislation before us today intends to put those recommendations into legislation. I have had a number of discussions with the Children’s Commissioner, and also with the Ombudsman. I remind people I was on the committee that actually helped appoint the Ombudsman, and I have a lot of time for the good work the Ombudsman does.
I also make it known I have a lot of time for the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Bath. I am a little upset that - it may not be intentional - by saying because Commissioner Bath will take over the - actually, I will put it the other way. Because the Ombudsman will lose some of her power because the commissioner will take over some of her power, Dr Bath will not stand up here and tell us what is wrong with the system. That is a really important point. People are actually challenging Dr Bath’s independence and efficacy, and that is a danger. Both people, I believe, will do a very good job. The Ombudsman has done a very good job and, from all the contact I have had with him, I believe Dr Bath will do the same. It is an unfair sleight on Dr Bath to say, just because he is taking over from the Ombudsman, he will not be as good as the Ombudsman. That is wrong.
I have had a number of good discussions with Dr Bath, and I have had quite a bit of correspondence - briefings, you might say. From those briefings, I know Dr Bath is generally happy with the changes. There are some issues, and we can go and argue the case over a number of the concerns he has, but what will that do? Will that help protect the children? We need to bring this legislation through now and, if there are things to be debated later on, the minister has said, I think in his second reading, we will bring those things up at a later date. I certainly will be raising those things at a later date.
Dr Bath has told me he has some concerns about some issues. One of those, for instance, was in relation to the commissioner’s functions and powers. He was concerned he will not be directly monitoring the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report because the government said that is why it has set up this new committee. I say to the member for Araluen - and by the way, member for Araluen, in no way do I try to diminish your concern, but we are allowed to have a different opinion - I have met Dr Vimpani, a very impressive person, who would in no way like to hear you say he was not independent. Nor would the people in that group say they are not independent. I say they are fully independent. Their job, of course, will be to monitor whether the government is doing its job.
I should say the concern the commissioner has is those sorts of committees will come and go over the next three and five years; people will come and people will go, but the commissioner will stay. I am asking the government - not today but maybe this is something which can be discussed at another time - to see whether the role of the commissioner should be expanded to cover the area of the recommendations of Growing them strong, together. It is something Dr Bath said and it should be taken into account. Be that as it may, we could get stuck on that. What we really want to do is get the powers of the Children’s Commissioner up there and get this rolling.
The other bit of what I call commonsense is: why would you have two statutory authorities looking at the same issue? You do not do it with other matters. If you have some interaction between the two, you would expect the two of them to sit down and, as Dr Bath has written - I do not have it in front of me - you would imagine there would be some form of understanding between the two. Whether that is in the form of a memorandum of understanding or just a matter of picking up the phone, you would hope both the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner, who both have children’s welfare at heart, would simply work out a way of overcoming any difficulties which might occur where their powers overlap. If I was looking at this in the cold, hard light of day, why would you have two people with the same powers doing the same job?
The Ombudsman can still look at the way the department functions, will still have power in relation to matters of the police, but we have now given the commissioner all those functions the Ombudsman had in relation to the welfare of children. The government has given him extra funding; why would you want to actually repeat that? I am saying that not from a political point of view; commonsense tells me you would not do it otherwise you get accused of duplication normally. So why go down that path?
The Children’s Commissioner has spoken about the definition of vulnerable children. We had an e-mail from him, and he said he was assured the additional point - he had some concerns about aspects of the definition - would be included in the text or by specific reference in the regulations referred to in proposed new section 258(2)(f). I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
Madam Speaker, I have tried to do a lot of work in relation to the concerns the member for Araluen has put forward. I say congratulations and thank you for bringing those forward. We have read them. Some of what the member for Araluen has put forward is based on the notion that the Children’s Commissioner is not independent. Regardless of what people have said today, I have briefings. I have briefings on just about every bill. I try to take nearly every piece of legislation seriously. I had briefings on the port yesterday; I had briefings on the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Briefings on this particular bill have been no different except this is a fairly serious matter and I want to ensure I am thoroughly across all the matters.
I cannot help it, member for Araluen - believe it or not, I am not in charge of briefings. It is part of my standard work. I try to get briefings where I need to get them. So, I received an e-mail following some discussions at a briefing where we needed things clarified. Some were in relation to the issues you have raised. When it came to the section on independence - and I am quoting from the advice in the e-mail from the Solicitor-General:
- I am instructed in this respect that a duty statement for the position of Children’s Commissioner was produced during the recruitment process in 2008 …
- … which purported to require the commissioner to report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families. Whatever the content of the duty statement might be, the legislative provisions entrenching the commissioner’s independence clearly prevail over anything that might be expressed in an administrative document. It does not and cannot impose any obligation on the commissioner inconsistent with the specific legislative injunction.
In light of what the Solicitor-General has said, it makes it quite clear you have to refer to section 262 of the existing act:
- Except as otherwise provided by another law of the Territory, the Commissioner is not subject to the direction of anyone in relation to:
(a) the way in which the functions of the Commissioner are performed; or
(b) the order of priority the Commissioner gives to investigations.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, unfortunately, it is 12 o’clock. Do you want to round up?
Mr WOOD: I have a few more things to say which will go longer than one minute.
Madam SPEAKER: So, we will return at 2 pm.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Gillen Primary School students from Year 5/6 Wood, together with teacher, Ms Paula Wood, and ISAs, Mr Tully Lowson, Talisha Kerin, Ms Marlene Coombe, and their AIEW, Mr Robert Clair. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
(CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 147)
(CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 147)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a few more things I would like to add. I have gone through the member for Araluen’s amendments and, as much as I understand why she has put them forward, I do not criticise her in the slightest. I am always a little worried that sometimes, as happens in parliament, we have legislation that perhaps is not required. It is not good to duplicate things. Both the amendments the member is putting forward are covered by section 260 - I will read those out - and also taking into account I believe the commissioner is independent, not only from the Solicitor-General’s advice, but also from what is written in the existing act. However, under the new amendment to the Care and Protection of Children Act in clause 8, section 260, Commissioner’s Functions and Powers:
1. The following are the Commissioner’s functions:
- (a) to investigate:
That is a far-reaching clause which would easily satisfy the matters raised by the member for Araluen. I am not diminishing the concerns of the member; however, my understanding is that would cover the issues raised. The commissioner has the own motion powers the government promised it would bring in, and that is clearly stated in section 260.
The other issue which has been discussed is the Ombudsman’s report she is doing at the present time. Again, I have tried to use a little common sense because it is obvious the Ombudsman is doing a report and, having spoken to her, she said the report keeps raising some new areas of investigation she would like to continue. I understand that; it is a fair comment. There must be some time when there has to be a break. The important thing in this debate is to get it going.
The member for Araluen talked about a number of recommendations which have to be done in the first six months. On one hand, you are saying government is rushing it, on the other hand you are saying it has to be done. I am saying we have to get it done. These amendments will bring the Children's Commissioner into the new scope the Growing them strong, together report mentioned. The government has to decide a time to implement this law. From my briefing, I will read the response to this from the Solicitor-General:
- What can be said is that the Ombudsman is able to receive complaints in relation to protected children and to investigate and exercise other functions in relation to these complaints until the bill commences. Put another way, the bill will not impact any complaints which the Ombudsman is currently investigating until it becomes law.
The government eventually has to set a time to introduce this as law, or it becomes law, and it would not matter what the date is; this could occur at any time.
The Ombudsman may not have been doing a report. The government might have said: ‘We are going to pass the powers relating to the welfare of children over to a Children’s Commissioner’. There will always be a period where there is going to be a crossover where one person takes over the reins from another person.
My understanding is the Ombudsman will write a report. I imagine, in that report, as part of the conclusions she would say – and I am not putting words in her mouth here, but I imagine if there are matters to be investigated, those matters to be investigated would be written into the report. Obviously, if those matters have not been sorted out, I regard them as ongoing investigations.
Once again, knowing Dr Bath is very ethical and a very committed person to matters of child protection, I have no doubt, if he saw a report - and, again, I am not going to put words in his mouth - he would seriously look at any matters the Ombudsman had raised, bearing in mind the commissioner has the powers in section 260 I just mentioned. I believe, as I said earlier, Dr Bath is just as capable as anyone of investigating, independently and fearlessly, any matters that relate to vulnerable children in the Northern Territory.
I have every confidence - regardless of whether the Ombudsman’s report has come to an end - from speaking to the Ombudsman there are matters that still need to be investigated. My personal feeling is Dr Bath would be quite capable of following up those investigations. That is entirely his business, not mine. I am just saying that Dr Bath can do that sort of work just as capably as anyone else.
Just a couple of little issues the member for Araluen spoke about. There is no doubt, member for Araluen, your predecessor had done an enormous amount of work helping to drive where we are today. Occasionally, the previous member and I had a difference of opinion, but there is no doubt she did an enormous amount of great work. She has led the way in this parliament in raising the issues of child protection; there is no doubt about that. From my view, I do not have that knowledge; I do not deal in that area. I might be able to tell you about planning and things like that which might be important to me, but child protection is more important than that. I have learnt a great deal from the debate that has occurred in this parliament.
In relation to the origin of this Growing them strong, together report, I need to put on the record the previous member for Araluen put pressure on the government to introduce something. The minister, at that time, decided to have an inquiry into the way people enter into the system. It was a relatively minor inquiry.
I was driving through northern New South Wales looking at prisons in late 2009, and I received a phone call from Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN and I was discussing this particular issue. Should I support this? Originally, I thought the new inquiry was good. I stepped off a plane from Timor with Madam Speaker and a parliamentary entourage that had been over there to talk to the East Timorese government, and I was asked about this inquiry. I said, yes, it sounded okay. Anyway, obviously, I did not know what I was talking about. That is the danger sometimes when someone puts a microphone in front of you and you say something and, sometimes, you do not have the information.
Lesley Taylor rang me and said: ‘This is not good enough’. She told me the inquiry had to be far bigger than the minister at the time said; it had to be total. I contacted the AMA as well, on her recommendation, and they said exactly the same thing. There were two driving forces behind the actual implementation of the inquiry which has been completed. I am not, in any way, diminishing the role the previous member for Araluen had in making the government get off its backside and do something. However, that is where it came from. There were discussions and I was a mediator - that is all I was - discussing matters with Lesley Taylor who represents NAPCAN - a very good person who has a great deal of knowledge about child protection and has been in the business for a long time - and AMA, of course, which was very concerned as well. That information all went back to the then minister, who decided to have a full inquiry. My hat is off to the previous member for Araluen, as well as Lesley Taylor and the AMA. I believe they certainly made the government get its act together.
I cannot recall the time, it may have been the same time I was travelling, the Ombudsman rang me. I do not have any written record, and I am only going from recollection, but she had a concern about the government setting up an inquiry. I believe her concern was whether it was trying to compete with the Ombudsman. However, I did not see it that way because it had come from two independent sources - NAPCAN and AMA. She has every right to do her own report. I gave her what I felt was the advice I thought was right; that she had every right to do her own report. I did not believe the government was actually doing this to upset her at all, because the origins of the report were from NAPCAN and AMA, organisations which had nothing to do with any of the politics around the place. They were two respectable groups that had a real concern something had to be done. I believe it is more coincidental; I do not believe there was anything sinister in it. It just happened that way, and I do not believe, in the end, it made much difference.
So, the Ombudsman is doing, and has been doing, her report for quite some time. I imagine we will see the results of that report. As you know, we have the Growing them strong, together report which is a result of the minister asking for a much larger, widespread inquiry.
I believe it is important we debate this. It is important we ask questions about the government. However, I believe the key is we need to do this quickly. It has been out for some time for discussion, and I am unsure about the intricacies of why the CLP did not get a briefing from the government - that is not my area. All I know is I have had a number of briefings. I have spoken to various people – commissioner Bath and the Ombudsman – and thought about it a great deal. I believe the bottom line is we can argue the toss over certain things, but why not accept these amendments to the bill? Let us get the commissioner going with what he should be doing.
Let us move ahead to try to protect children. If we have problems with this - I am sure everyone here will get reports sooner or later - I am sure commissioner Bath will come back and say: ‘Hey, government, you promised various things here’. All of us have a duty to see whether this particular amendment is working as it should be, whether the commissioner is doing his job, and if children are being protected.
Madam Speaker, I will support the amendments, but I will be keeping an eye on some of those concerns the commissioner has raised. I will be asking the government to at least review, without waiting a long time, some of the issues the commissioner has spoken about. If it needs to come back to this parliament to be amended, that is exactly what should happen. We do it for the kids of the Northern Territory. Let us get going, otherwise we will stand around here for a month of Sundays arguing the toss. Let us get it done.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I agree totally with the member for Nelson; this is not about government or the opposition, it is about the children of the Northern Territory.
I also profusely thank the members for Nelson and Macdonnell for their comments today. Neither member did backroom deals; they simply asked for a briefing and received a detailed briefing, as they have on many other occasions. At that briefing, we explained the legislation, what amendments we would introduce, and why we introduced our amendments. In addition, we provided information about the legal opinions we obtained regarding several sections of the legislation, and also with regard to the ability of the Ombudsman to complete the current investigation, and about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner.
I say to the member for Macdonnell, who raised issues in relation to community education and promoting the protection of children in remote communities, that in response to the board of inquiry report the government is establishing community child safety and wellbeing teams across remote communities in the Northern Territory. These teams will include important community workers such as the remote Aboriginal community workers and Safe Place staff in working together to protect children and promote child safety and wellbeing in their communities. As part of the roll-out of these teams, the department will be working with communities to develop community education around child protection. The most important thing is for people to realise safety of the children is paramount.
We are not only talking about communities; we are talking about urban communities and mainstream communities too, because it is not only Indigenous children who are sexually or physically abused. They are children who live next door to us, in downtown Darwin and in downtown Katherine.
I remain committed to do anything possible in my capacity to protect children in the Territory. I come from a culture where children are paramount. In my culture, the role of the parent is to bring up the child, look after the child, educate the child and, of course, have a functional family. I was born into this culture. I will carry it for the rest of my life and will die with these beliefs. Being a minister with responsibility for child safety puts an added weight on my shoulders. I will do anything in my ability and my capacity to ensure children in the Territory are, and will, remain safe.
Yes, we have some very terrible examples; we have had Coronial inquiries. I have said before and I will say it again: I cannot understand how a person who is fully trained cannot realise a child is very sick, will not even report or seek some medical advice, and that child ends up dying. It does not matter whether they are under the care of the minister, the CEO, or anyone; children have to be safe. We have a responsibility for children to be safe.
I am disappointed. I came here and sought bipartisan support, and today, what do we see? Playing politics, to put it bluntly. Not because the members of the opposition do not want children to be safe or do not believe in the safety of children, but because they see it as a very good opportunity to attack the government.
Some will think the Territory was a utopia and everything changed on 19 August 2001 when the Labor Party came to government. A system like the child protection system does not fall over overnight. It does not get destroyed in five years. We are talking about a system which has been in crisis for the past 37 years. Of course, it would have been in crisis when the government of the day allocated only $7.8m for child protection, when the number of people working in child protection was only 100, and the only thing they cared about was people in urban communities, not in remote communities.
Yesterday, I was very disappointed to listen to the member for Fong Lim who questioned me about how we are going to create another system for black kids, different from the white kids. That is the same as they, to their credit, created an Indigenous-controlled medical service. Yes, there are two systems in the Territory. There is a mainstream Health department, and then a number of Indigenous-controlled medical services like Danila Dilba, Wurli Wurlinjang, Miwatj, and others. They work together for the benefit of Territorians, black or white. This is our intention: to create a system that will look after Indigenous kids, especially in the communities. The reality is for people who come from somewhere else in the Territory, it is like going to another planet. They do not have the cultural knowledge or the cultural relations, and the best people to deal with children is us, ourselves, the community. So, who is the best person to deal with a child welfare issue in Yuendumu? The people of Yuendumu. Who is the best person to deal with a child in Darwin? The community in Darwin. The same for the community in Alice Springs.
What is disappointing is the attack on the credibility of the Children’s Commissioner. I thought it was absolutely pathetic that they said the Ombudsman is the only one to investigate kids because that is the only independent, credible person, and Dr Howard Bath is not. That is absolutely untrue. There is no conspiracy to take the part of the Ombudsman and give it to a person who is going to do what the government wants.
The reality is I have had many robust discussions with Dr Howard Bath - we have differences of opinion. Government sought his advice on these amendments. It adopted many of his recommendations, some it did not. However, we decided to work together and, as the legislation comes into force, we will see where the shortcomings are and look at them again.
I was also very disappointed to hear the spokesperson from the opposition quote from The Australian newspaper of 8 February 2010 that the inquiry was a faade. I would like her to talk to Professor Muriel Bamblett, Dr Roseby and Dr Howard Bath and tell them she believes their inquiry was a faade; it was not a real inquiry. It was the greatest inquiry into child protection in the Northern Territory ever - 147 recommendations. Yes, the government will accept them because they are very important recommendations. It is the government’s obligation and responsibility to ensure these recommendations are adopted, are put into place, in order for child services to be improved, and children in the Northern Territory to be safe.
The member for Araluen, the spokesperson, said we rushed this legislation into parliament. She forgot that just after the board of inquiry tabled the recommendations - within a month or two - she was bringing her own legislation into parliament. Talk about rushing! I do not think it was the government.
She also claimed the high risk audit report done by Dr Howard Bath was hidden away; the government would not display the audit because there was something secret there. If she visited the website of the department, she would find the executive summary of the audit and the recommendations. I have stated, in parliament and publicly, progress with regard to the recommendations of the high risk audit.
The member also raised the issue of we are not going to report. Well, I stated in parliament that the first report would be released in April 2011, six months after the release of the board of inquiry report, and there would be regular reporting.
Then, we had the member for Port Darwin, who will not let the truth ruin a good story. Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin gave you a letter asking me to be referred to the Privileges Committee. Before parliament even decided, he issued a media release saying I had been referred to the Privileges Committee. He was forced to withdraw that letter to you and move a motion for the next General Business Day for me to be referred to the Privileges Committee because, somehow, I misled parliament.
I have not misled parliament. I consulted with the Ombudsman on 4 February, 24 February and 7 March, and we discussed issues of the proposed legislation. I advised the Ombudsman what the government intended to do. I told her government was going to put all the investigation of vulnerable children to the Children’s Commissioner, and she agreed with that. I will not say that myself; I will let her respond to that because, in front of me, I have a transcript of an interview the Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards, gave to Julia Christensen on 16 March 2011. Julia Christensen asked the Ombudsman directly and I quote:
- The minister says you supported a change. Do you?
I agree that child protection complaints should be handled by one entity, one agency. That agency needs to be independent, well resourced and have the trained staff to do the work. It is up to the government to say whether that should be the Ombudsman or the Children’s Commissioner, and if the minister tells me that he is going to give that jurisdiction to the Children’s Commissioner, it is not up to me to say ‘Please don’t’.
The government advised the Ombudsman it was going to give this authority to the Children’s Commissioner, and the Ombudsman said it was a good idea to have one agency dealing with the issues of child protection and investigation of complaints. She agreed with the government’s position. When I spoke to her about the Children’s Commissioner having this responsibility she said: ‘It is the government’s prerogative who is going to be this authority; it is not for me to say’. She agreed it was a good idea for one agency to deal with these issues. That was the proposal of the government. If she agreed with the proposal of the government, there is no disagreement there ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin quite frequently jumps and down, makes noise and usually gets it wrong, as he has done again.
Let us discuss gagging the Ombudsman. When the Ombudsman spoke to me and expressed some concerns about her belief that because we introduced legislation into parliament she would not be able to continue her investigation, I told her I would seek legal advice. She also expressed some concerns about her ability to talk to the commissioner about the issues regarding vulnerable children. Again, I told her I would seek legal advice and provide her with that advice. She then expressed concern about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner. Once again, I promised to obtain legal advice, which I did.
The member for Port Darwin said: ‘You did not give us the legal advice’. The legal advice will be provided to the shadow minister. The shadow minister actually e-mailed me on 28 March to seek a briefing. We were trying to provide her a briefing. We suggested a number of days to visit here in Alice Springs. Unfortunately, she could not make it, so she did not receive a briefing. Hence, she did not receive the legal advice. The members for Macdonnell and Nelson actually asked for a briefing, and they received a copy of the advice.
Let us go back to the claim about gagging the Ombudsman. In the legal opinion we received from the Solicitor-General - a real solicitor, a real, practising lawyer - it said:
What can be said is that the Ombudsman is able to receive complaints in relation to protected children and to investigate and exercise other functions in relation to those complaints until the bill commences.
I asked the Ombudsman when she will finish the investigation. She could not give me a date. I told her: ‘I am prepared to initiate the legislation on 1 July if that is sufficient time for you to complete the investigation’. So, she can investigate; she can continue her investigation. However, she cannot continue all the time; the legislation has to commence somewhere.
Regarding the Ombudsman’s concern about being able to discuss issues with the Children’s Commissioner, the legal advice we received is she can actually confer with the Children’s Commissioner in relation to a complex matter, different aspects of which might enlighten the jurisdictions of each of those officers. That means if there is a complex matter that contains elements the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman can investigate, they can sit down and talk about it; even develop a memorandum of understanding and work together.
Finally, Madam Speaker, is the Children’s Commissioner independent or does he come under the jurisdiction of the CEO of the Health department? Well, a practising lawyer - a lawyer who has a degree and has practised widely - the Solicitor-General, said:
- I am instructed in this respect that a duty statement for the position of the Children’s Commissioner was produced during the recruitment process in 2008. Whatever the content of the duty statement might be, the legislative provisions entrenching the commissioner’s independence clearly prevail over anything that might be expressed in an administrative document.
That means it does not matter what the duty statement says, the commissioner is independent and supported by legislation, and nothing else counts.
I know the member for Port Darwin did not have the opportunity to have this legal opinion. I am happy to table the letter that was sent to the Ombudsman with the legal opinions, so he can have a copy. My argument, member for Araluen, is next time you seek legal advice I suggest Jodeen Carney would be the person to seek legal advice from, not the member for Port Darwin.
The other thing I question the opposition about is its own will to support this legislation. I received proposed amendments by the member at 9.58 am this morning. I have no idea what it says; I have not had the opportunity to go through and have a look and ask my department to interrogate it. I wonder has she provided these amendments to the Independent members so they can support it or not? I have to tell you I am unable to accept these amendments, delivered to me two minutes before parliament commenced to discuss this legislation. I will not accept these amendments for the simple reason I had no time to interrogate them. I have not had enough time to receive legal advice. I question whether the opposition really wants to support the legislation and, with its position at this stage, whether it would play any constructive role in child protection in the Territory.
The amendments we put in place give the commissioner broad powers to deal with matters relating to the board of inquiry’s recommendations where they relate to the wellbeing of a vulnerable child. These amendments expand the role of the commissioner in a manner entirely consistent with his overarching responsibility; that of safeguarding the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
We have different people looking after different elements and aspects of government. We have the Ombudsman who can check the government, and can take the government to task. We have the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Until recently, the position was held by the Ombudsman. She decided she did not want to do that as she could perceive a conflict of interest. So, now, we have a different Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner.
Also, the Children’s Commissioner, we believe, is the most appropriate person to deal with issues affecting the provision of services to vulnerable children. A vulnerable child is any child who has been reported to our system, any child who comes to the attention of our system, any child we believe, and is reported, is in danger.
The other matter about the Ombudsman is the amendments will remove the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to vulnerable children. She still can investigate other aspects with regard to the police, other administrative matters - any matters that do not relate to vulnerable children. It is a clear definition of demarcation. We have the Ombudsman controlling and examining every other aspect of government services provided to children, but the vulnerable children will be examined, assessed, and interrogated by the person with the expertise. We believe that expert is the Children’s Commissioner.
Madam Speaker, I point out, for the benefit of the members, there is a minor typographical error in clause 9. The reference to section 269 in paragraph (a) should be a reference to section 260, and that will be correct in the final version.
It is important this legislation passes today. I am the first to say it is not perfect legislation; it is actually very broad legislation. As we discussed with the Children’s Commissioner and the Ombudsman, if there is a requirement for further amendments, if we find out there is a conflict between different legislation in the Northern Territory or we can improve the legislation, I will be quite happy to bring forward to parliament amendments as soon as the shortcoming are identified.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to a group of students from Year 7 of the Centralian Middle School with their teachers, Mr Wellington Pasi, Ms Birkenhead and Ms Ashley Casey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2011 (Serial 147), together with Schedule of Amendments No 58 circulated by the member for Araluen, Mrs Lambley.
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 58.1.
I preface this amendment by saying the role of the Children’s Commissioner is highly valued by the opposition. The member for Nelson seemed to think we were, in some way, attempting to diminish the credibility of the Children’s Commissioner, and this is far from the truth. We have a great deal of respect for Howard Bath and the role of the Children’s Commissioner. I have met with him several times now, had a few telephone calls with him, and I understand he is a man of great ability, highly competent, and I am not questioning his role or ability to execute his position.
This amendment amends the objects of Part 5.1 to enable my proposed amendment to the commissioner’s functions. This, and the following amendment to section 260, is to accommodate the explicit request made by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in their submission to the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, in the report called Growing them strong, together.
The request made by the office was to enable the commissioner to monitor the implementation of government decisions arising from inquiries commissioned under the Inquiries Act relating to child protection or child welfare issues. This includes the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Little Children are Sacred report, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, Growing them strong, together report, and any future inquiries.
This amendment will also expand the commissioner’s monitoring role to reports and judicial recommendations relating to child protection or welfare matters the commissioner considers relevant. This would enable the commissioner to monitor the government’s response to Coronial inquests. Section 25 of the Coroners Act allows the Coroner to make a report or recommendations to the Attorney-General about a death being investigated by the Coroner. If that report contains comments relating to a agency, section 46A requires the Attorney-General to immediately forward the report or recommendations to the agency. As required by section 46B, the CEO of the agency must respond to the report or recommendations within three months, including what action the agency is taking, or will take, regarding the report or recommendations. The Attorney-General must respond to the agency’s actions and table a report in the Legislative Assembly containing both responses.
This was the process followed in the inquest into the death of Deborah Melville-Lothian in 2009 with the Coroner making no less than 14 recommendations to correct failures within the Care and Protection of Children Act and the process of the Department of Children and Families. This was provided to the Attorney-General and, in due course, tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 28 July 2010.
That is, basically, where we are coming from in the amendment to the objects of Part 5.1; to allow the Children's Commissioner to have a greater role in monitoring the implementation of the reports under the Inquiries Act.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the government’s amendments give the commissioner broad powers to deal with matters relating to the board of inquiry recommendations where they are related to the wellbeing of a vulnerable child. I remind the House these changes are the result of the most comprehensive inquiry into child protection ever undertaken in the Northern Territory. These amendments expand the role of the commissioner in a manner entirely consistent with his overarching responsibility, that of safeguarding the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
No one can argue the Children's Commissioner is best placed to investigate matters relating to vulnerable children. A similar situation occurs in relation to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission. Experts in their particular field are appointed to investigate complaints. The government has established an independent external monitoring and reporting committee, separate to the commissioner, to oversee implementation of the government’s response to the board of inquiry. That committee is chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani, and consists of child protection and family services experts from across Australia. The amendments require the Children's Commissioner to report issues related to the board of inquiry to the minister who will, in turn, report these issues and provide copies of relevant submissions to the external monitoring and reporting committee. The Children's Commissioner has been consulted extensively on this and all aspects of the amendments. The Children's Commissioner recognises the expertise of the members of the external monitoring and reporting committee, and has met with Professor Vimpani.
In relation to any further inquiries, these can be appropriately dealt with at the time. It should be remembered these amendments give the Children's Commissioner an own motion investigation power and the power to monitor implementation of recommendations arising from this investigation. So, he has the power to investigate on his own motion. He does not need a referral; he can do it on his own volition. The own motion power would allow the Children's Commissioner to pick up, investigate and monitor a relevant finding or recommendation relating to vulnerable children arising from a Coronial or any other inquiry. It should also be remembered that the Children's Commissioner chairs the Child Death Review Committee, membership of which includes the Deputy Coroner.
We put this recommendation into this act. I also remind the member opposite it was this government which established the first ever Children's Commissioner, an independent statutory body to oversee and examine issues regarding children. We expanded this with a better definition of what a vulnerable child is, and also provided an own motion power.
The government will not support the opposition’s amendment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We understand the monitoring committee appointed to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report consists of people with much experience in the area. We have no question at all about the credibility or capability of this committee. We are here to talk about the role of the Children’s Commissioner. Recommendation 136 made it very clear it was the desire of the authors of that report that the Children’s Commissioner should be given the capacity to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report and not be limited by the current limitation on the Children’s Commissioner; that he only investigate matters relating to services to vulnerable children.
The opposition believes the Children’s Commissioner should be given a free rein to monitor the Growing them strong, together report. Let us not forget Dr Howard Bath was one of the authors of this report; he was on the board of inquiry and is a man of great knowledge in this area. He is more than equipped to provide unlimited monitoring of the implementation of this report. Why do you want to limit in any way his capacity to monitor the implementation of this report? This is what we do not understand. We believe the Children’s Commissioner is available, he is equipped, and there is an opportunity for this government to allow the Children’s Commissioner to be unimpeded in how he monitors the implementation of this report.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have broadened the powers of the commissioner more than anywhere else. Before, the act referred to protected children, now we are talking about vulnerable children, which includes children who have been arrested or on bail, children in juvenile detention or under juvenile correction orders, children with a disability, children in relation to whom an order is made under the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, and children who have left the care of the Chief Executive.
We have acted very quickly. We had to introduce legislation within six months, which we have done. We have not rushed it; we have thought carefully about this legislation before introducing it.
For the Children’s Commissioner to investigate any child in the Northern Territory, think about the implication on his role, and about the floodgates that would be opened if the commissioner investigated any child in the Territory without giving any reason for a report. He could investigate the member for Arafura’s child without any reason; perhaps investigate the member for Johnston’s daughter without any reason. There has to be a reason, and that reason is the child is vulnerable. There is a clear definition about the vulnerable child. It would be not only impractical, it would be impossible for the commissioner to undertake this big role.
Let us face it, not all children in the Territory are abused, not all children are in danger. A number of children in the Territory are in danger and services are provided. We have expanded his authority; we have given him more power. He has his own motion investigation power now and can investigate kids who come to our attention, who are considered to be vulnerable, or who receive services.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The opposition has never, at any point, suggested the Children’s Commissioner be allowed to investigate complaints regarding all children. We have never stated that. It would be a very difficult task and would be untenable for the Children’s Commissioner to do that. We do not disagree with you there, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: Good.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Why do you not want the Children’s Commissioner to have open and free ability to monitor the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report?
Mr VATSKALIS: We do not have a problem with him implementing it. As a matter of fact, the commissioner met with Dr Vimpani. The other thing is the commissioner was involved in the board of inquiry’s recommendations. Of course, with a person who is so intimately involved with a body of work, people can actually express some concern about what was perceived as a broadminded, independent point of view. We have a group of people from around the Territory and Australia who are very much involved with children’s safety and the protection of children under Dr Vimpani. This committee - independent and at arm’s length from the government - will investigate the progress and will report to parliament through me.
The commissioner has already met with Dr Vimpani, and will continue negotiations with Dr Vimpani and his group. We never stopped him meeting with them; we never stopped talking to them. What we want is an independent body to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. The key word is ‘independent’. They have been involved in the drafting of the recommendations, with the board of inquiry, and they will be out there looking at what is happening from outside and ensuring what is happening is what the board of inquiry has recommended, and that these recommendations become a reality.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Regarding the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, I take your point that Dr Bath was on the board of inquiry and he was one of the authors of the Growing them strong, together report. You could argue he is, perhaps, too intimately involved, although I do not accept that as a reason.
My question to you, minister, is: why was Dr Howard Bath or whoever was sitting in the Children’s Commissioner position, not invited to be on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, as I said before, I wanted an independent committee - as independent as possible. I am glad you agree with me that some people could perceive that with Dr Bath being involved in the inquiry he is not totally independent. However, as I said before, no one can doubt the independence of the committee we have put in place.
Coming back to the previous comment by the member for Araluen that you never meant any child, in the bill you brought to parliament late in 2010 you included the words ‘children, including protected children’. So, your original bill actually referred to any child, including protected children. I am glad it was removed in this revised version. As I said before, we insist it will be a totally independent body of experts who will meet and oversee the implementation of the recommendations. We stand by our position that the fully independent body which consists of experts on child protection is the most appropriate body to oversee the implementation of these recommendations - a body which is independent from the government, which will only report to parliament through the minister, and which will not accept, and will never get, instructions from the government.
Mrs LAMBLEY: We are hearing a great deal of reference to the word ‘independent’. I am hearing that the Children’s Commissioner is ‘independent’. He cannot be on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee because that is an ‘independent’ committee. The Ombudsman seems to be no less or no more ‘independent’ than the Children’s Commissioner.
We have a situation here, minister, which needs to be teased out and defined for the people of the Northern Territory. You are describing degrees of independence which need to be, as I said, defined and clarified. If the monitoring committee is independent and the Children’s Commissioner is independent, why can the Children’s Commissioner not be on the independent monitoring board? You have put yourself in a corner here. I have already described what you have said, so I will not go over it again.
The member for Nelson made some interesting points and, he, too, was talking about degrees of independence. We consider the Children’s Commissioner is, to some degree, independent, but he does not have his own budget, he does not go to estimates, he is answerable within his job description to the CEO of the department. So, there are some limitations around the level of independence he has. Compare him to the Ombudsman who has her own budget, who appears at estimates, and has well-recognised independence, which is more than the Children’s Commissioner.
When you are talking about monitoring these types of inquiries and reports into child protection, it would be in the best interests of the community to have a Children’s Commissioner with a degree of independence monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. Then, you have the Ombudsman who is even more independent. Please, minister, I would like you to clarify what this mishmash of independence is.
Mr VATSKALIS: The only one who is confused about the independence of the commissioner, member for Araluen, is you. I have provided you with clear legal advice - and I suggest you read it before you open your mouth next time - that says the Children’s Commissioner is independent. He is a statutory body appointed by parliament. He is only accountable to the minister, and is appointed by the Administrator.
The fact that there was a duty statement does not mean the Children’s Commissioner is not independent. A duty statement does not preclude the independence of the commissioner because the legal framework that is set to ensure the commissioner is independent is above any duty statement you can read. It is clear and stated in the letter I gave you and I tabled today - that letter I sent to the Ombudsman. I suggest you read it before you start making statements again. The Children’s Commissioner is independent, was independent, and will be independent.
Mr ELFERINK: I ask just one part of that to be repeated. Who is the committee responsible to? I know it is created by the parliament. Who is the committee responsible to?
Mr VATSKALIS: The committee?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes.
Mr VATSKALIS: Which committee?
Mr ELFERINK: The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee.
Mr VATSKALIS: The committee is not established by the parliament. The committee was established as an outcome of the board of inquiry. The committee is established by the government, and will report to parliament through the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah - will report to parliament through the minister. So, the minister becomes the vetting authority from the reports from this committee. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: No. You have it wrong again, member for Port Darwin. The government has made a statement in parliament that it will report regularly whatever the committee will provide to the minister. I do not think it will be any brave minister not to report to parliament when he made such a comment in parliament regarding when the implementation committee will report.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear that you have made a statement in parliament. If that is your intention, why did you not entrench that in law?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have a situation where we have a board of inquiry providing 147 recommendations. We created a committee to oversee these recommendations. We came to parliament and stated that this committee will report regularly to me. This committee is independent. I made a commitment to parliament that this committee is independent; that this committee will be reporting to parliament. In my eyes, it is equivalent to putting legislation in the book. Again, this committee will have a life span of five years, or even more, in order to oversee the implementation of all the recommendations. You do not need to put legislation for every single committee to actually report to parliament. It is a committee we have for parliament, and it will be such a committee.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘We do not have to put into legislation everything the committee does’. I will quote the minister: ‘The committee reports to me’. What we have is this: the committee reports to the minister; its reporting schedule is not entrenched in any form of law or any legal document. Now, we discover the minister thinks that a mere statement to the House would be a ‘trust me’. The problem is, minister, you also said the Ombudsman supported this legislation, when she did not …
Mr Vatskalis: She did.
Mr ELFERINK: Why …
Mr Vatskalis: It is in black and white, she stated publicly in the media.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: She did not.
Mr Vatskalis: Do not twist the quotes.
Mr ELFERINK: She did not support it, and do not …
Mr Vatskalis: She supported the government’s intention.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: No, what she said was that you could exercise the prerogative. You translated that into something else that suited your needs.
The problem is that when you start verballing people like the Ombudsman and, then, take away their powers, we lose faith and trust in you. That is why we do not support what you are doing here, because what you are doing is merely an attempt to pull the wool over Territorians’ eyes because you are more concerned about the political impact of what is happening in child protection than actually protecting children. That is what we are concerned about. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar on this issue.
Now your flash committee is not entrenched in a legislative instrument as far as its reporting goes, we have to trust your statement that you will faithfully report what they say. Where do they get their funding from, minister? Does it go through your budget?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the member for Port Darwin is notorious for twisting words and verballing people. He will use anything possible that suits his purposes.
The Ombudsman clearly stated in public that she agreed with the government’s decision to have one agency looking after complaints about vulnerable children. It is in black and white; she stated it on the ABC radio on the Julia Christensen program.
I know you do not like it because that does not suit your purpose, but that is exactly what she said. She also said it is the government’s prerogative who that agent will be - her or the commissioner. This government’s choice is it should be the commissioner because he is the expert. In regard to the committee, it has already met and formed a relationship with the Council of Territory Cooperation – of which you are not part - and has also met with the Ombudsman and the Children’s Commissioner. So, that committee, which you doubt so much and you do not like so much, has already formed relationships.
There is also a public statement in parliament that this report will be tabled in April. So, you have the opportunity through the minister - me or whoever is the minister who tables the report - to interrogate the government and attack the government.
I have made my statement, Madam Chair. I am not going to play politics with the member for Port Darwin who thinks he is a QC when he is not. He may have a law degree but he is not a QC. I have made my statement. The government will stand by the arrangements made. We have given another commitment today in parliament that the reports provided by the committee will be tabled in parliament, and we will do so.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, all insults aside …
Mr Vatskalis: Not as good as you.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I am always very careful, minister, not to insult people. However, I am always very careful that when I am insulting the minister, I do it carefully. All insults aside and, as much as you want to keep on banging on about me and your infatuation with me and whatever skills I may or may not have …
Mr Vatskalis: Oh, come on!
Mr ELFERINK: This is getting a bit stalky, minister. You know that. You will be starting to go through my rubbish next; it is a bit of a worry.
Let us get back to the issue. By the way, I have no problem with this committee necessarily. What I do have a problem with is that they have to report to you before you bring that information back into parliament. Why do you not just allow the committee to report directly to parliament without reference to you?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I have answered this. I have no intention of going over it again.
Mr ELFERINK: Why will you not allow that committee to report to parliament directly without reference to you in the first instance?
Dr Burns: He answered it.
Mr ELFERINK: Ladies and gentlemen of the Northern Territory, you have your answer from the Territory government.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 58.2. This is a similar line of argument, so I will not push this too hard. The debate is probably played out for the most part. My colleague seems to agree.
It is the same argument. We believe that Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report very clearly recommended that the Children’s Commissioner be allowed to monitor the implementation of any government decision arising from the inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse, the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System of the Northern Territory, any other inquiry under the Inquires Act relating to child protection or child welfare matters, and any report or judicial recommendation relating to child protection or child welfare matters the commissioner considers relevant.
We are of the strong view - and anyone reading that recommendation of the Growing them strong, together report would have gleaned that was the sentiment of Recommendation 136. We have seen a major crack in the commitment of the government to implement, in full, each and every one of the 147 recommendations of this report; a major fissure in what it has said it will undertake. The public will not be pleased you have now done a backflip and decided you will not allow the Children’s Commissioner to monitor, because of some argument about independence, degrees of independence, or some other gobbledygook that has not been fully explained to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK: I invite the minister to answer those issues.
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Araluen said debate has been completed in this area. There is no point going back again.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I would appreciate, as I requested before, an explanation of the degrees of independence you described before. This pertains to the clause 8 amendment we are putting forward. It is the same issue. Could you clarify the degrees of independence?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Araluen, there are no degrees of independence of the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner is independent. He is a statutory body appointed by the Administrator on the recommendation of parliament. The Children’s Commissioner is not bound by me, the CEO, or anybody else; he is totally independent and the Solicitor-General confirmed the Children’s Commissioner is independent. It is stated in black and white. It is not my advice; it is advice from the Solicitor-General. It is confirmed by legislation, and confirmed further by the Solicitor-General who clearly states it does not matter what other documents exist or whether there is a duty statement, nothing can override the independence of the commissioner because it is enshrined in legislation.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Could you explain to me, from a legal perspective, what the hallmarks of independence are?
Mr VATSKALIS: Section 262 of the act provides:
Except as otherwise provided by another law of the Territory, the Commissioner is not subject to the direction of anyone in relation to:
(a) the way in which the functions of the Commissioner are performed; or
No one can direct the commissioner on how to do his job or what kind of job he does.
Mrs LAMBLEY: You stated the Children’s Commissioner was not independent enough to sit on the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. Can you explain that please?
Mr VATSKALIS: I did not say that. I said because the commissioner has been involved in the board of inquiry’s recommendations, some people might perceive he is too close to those things to be overseeing the implementation of the recommendations. The government decided to have a totally independent body that has not been associated with the board of inquiry ...
Mr Elferink: Reports to you.
Mr VATSKALIS: It was an independent inquiry where the minister was not involved either, member for Port Darwin. It is a group of people totally independent, people who had nothing to do with the inquiry, under Dr Graham Vimpani, who is well-known Australia-wide. That independent body will oversee the implementation of the 147 recommendations.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Minister, we are talking about child protection, we are not talking about the Reserve Bank of Australia. We are talking about children who require objective input into how services are being monitored for them. You are talking about the fact that the Children’s Commissioner might not be objective in how the recommendations are implemented. I can - kind of - see where you are coming from. However, you are talking about a group of experts of which the Children’s Commissioner would be eminently comfortable to be a part of - a group of experts within the Northern Territory who can contribute to a meaningful discussion.
He has an enormous history here. He did your first audit report in 2007 which you failed to table publicly. Yes, you eventually came up with the executive summary under some duress from the Ombudsman who, once again, made this issue that you were withholding the report public. She was on the public record as trying to obtain that report from you so she could conduct some investigations into child protection. Yes, he had a history before you then commissioned him to undertake the inquiry that led to the Growing them strong, together report. Could you then have argued that he was not objective in how he undertook the second report? This man has been around for years.
All of a sudden, you can expand his powers in most of what Recommendation 136 defines, requires, or suggests, but you cannot give him this extra component - a man who has been around, you have trusted his word for years, he has been an integral part of a whole industry of child protection for years - this extra piece of authority or responsibility because, somehow, he is too close to the bone. It does not make sense.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, first of all, I thank very much the member for Araluen for actually realising it is about child protection. Hopefully, she will forget the politics and will work together to sort it out. Second, I would not call it the ‘industry’ of child protection. Child protection is not an industry, it is a responsibility for all of us. Third, this side of the House has absolute faith in the Children’s Commissioner. It looks like it is your side of the House that expressed concerns about his independence.
The external monitoring and reporting committee has a number of people who have expertise in child protection and the significant experience required. We have youth advocates, foster advocates, and the head of child service departments in other jurisdictions, including Western Australia.
The Children’s Commissioner has already met with the committee; they had minimal discussions. He does not have to be part of this committee in order for him to have input, or the committee have discussions with the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner has a more important job. We have expanded his authority and his powers now to investigate complaints about vulnerable children. The last thing he needs is to have another workload on top of it; something he can actually do better without. At the same time, nothing prevents him from talking to the committee, as he has done already, and as the committee has done with the Ombudsman. You asked me why we do not put the Ombudsman on that committee; we exclude the Ombudsman so there must be something wrong there we are trying to hide. No, we want the people to focus on their role, and their role is the implementation of the recommendations.
I want the Children’s Commissioner to focus on his role, to look at the vulnerable children. I would like the Ombudsman to focus on her role with regard to child protection - the administrative issues, the police issues, and other issues.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Mrs LAMBLEY: I move amendment 58.3 regarding clause 26. We want clause 26 defeated. We want that removed with this amendment. We feel that, as stated in previous discussion, this attempt to gag the Ombudsman is not in the best interests of the people in the Northern Territory. We feel very strongly that this will be a backward step in how complaints regarding children are dealt with in the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson mentioned he was concerned there were two people, basically, doing the same thing.
I see that as a positive thing; that you have two people doing similar types of work, one with a degree of independence, another with a different degree of independence, as the minister alluded to. The more options you have for people to use in expressing their dissatisfaction with how services are provided to vulnerable children in the community can only be a positive thing. It is about ensuring, ultimately, children in our community are safe and that services are provided to them in a fair and equitable manner, as much as anything else.
Minister, I really do not understand the logic of you minimising the role of the Ombudsman when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. It simply does not make sense. It is not in the best interests of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Araluen, the reason we do that is not to gag the Ombudsman. On the contrary, the Ombudsman still has the power to investigate matters relating to children, apart from where matters relate to vulnerable children.
You might think it is a good idea for two officers to investigate the same matter, but I believe it is a waste of time and resources. In that case, why do we not have the Ombudsman and Health Complaints Commission investigate the same matter? Why do we not have the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General investigate the same matter? Where do we stop?
We would like the experts to focus on their expertise. We do not remove power from the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to police. We recognise the expertise of the Ombudsman in relation to these matters, and the existing mechanism for dealing with complaints. The amendments do not remove the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to administrative actions of government agencies. The Ombudsman still can review decisions made by public servants in the Department of Children and Families. So, public servants who work for the Department of Children and Families can still be investigated by the Ombudsman and, indeed, all administrative actions of all government agencies. This is the proper role of the Ombudsman. I will support it because the Ombudsman is one of the pillars of our democratic system.
These amendments do not remove the opportunity for employees of the department to make a complaint. They can still make a complaint about an administrative action of the department, and an employee with a concern about a child can complain to the Children's Commissioner. That complaint can be about any vulnerable child, not just a child in the child protection system.
They are delineation of roles. The expertise on child protection stays with the Children's Commissioner, who will investigate any complaint about vulnerable children. The Ombudsman can investigate any other complaint about a child, but not vulnerable children. It is just a delineation, otherwise we have the same people doing the same investigation. I would like to have one person with expertise doing the investigation and providing their solutions, condemnation, or complaint to the government in order for these problems to be addressed.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, the minister said he was going to table the legal advice from the Solicitor-General. I am wondering if he could table the legal advice. This is not a legal advice, it is a letter from the minister and it is …
Mr Vatskalis: That includes the legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: That selectively quotes from the legal advice. I am wondering if you can table the whole legal advice as you promised.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am happy to table the legal advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, goodness gracious! When you say you were going to table a legal advice, why did you table a letter rather than a legal advice?
Mr VATSKALIS: Apart from selective speaking, selective hearing is one of the issues with the member for Port Darwin. I read from the letter and I tabled the letter that contains the legal advice. I am quite happy to table the legal advice with regard to the independence of the Children's Commissioner, and the legal advice with regard to the operation of the care and protection of children about the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: The government has nothing to hide. As I said before, we want the people to focus on their roles. That is the reason why we want the Children's Commissioner to focus on vulnerable child protection.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, blood from a stone. Thank you, minister.
Mr VATSKALIS: You are welcome.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, at what point did you first publicly announce a commencement date for this legislative instrument of 1 July?
Mr VATSKALIS: This afternoon, when I was speaking, I said I spoke to the Ombudsman and told her I was prepared to delay the commencement of the legislation until 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah, okay. So, this afternoon is the first time we have heard that you determined that the commencement date should be 1 July, after speaking to the Ombudsman. Is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: Unlike the member for Port Darwin, I do not issue media releases preempting a decision of parliament. This legislation is being debated today. We do not know - it may not pass today for various reasons; it may have to be delayed until May or June. 1 July is usually chosen because it is the beginning of a financial year. The reason I chose 1 July is because I wanted to give the opportunity to the Ombudsman to finalise her investigation that is currently under way. That will give her adequate time to finalise her investigation and provide her report - and that is fair. It is fair for the Ombudsman to finalise her investigation, and also fair for all the other public servants and public service organisations to commence the operation on 1 July.
Mr ELFERINK: What date did you sign this letter and forward it to Carolyn? The letter is undated.
Mr VATSKALIS: That letter was e-mailed last Friday.
Mr ELFERINK: Last Friday. So, the letter seeking – I do not have that legal advice, by the way. What was the date you obtained that legal advice?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have the date of when we received the legal advice, but I can find out.
Mr ELFERINK: Would it be fair, minister, to ask that you sought the legal advice after speaking to the Ombudsman?
Mr VATSKALIS: Absolutely, the last time we spoke with the Ombudsman was 7 March.
Mr ELFERINK: On what date did you introduce this bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: The bill was introduced in February, the last parliamentary sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, I remember that. Thank you for jogging my memory. That is why I have a problem. You introduced a bill which had in it, as part of its passage, that this act would commence on the date fixed by the Administrator in a gazettal notice. That date …
Dr Burns: That is the way it always is.
Mr ELFERINK: Not always. Let us get back to the issue. The point is the Administrator would have done it on advice from you or your government. If the Ombudsman had not taken the time to publicly complain that this legislative instrument would have had the effect of truncating her investigation, this matter would have been advanced much more quickly. What we are seeing here - and for people who are listening this is very important - is that the Ombudsman publicly complained after being verballed by this minister that her inquiry into child protection issues would have been stopped by this legislative instrument. The Ombudsman always intended to finish her review by April 2011.
The minister quotes the Solicitor-General and it is worth listening to this bit. The minister said the Solicitor-General has advised that:
- What can be said is that the Ombudsman is able to receive complaints in relation to protected children and to investigate and exercise other functions in relation to those complaints until the bill commences. Put another way, the bill will not impact any complaints which the Ombudsman is currently investigating until the bill becomes law.
So, here is the bouncing ball, ladies and gentleman of the Northern Territory; for those people who are listening. In February, the minister introduced a bill which will have the effect of shutting the Ombudsman up on child protection issues. Then, the Ombudsman complained bitterly about that outcome. The minister said: ‘No, no, that is not the case; of course you can finish your review’. The Solicitor-General’s advice says that will be the effect of this legislative instrument; it will truncate her powers. Now, all of a sudden, the minister pushes back the starting date to 1 July ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You have been caught with your hands in the cookie jar, minister. This is a clear attempt to shut the Ombudsman down and you have been caught out on your own time lines. You are a disgrace, and the only reason you backed down is Territorians were starting to see where the rot was setting in ...
Dr Burns: You were not listening in the last sittings!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin, once again, twists the truth. I have said all along I had a discussion with the Ombudsman. I gave a commitment that I would like her to finish her investigation. I also asked her how long she wanted so we could proclaim the legislation. The Ombudsman said she believed if she continued the investigation it would be in contempt of parliament because we introduced legislation. The Solicitor-General said she is not. I told the Ombudsman I was prepared to give her enough time to finish the investigation as promised, and delay the introduction of the legislation. However. it has to stop somewhere, and 1 July is the usual time legislation is proclaimed in all jurisdictions. There is no conspiracy theory. The only conspiracy theory is in your brain, if there is one.
Mr ELFERINK: There we have it. He just said it. He said he told the Ombudsman he was prepared to delay the introduction of this legislation until she finished her investigation. Clearly, it was his intent to start this legislation before the Ombudsman finished her investigation. It was only when this became a public issue that he backed down. That is what the original intent of this part of the legislation was - to silence somebody who had clearly demonstrated how flawed this government has consistently been in so many areas of service deliver. This is demonstrated evidence of this government’s attempt to silence an officer of this parliament, and that is why we do not support what this arrogant government is doing.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, he can spin as much as he likes. If I wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would pass the legislation and proclaim it tomorrow. Instead, I gave a commitment to the Ombudsman to wait until she finishes her investigation. I also told her I would get legal advice about her interpretation, which was wrong as proven by the Solicitor-General. I told her I was prepared for her to continue the investigation but there has to be an end, and I would delay it until 1 July, which is a reasonable date.
If I wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would have brought the legislation online as soon as possible. That would be the end of it because she would not be able to continue her investigation. Contrary to what you have in your little brain - the X-Files conspiracy - that is not what happened. I am prepared to work with the Ombudsman. I advised her of my intention to seek legal advice. I sought legal advice which said after we proclaim the legislation she could continue her investigation. I told her I was happy to wait until 1 July to give her adequate time to finish. She said, to her credit: ‘Every time we get a new complaint it generates more complaints, and I do not think we will be able to finish it by that time’. The legislation has to commence some time.
My interest is the protection of children, your interest is to play politics.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The minister has, basically, stated there has been a backdown due to public pressure. You were forced into a position where you were made to identify a date to delay the date of this amendment going through ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mrs LAMBLEY: There is nothing to be gained by silencing the Ombudsman. This is a very sad day for the history of the Northern Territory; this is a sad day for the protection of children in the Northern Territory. The Ombudsman has kept this government accountable for several years now. The Ombudsman has kept you honest, she has kept you hopping; she has been a thorn in your side for years. She has done what I consider to be a marvellous job in keeping you accountable ...
Mr Vatskalis: I agree with you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Now, you intend to gag her, and take away her powers to investigate complaints around child protection. Shame on you, minister; shame on the government of the Northern Territory. I hate to see the repercussions for the children of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS: I thought we were in the same House listening to the same things. Obviously, the member has been somewhere else. I know you are new in parliament. I understand; I have been there, done that. If I really wanted to silence the Ombudsman I would have this legislation commenced on assent - passed and assented, end of story. That means if it passed today, after today the Ombudsman cannot do anything.
For me, giving the Ombudsman another three months is not silencing; it is giving her an opportunity to complete her work. Despite what you said, I actually support the woman. I have a very good working relationship with the Ombudsman, and I will continue to do so, despite the fact that, in some areas, we argue and disagree. Even if you read the transcript of what she said, the Ombudsman said she could not give me a commitment when she would finish her investigation. Tell me: how long is a piece of string? I accept that. I said: ‘We have to proclaim the legislation; we are not sitting here waiting for you to finish the report. I am prepared to proclaim the legislation on 1 July’. Mind you, 1 July is only three months away and, even if today we discuss and pass this legislation, then we are happy to proclaim it on 1 July, not on assent ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! I am speaking, member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: You are on a warning, member for Greatorex!
Clause 26 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DARWIN PORT CORPORATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 153)
(Serial 153)
Continued from 23 February 2011.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this is quite important legislation in that it seeks to make some significant changes to the Darwin Port Corporation Act and also the Marine Act. I thank the Treasury personnel for making an offer for a briefing on this legislation. We were not able to coordinate a time that suited both, therefore, I thank them for providing a written briefing paper on the legislation.
I can flag at this time that the bill will be supported by the opposition. In the background to this bill, I understand that COAG approved the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement or CIRA. The CIRA is part of another agreement that is the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy, which is the SNENPA. I am not sure we have achieved that seamless economy just yet, so I wait with anticipation to see how COAG can cobble that together in years to come.
I note one of the objectives of the CIRA is to promote the efficient provision and use of ports and rail, which are both considered as nationally significant economy infrastructure. The CIRA has a requirement that each jurisdiction conduct a review of the regulatory framework around the Darwin Port. I note a working group from Treasury, the Darwin Port Corporation, the Department of Chief Minister, the Department of Business and Employment, and also the Department of Planning and Infrastructure was formed, and that review was completed, according to the briefing paper I received from Treasury, in October 2008. I am not sure if the date was correct given that the SNENPA was signed by COAG in December 2008. That seemed a little ...
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Treasurer, on the interjection.
I note under the SNENPA, the recommendations of that review into the regulatory framework of the Darwin Port were required to be implemented by March this year - that is 2011. It seems as though we really only just made it by the skin of our teeth. We are in March now and here is legislation which, no doubt, forms part of those recommendations. But, it is good we can deal with it now.
In relation to the bill itself, section 16 has been amended, largely to make way for new provisions included in this bill; those being provisions around pilotage services, which is the new Part VII, Division 4, of the Marine Act. Division 4 of Part II of the current act is repealed and replaced with a new Part II, Division 4, where this part deals with matters pertaining to the Harbourmaster.
In more specific terms, in clause 6, sections 25, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 26E, 26F and 26G are largely administrative arrangements around the appointment, functions, powers, annual reporting, independence of the office of Harbourmaster, and other matters relating to the office of Harbourmaster. I see nothing controversial particularly about those new provisions.
The new section 26A, however, deals with technical and safety standards for pilotage, and the provision of pilotage services. I see nothing particularly controversial about that section either. However, the section does make provision for an offence of contravening a standard made under section 26A(1) when conducting pilotage or providing pilotage services in relation to the port, where the standards referred to are standards of a technical nature or relate to safety.
The section provides for a penalty of 50 penalty units, which is equivalent to $6650. I was quite curious at the time of doing the research on this act. I know it has been fixed now, but it seemed a little incongruous that there can be a penalty of 50 penalty units for an offence around the safety of pilotage and technical issues within the port, yet, the government made the mistake then of imposing a penalty of 100 penalty units for parking offences, littering, and kids going into the wrong toilets in the waterfront by-laws. However, in any case, I know that has been resolved. I was being slightly mischievous.
More to the point is how this penalty compares to other states’ penalties and, even more importantly, is the potential scale and the implications of a breach of safety standards, and whether or not a $6500 penalty is commensurate with both the scale of the operations in financial terms, or the potential result of such a breach.
I have to admit, at first blush, I thought a penalty of that size, $6500, was probably erring on the very low side of the penalty scale. I have done some research on this and note that at least in some states - Victoria being one - the dollar equivalent of their penalty is similar to that proposed in this bill. In that case, Victoria imposes a penalty of 60 penalty units, which equates to slightly over $7100, which is similar to the penalty proposed under this amendment.
Going on to what I am going to say now is to save having to go into committee stage, because it is not the intention to take this bill to committee. However, if the Treasurer would accede to providing a brief third read to just outline the rationale taken by the government in determining the level of penalty that applies to this offence; that is, whether it was taken just on the basis of other states’ penalties just to keep it commensurate, or there were other issues that they took into account in reaching the decision of the 50 penalty units.
As well as that, the Treasurer might also mention if there are any potential offences that could arise from a breach of a technical or safety standard under this act. Are there any other acts that might apply and were they taken into account when setting the penalty for this particular offence?
Of the remaining amendments to the Darwin Port Corporation bill, I can see little that is terribly controversial, so I move to the amendments of the Marine Act. Apart from what are, effectively, consequential amendments, there are a number of more significant amendments as well.
Section 166 has been repealed and replaced with a new section that makes it consistent with new provisions around amendments dealing with pilotage. This section relates to a procedure on entering a compulsory pilotage area. It is the same as the case for section 171, pilotage licences and exemptions, and section 181 dealing with appeals of decisions.
The most significant amendment to the bill relates to the adoption of a new Division 4A relating to pilotage services in the Port of Darwin. Currently, there are no provisions to allow for pilotage services in Darwin Harbour, so this, I guess, is breaking new ground. In the amendment, for the first 10 years after the commencement of this clause, the DPC will be the exclusive provider of pilotage services for the Port of Darwin and the DPC may be appointed. After the expiry of that 10 years, another pilotage services provider may be appointed by the minister. If a service provider other than the Darwin Port Corporation is appointed, the minister must have regard to their capacity to conduct pilotage and provide licensed pilots. The pilots engaged by and under the control of the applicant have to meet any requirement prescribed by the regulations. I gather the regulations that will relate to pilotage services will come in due course - hopefully, not too far away.
In that section, the applicant must also undergo a criminal and financial background check which is to include the criminal and financial history of any company the applicant was a director of, or a holder of any of the management positions. That is a sensible and wise move to ensure the probity of operators is kept to the highest of standards. Written notice of the decision is to be given to the applicant including the reasons for the decision and the applicant’s right to appeal within 28 days about the decision.
These amendments go on to talk about the suspension or termination where the person appointed as pilotage service provider contravenes a condition of their appointment or no longer meets the requirement of appointment. Under those circumstances, the minister must give the service provider a reasonable period to show cause why the appointment should not be terminated once a decision has been made to suspend or terminate the appointment. The service provider has 28 days to appeal the decision.
Regulations may also provide for conditions on the service provider regarding insurance, capability, qualifications, and provision of reports to the minister. These conditions may be varied by the minister in order to ensure compliance with the act. The service provider again has 28 days to appeal their decision.
Also, subject to the minister’s approval, fees for pilotage services may be set by the pilotage service provider and published by Gazette notice. The service provider is to collect the fee from the owner, agent, or master of ships using the service, and the fees may be retained by the service provider.
Contained within the new section is a section about the commission of offences. A person other than a pilotage service provider will be committing an offence if they provide pilotage services. That limits the pilotage to an exclusive operator. It will also be an offence if the appointed pilotage service provider contravenes a condition of appointment. The maximum penalty for those offences is 100 penalty units.
There is a new section 184 also in clause 26 which provides for the imposition of pilotage fees and charges by the pilotage authority. The current section 185 clarified who was to pay the pilotage fees and charges. The amendment is that the current sections 184 and 185 are repealed by this clause as they are now provided for in the new section 181E.
The proposed section 184 is concerned with the provision of pilotage services in areas other than the Port of Darwin. Pilotage services may be provided by the pilotage authority subject to approval by the minister. The pilotage fees and charges may be set, collected, and retained by the pilotage authority.
That broadly outlines the content of the bill. In researching these matters, one discovers ports across Australia are varied when it comes to whether they are privately or publicly run, and there are a number of combinations with respect to how services such as pilotage are run in those ports. In the case of the Territory, we have a publicly-owned port with one single operator of pilotage services for a period of 10 years. I can certainly see advantages in this approach, as long as the selection of the contractor to provide those services goes through the most rigorous processes, with sufficient resources and a sturdy regulatory regime - and I wait to see any new regulations that will come out - to ensure services are professional and monitored appropriately.
I emphasise the importance of professionalism and appropriate monitoring, given some of the issues we have seen around the Darwin Port at East Arm in recent times. I am not going to go into that too deeply. We have seen another spill in recent days, so I encourage the government to ensure the regulatory regime set up around pilotage services in the Darwin Port area is sufficiently robust and monitored to ensure we do not get any of those safety breaches or breaches of technical specifications. I would hate to see the results of poor pilotage in the middle of our harbour - it could be absolutely disastrous.
Madam Speaker, that concludes my contribution to the debate. The bill will be supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first, I thank the department for two briefings they have given in relation to the amendment of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and the Marine Act. I certainly will be supporting the amendments. I am not particularly interested in going into committee stage either; however, I should make a few comments.
In the second reading, the minister said:
- The amendments will, ultimately, result in increased productivity and reduced costs of services at the Port of Darwin.
It is a strange statement because we are creating a monopoly for pilotage services which, in itself, does not create competition. That is a matter I raised during the briefings. I understand that simply the numbers of ships that require pilotage is relatively small compared to larger ports. However, it seemed to be a bit of an anomaly that the minister could say this was going to increase productivity and reduce costs of services. I simply ask a philosophical question: how, if you have a monopoly that is running the piloting services?
The other question I have is in relation to section 25. I do not think this was answered at the briefing. This is in relation to the appointment of a Harbourmaster – this is section 25(2) by the way:
- The Minister must be satisfied the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the office of harbourmaster before making the appointment.
I am interested to know whether a Harbourmaster needed any specific qualifications to be a Harbourmaster. Does one do a Harbourmaster course or have a degree in Harbourmaster-ing? Or do you have to have certain skills or qualifications that would allow you to be a suitable person for that? It is a very important job, considering the Harbourmaster is now a statutory authority. I am interested to know if there are any specific qualifications.
One other comment: I know the port has been interested in building a control tower as if it were an airport. I thought I might have the opportunity to ask for some figures about how many ships use Darwin Harbour. You have to remember some of these ships do not require a pilot. Obviously, we have a number of ships that come into Darwin Harbour. We had 1642 trading vessels and 3908 non-trading vessels in 2009-10. I divided that by 365 and, according to my calculations, that means per day we have five trading vessels or 18 non-trading vessels.
Bearing in mind that most ships can be picked up by radar or radio, and those ships that need to be brought into the harbour will be brought in by the pilots, do we need to spend the money on a control tower which might be a bit premature in the size of Darwin Harbour? It is not Sydney Harbour or Melbourne Harbour. We appoint pilots who will look after the safety. We have techniques to track ships coming in through radar and radio contact.
It was just an aside, but I thought it was a chance to at least ask the minister whether the control tower proposed for Darwin Harbour is still on the list of things that are going to be built, or is it actually premature and we could do without it for the time being? I know, Treasurer, you are always looking for a chance to save money. I am just putting some practical ideas about how.
Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the rest of the bill. It is an important change that now the Harbourmaster will be separate from the direction of the Port Authority, only reporting to the minister who will report to parliament. I am interested to see how that operates in practice. I support the amendments and thank the department for the briefings.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I want to add to a few of the comments to those of my colleague, the member for Katherine.
A concern in relation to this bill has to do with some competition about attracting overseas vessels to include Darwin in their routine ports of call as they move through Indonesia. I have been talking to a number of people who are concerned about the costs of the Darwin Port. There are a couple of things in relation to the bill before us; that is, in relation to monopolies and industry which are of concern.
We do not, as a rule, support monopolies, and nor does the ACCC. We would rather say instead of giving one organisation exclusive operator rights, there should be competition. If the monopoly is to allow government, through the Port Corporation, to maintain its running of the ports, then why would it need this legislation to be changed in this area? It could maintain the status quo. However, it is clear the agreement could be against the ACCC and what is happening to pilotage in other jurisdictions.
I refer to a news release issued on 3 December by the ACCC. I quote from that. In the first paragraph it says:
- The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today issued a determination denying authorisation for an exclusive pilotage service agreement at the Port of Brisbane.
It went on to say under the agreement there were certain things that would have to happen. In another paragraph it said:
- The ACCC is not convinced that the exclusive agreement delivers the public benefits BMP has claimed ….
BMP being Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd. It went further and said that the ACCC acknowledged a number of things.
Another quote from the same media release said:
- Key industry bodies have opposed the agreement on the basis it unnecessarily restricts competition.
There is a proposed 10-year agreement in relation to this matter of pilotage. My colleague, the member for Katherine, has outlined some of these.
I also refer to a submission to the ACCC by Australian Reef Pilots Pty Ltd. It was a submission on the application by the Brisbane Marine Pilots Pty Ltd for exclusive provisions of services in the Port of Brisbane. There are a number of problems that operators and other competitors have around the country. For instance, I quote from the document:
- Authorisation on the grounds specified in the BMP submission operates to limit the choice of managers of ports to select cost-effective future strategies and operational effectiveness; it disregards current anomalies in both operational costs and public interest, and would be expected to result directly in the continuation of unhelpful practices in port pilotage.
Madam Speaker, there are comments on the public record in relation to inefficiencies at most ports around Australia. It is something that governments have been concerned about. They are trying very hard to get the costs down. Of course, the Port of Darwin and the Northern Territory has high transport costs due to our small demand. However, we should do everything we can to reduce those costs, and one of the things is to allow a little competition in.
I am led to believe there is a second tug operator coming to town to provide services, and the current operator, on hearing this news, has dropped prices by about 15%. I have not seen any documentation; that has come from industry. I have yet to actually confirm that is, in fact, the case. However, there is much anecdotal evidence out there which I ask the government to consider when it looks at these things. I just thought we should get this on the public record, because there are operators out there who have concerns about many of these things.
The Port of Brisbane has had some issues. There is more documentation available on this matter to demonstrate there should be competition in this area, and that it can actually reduce costs - along with lots of other things which are probably not relevant to this particular legislation. There are many ways in which we can reduce the costs, and also attract more shipping into the Territory and utilise efficiencies of larger operators - perhaps other port operators - that can reduce the cost so when people are required to come here, the costs of doing business reduce and they can actually make a profit.
That has been the biggest concern people have expressed to me. I ask government to take note of those things; that there are people out there - I am assuming they are talking to the same people as well. I am hoping they have taken on board that costs are high and the government should be doing everything in its power to reduce those costs.
There are a number of initiatives in place on our side we will be putting to various conferences shortly. Hopefully, we can encourage people to come here which will reduce the overall costs of these services to Territorians and give us the ability to facilitate Darwin as a distribution centre, and utilise the backloading that is available to us.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, as you have heard, our side will be supporting this legislation, but it is not without some concern. We have all seen some of the issues that have faced our port in recent times. It has been akin to being a place of spills run by dills. In fact, I have been told that it is a little like the Keystone Cops; there are poor practices and failure to act by this government. We have only seen recently the copper concentrate incident about which, apparently, word on the street is the Port Authority thinks it is untouchable; that this government really cannot touch it. Although we have heard recently that there could be some court action, as I said, the word is they feel a little untouchable.
We have seen many instances where the government has failed to act. If it had acted in time some of the serious issues at the port could have been prevented, or mitigated at best. We have seen the recent incident with the crane there and, subsequently, another contractor with a crane. We have seen this government has even budgeted for a new conveyor system they have still failed to install at the port.
The EPA recently put a submission in to the environmental sustainability of the National Ports Strategy. They give a great snapshot of some of the things that can happen in a port. In regard to the environment, I quote directly from the EPA submission:
Ports are very busy commercial, industrial and transport nodes that play a key role in economic development. However, the concentration of shipping …
- … land transport, port operation and development activities in a relatively small area presents serious safety hazards and risks in environmental degradation.
Structural, operational or accidental pollution of water, soil and air may result from ship accidents, bunkering, cargo handling and storage, port maintenance, port industrialisation and port development.
Shipping represents arguably the most significant freight logistics activity related to ports. Increased seaborne trade also means more ships and increased risks of collisions, accidental and operational oil spills, air pollution and other threats to the environment.
That is where this legislation comes to the fore: where things need to be tightened up with our pilot services to ensure we do maintain a safe harbour. With INPEX on the horizon, increased population growth will happen in the Territory and, hopefully, with the increased investment in the Northern Territory, we will see a growing use of our harbour. The fact that we need to have strong environmental regulations in place is paramount.
To give you an idea of how this government has treated the port, particularly in regard to the environment in recent times, demonstrates very clearly the approach it has to our environment, which is pretty poor. We have learned that, even recently, we had another spill - an overflow of waste water from the port infrastructure which was secured by a balloon that had become misplaced or moved. Subsequently, the waste discharged into the harbour. We are fixing our environmental concerns or infrastructure to mitigate environmental pollution with balloons. That is how we are fixing things - with balloons.
The government’s approach to fixing things at the port is all about shooting the messenger. In some cases, it is even blaming the previous CLP government for the design of the original port. However, it needs to be said again: the original design of the port was for livestock and containers. This government shifted the goal posts and started using the port for other purposes but did not take into account the effect this may have on our environment and our harbour. This government shifted the goal posts and, until it takes action seriously – it has the money to do it; money has been budgeted – and pays more attention and is serious, other than putting balloons in drain pipes, we are in a whole lot of hell. There is budget for a new conveyor belt, and had that been installed we would not have seen the copper concentrate incident we saw last year.
I worry about the new marine supply base given if we cannot get the port in its current form correct, how we are going to get the environmental credentials and infrastructure in place for the new marine supply base. I sincerely hope this government has taken our environment seriously when designing this new supply base. We want to see the Territory prosper, to see development; we welcome investment in the Northern Territory. However, at the same time, our regulations need to be strong enough to support and look after our environment.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the Darwin Port Corporation Legislation Amendment Bill. As you heard, it arose from a COAG report for improving the productivity of ports, and it meets our competition and infrastructure reform agreement conditions arising out of COAG. As you heard from the member for Katherine, it was a working party through government of many departments, including the Darwin Port Corporation, which went through the recommendations in the improved regulatory framework. We have arrived at a series of very complex regulatory changes with this legislation to the operations, particularly the pilotage of the port. I thank the officers of Treasury who have undertaken the heavy lifting in this regulatory change, and also for the work they have done with Darwin Port Corporation and others.
Importantly, this legislation will allow for regulations to be made in the future which limit the functions of the Darwin Port Corporation. It will establish the office of the Harbourmaster as a statutory authority to be appointed by the minister. It extends the current functions of the Harbourmaster to make technical and safety standards for pilotage and the provision of pilotage services at the Port of Darwin. That goes to some of the concerns raised by the member for Brennan and others regarding the importance of safety within Darwin Harbour.
Making very clear powers for the Harbourmaster regarding technical and safety requirements is a very positive step forward in the safety of shipping in the harbour, as is requiring the Harbourmaster to perform his or her functions, exercising the powers to act independently, impartially and, importantly, in the public interest. Getting separation from the Darwin Port Corporation for those powers for the Harbourmaster does, obviously, put a greater emphasis on safety. They were issues raised by the member for Brennan: clarifying the criteria for stevedore licensing processes, allowing for appeals to be made on licensing decisions to the Marine Appeals Tribunal, and also clarifying situations where the Darwin Port Corporation can suspend or cancel a stevedore licence, as well as vary or impose conditions to the licence. It allows for appeals to be made to the Marine Appeals Tribunal.
In regard to amendments to the Marine Act, it will expand the jurisdiction of the Marine Appeals Tribunal to include hearing appeals against a decision by the Darwin Port Corporation to refuse an application for a stevedore licence, or a decision to suspend or cancel a stevedore licence, as well as vary or impose conditions to the licence. It establishes the Harbourmaster as the pilotage authority at the Port of Darwin. It clarifies the procedure on entering a compulsory pilotage area and for issuing and renewing pilotage licences and exemption certificates, including the conditions which may be imposed on the licences or certificates.
It gives jurisdiction to the Marine Appeals Tribunal to hear appeals against a decision by a pilotage authority to refuse to issue or renew a pilotage licence or exemption certificate, a decision to specify or vary a condition of the licence or certificate, or a decision to suspend or cancel a licence or certificate, establishing a single pilotage services provider within the Port of Darwin with the minister to make determinations on who the services provider would be. It appoints the Darwin Port Corporation as the pilotage services provider at the Port of Darwin for an initial 10 years, and it clarifies the provision of pilotage services in pilotage areas.
We went out to extensive consultation on this legislation. Some 47 major stakeholders were contacted, and notices placed in the NT News. Only six organisations made submissions: the Australian Customs Service; the Australian Defence Force; Compass Resources; International Business Council; Chamber of Commerce NT; Maritime Union of Australia; and the NT Livestock Exporters’ Association. There were no objections to the draft review’s recommendations.
I will go specifically to a query raised by the member for Katherine who wanted to know how we set the penalty levels in this legislation. The purpose of this review was not to review the penalties. Most of the penalties were carried over from the previous legislation. Any new penalties were simply checked for consistency with the existing penalty regime. We did not change the penalty settings, we carried them over, and any new ones we introduced were checked for consistency with existing penalties.
Regarding the question and the suggestion from the member for Nelson of creating a control tower for the port, I can confirm the port will get its control tower. I have been advised that radar on its own is not sufficient, as it does not pick up all vessels. The provision of the control tower for the Port of Darwin is actually a safety issue. So, it does go to some of the concerns raised for the member for Nelson regarding the control tower.
I listened to the competition issues raised by both the members for Sanderson and Nelson. This is an important regulatory change in the operational requirements with the establishment of the harbour pass and overseeing pilotage. It will certainly encourage significantly, despite the monopoly of pilotage services for 10 years - and I will go to why in the sheer size of the Port of Darwin and its shipping compared to a significant sized port like the Port of Brisbane. You are literally comparing, in a shipping sense, apples with oranges, which is why the ACCC was involved in the Port of Brisbane changes, and no one has batted an eyelid at ours. It is just apples and oranges in comparing shipping trade. It comes down to economies of scale. The shipping movements in and out of the Port of Darwin are far too small for competition at this stage.
If you want to seek alternative advice than mine on that, I recommend you talk to Bruce Fadelli, a member of the Chamber of Commerce and of the Darwin Port Advisory Board, a person who has also had vast experience and knowledge of the import/export scenarios. He comes very strongly from the perspective of the smaller trader, the operator or small business person wanting to get value for their dollar in shipping freight in and out of the Port of Darwin. Go and talk to him regarding the sheer economies of scale of operating competitive services. You just would not do it. In fact, you would have quite a dire situation if you tried to do it in such a small shipping tonnage at this stage.
I am happy to put that into perspective for members, and talk about the actual tonnage and the amount of trading vessel calls in and out of the Port of Darwin. If you look at the total tonnes of trade, the port activities of, say, over the past five years: in 2005-06 it was 1.08 tonnes; in 2006-07 it was 1.46 tonnes; in 2007-08 it was 2.73 tonnes; in 2008-09 it was 3.77 tonnes; and in 2009-10 it was 4.58 tonnes.
The actual trading vessel calls were: in 2005-06 – 1295 calls; in 2006-07 – 1253 calls; in 2007-08 – 1547 calls; in 2008-09 – 1625 calls; and in 2009-10 – 1642 calls. So, you have seen a growth over that five-year period. In the context of shipping and berthing comparisons between the Port of Brisbane and the Port of Darwin, it is simply an apples with oranges comparison. Hence, you need certainty and security of service provision. That is why you have the monopoly trade by the Darwin Port Corporation. In the structural separations that have been provided here in the technical, licensing, and safety of the Harbourmaster set-up as a statutory authority separate to the Darwin Port Corporation, there is an important distinction occurring in the regulatory framework changes.
If there is, obviously, a dramatic change - and we know there will be growth. I noted the concerns of the marine supply base of the member for Brennan. That is a very exciting economic driver opportunity for the Territory. It will be a build/own/operate facility. It will meet world best practice requirement; that is, all specifications within the request for tender design that is out in the public domain at the moment. That includes world best practices in the environmental requirements. I have noted the concerns of the member for Brennan and I will put his concerns back through to key people I know who would be very interested in what he had to say. However, I have to say they are extremely unfounded, if he was to go to the level of detail in the request for tender design that is out in the public domain at the moment. So, just go and have a look on the website at that information.
Regarding the other queries raised, I point out that, within the existing Darwin Port Corporation Act - and this will not change; we are not changing this provision - the Harbourmaster can issue a pilotage exemption. That actually does occur. For example, right now, Perkins, which is now Toll, actually has an exemption because they have experienced masters based in Darwin Harbour, and they know their trade. They can ship in and out of Darwin Harbour safely. Whilst you point to what you think is a monopoly, there is actually the opportunity to provide exemptions within the existing legislation, and exemptions occur right now. Perkins Toll is one of the ones that currently has an exemption.
There was also a query from the member for Nelson of the Harbourmaster’s qualifications, because the legislation provides for the minister to be satisfied in the qualifications of the appointment of a Harbourmaster. In a practical sense, what I did was go to the most recent public advertising, of some time ago now - I will just see if there is a date on this. There it is. It was 10 May 2010. So, it was last year when the Port of Darwin advertised for a Harbourmaster and filled it, of course. The candidate must hold a Master Class 1 or equivalent, have at least 10 years relevant senior management experience, and have a thorough understanding of vessel traffic management and port legislative frameworks. The candidate will also be able to demonstrate superior project management and learn leadership skills. So, in some detail I have addressed the member for Nelson’s concerns of the qualifications required for the position of Harbourmaster.
I want to put in perspective the growth we have seen in pilotage in the Port of Darwin. Just five years ago, there were two licensed pilots at the port. There are eight licensed marine pilots employed at the Port of Darwin today. That includes the General Manager of Marine Services, who is the relief. This does not include, of course, our Harbourmaster. We have seen a growth in the number of pilots. I recall, from my days of the minister for Infrastructure when I had responsibility for the port, we were very fortunate in our recruitment drive, at one stage, for very experience pilots. I believe we are extremely well served by the pilots we have working in the Port of Darwin.
I know the member for Brennan raised spills, but they were not spills as a result of pilotage; they were onshore spills at the port. I recognise the member for Brennan’s concerns. The government shares his concerns. That is why there have been thorough and active investigations under way. Of course, neither reports the Darwin Port Corporation may be facing prosecution. I emphasise ‘may be’ because the government is not involved in those prosecutorial decisions.
We are undertaking the regulatory environment. We are increasing the efficiency and the transparency of the operations of the Harbourmaster, and pilotage and stevedoring licences at the Port of Darwin. This is a significant body of work that has taken a couple of years of complex drafting instructions, negotiations, and discussions across a range of agencies as listed by the member for Katherine. I thank all those involved in the drafting and getting this regulatory framework to this point.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the Chamber and I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 152)
(Serial 152)
Continued from 24 February 2011.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals have been very vocal in their opposition to the watering down of oversight roles, and any reduction of autonomy of statutory officers. We made that very clear in the previous debate on the bill before the House debated between the Health Minister and the member for Araluen. We have repeatedly called on the Northern Territory government to release the 2004 review into the operations of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. Where that review is, I have no idea. It is sitting in the bottom drawer of someone’s office somewhere, no doubt; that is, if it even still exists in a hard copy somewhere. It was given to the then Health minister at the time in 2004 - I believe the member for Nightcliff - and it is yet to see the light of day. We have repeatedly called for the government to release that review from 2004, but it still remains a mystery.
The opposition will not be supporting anything that diminishes the check and balance mechanism of government - particularly this government. Only a government that has something to hide …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Only a government that has something grave to hide, that is sitting on a whole stack of dark secrets, would go about diminishing the powers of the complaints commissioner, let alone the Ombudsman and the Children's Commissioner, as we spoke about previously.
Nowhere in this bill does it allow the commissioner own motion powers of investigation, something I believe she recommended in the 2004 review which, mysteriously, has yet to see the light of day. I wonder why? Despite those recommendations, nowhere in this bill does it allow the commissioner own motion powers of investigation.
I ask the minister: what is wrong with allowing a statutory officer such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner to have own motion powers of investigation? If you have nothing to hide, why do we not allow the complaints commissioner own motion powers to investigate his or her own recommendations? Why is the government so opposed to allowing an independent body to apply a check and balance of the government? The question has to be asked. Territorians who utilise our health services have a right to know why this government is continually diminishing the role of statutory officers who apply a check and balance on the role of government. Why? It is a question the minister and, indeed, the Northern Territory government, should answer.
We need to highlight how grave this situation is; that the powers are ever diminishing from statutory officers and, in this particular case, the health complaints commissioner. We need to look at some of the failures in health over recent years this government has presided over. The number of elective surgery admissions has fallen under this government from 6395 in 2001-02 to 6244 in 2009-10. For those patients finally admitted for elective surgery, 5.9% waited for more than 365 days - up from 4.4% in 2001-02.
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock. I believe on a second reading speech the shadow minister is allowed 45 minutes. I have not been speaking quite that long.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you have been speaking for about five minutes. We will alter that.
Mr CONLAN: I am not suggesting I will go for the full 45 minutes, but you never know. Never waste an opportunity to highlight the failures of government and put our position on the record. We need to use every single minute, particularly the great expense it is costing this parliament - on any given day $7000 an hour; and God knows how much it costs to take this show on the road. The people of the Northern Territory, the people in the gallery, and the people of Alice Springs deserve to see their politicians working as hard and as long as possible. I will do my very best.
Let us look at the health roulette in emergency departments. For 2009-10, 11 332 patients who entered Territory emergency departments left without treatment. Can you believe the figure? - 11 332 people who entered the Territory’s emergency departments left without treatment; one in six of all attendances. One in six people who present at the emergency department under the Northern Territory Labor government – of those people who turn up at the Alice Springs Hospital, Royal Darwin Hospital, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Gove - is leaving without treatment.
There are other figures from various departments, agencies, and organisations across the country that suggest 1051 of those patients left hospital at their own risk. This is the state of our health and hospital system. This is the state of acute care in the Northern Territory. This is where the Territory is with regard to acute care. Over 1000 people are leaving emergency departments because they are not being seen on time. They have given up, walked out; it is too long. Of those 11 332, 1051 left at their own risk.
The data also shows the Territory has the lowest proportion of on-time admissions to emergency departments at 56%, well below the national average. The lowest proportion of on-time admissions to emergency departments is sitting at 56%. The national average is 70%. In 10 years, under this Labor government, on-time admissions have fallen significantly from the 70% achieved for the financial year 2001-02. We see on-time admissions significantly below the national average at 56%. The report notes the median waiting time to be seen in an emergency department in the Northern Territory is 38 minutes, and that is 15 minutes more than the national average. It does not paint a great picture for our hospitals, for the acute side of our Health department, and for those Territorians utilising our hospitals and our health sector.
We see, time and time again, hospital waiting lists, emergency waiting lists, and elective surgery waiting lists dragging the chain. In the State of our Hospital reports, in report after report, we see the Northern Territory last or second last on the list. Yes, it is a busy jurisdiction. Yes, we see a lot of people through our hospitals. However, throwing more money at it does not necessarily mean you are achieving results - and we certainly are not reading results.
We only have to look at the child protection side of things. We had quite a lengthy debate about child protection, the failures in child protection, and the Children’s Commissioner. I believe this is relevant to the debate, but I will not go on too long about it. We have seen the Children’s Commissioner stripped of powers - powers being further diminished to distance the government from any failures. Again, we are seeing it today with the health complaints commissioner.
This government has much to hide. Very clearly, this government presides over a culture of cover-up. We only have to have a look at some of the areas of cover-up this government has presided over. We all clearly understand why the government does not want to strengthen the powers of the health complaints commissioner. That means if anyone sitting out here in the gallery, or anyone listening to this broadcast, has an issue with the Health Department or the way you were treated in the hospital, or if you are unhappy with treatment you received by the department, or treatment you received in the hospital itself, and you raise that concern with the health complaints commissioner, if the government does not like what the commissioner has to say about it, or their recommendations, then the government will shut them down. In this case, it is a ‘she’. Nevertheless, whoever the complaints commissioner is, the government will gag the commissioner if they do not like the information.
Hence, the 2004 review. We are still yet to see it. That is seven years old. It is sitting in someone’s bottom drawer collecting dust. The culture of cover-up: we see the location of the new prison for the Top End; the costs and number of houses delivered through SIHIP - what a mess that was, an absolute debacle; the use of diesel at Channel Island; pollution levels on Darwin beaches; the sacking of Margaret Banks was a beauty - the sacking of Margaret Banks, the Education department head at the time; the Montara oil spill, once again under the auspice of the minister for Health; the future of RAAF Base houses - more cover-up; and the state of child protection. Where do we begin? We could do a whole hour just on child protection. We spent a few hours on it before, did not even scratch the surface of the failures of child protection under this government. There were the high pollution levels at Vesteys and Mindil Beach and, of course, the death of 800 cattle at Mataranka Station. Also, very interestingly, the government failed to provide the number of juveniles in detention and under supervision for the Australian government’s Juvenile Justice in Australia interim report for 2008-09. They are just some of the examples of the culture of cover-up.
I mentioned child protection. There has been no greater area of government neglect than the area of child protection. Our children at risk - your children, my children. That this government is in charge of child protection does not assure a parent to sleep easy at night, when you have a look at their track record. Since 2001, there have been five Child Protection ministers, four of whom were sacked. Four of those Child Protection ministers were sacked for their mishandling of the portfolio. They were not moved on, they were sacked because of their mishandling of the portfolio. Over the past 10 years, we have seen numerous reviews and inquiries into the Territory’s child protection system. Each report highlighted, once again, a system in crisis.
Despite promises by the government - promise after promise - that the recommendations of each report would be implemented to improve the child protection system in the Northern Territory, Labor once again has failed to deliver on its promise - failure after failure when it comes to child protection. Is there any greater failure or abrogation of duty? We have highlighted quite a number over the course of these sittings. Law and order is on the top of just about every Centralian’s mind at the moment. We have highlighted in this Chamber over the course of the last couple of days how pressing the need is to address law and order in Central Australia. But, if there is anything that perhaps is greater than - maybe they go hand in hand - the law and order issues across the Territory and, indeed, Central Australia, it is our child protection system and the care and protection of our children.
Labor has promised to implement all the recommendations over all the numerous reports but, again, we still see a system in crisis. The 2010 board of inquiry into child protection produced a damning report. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to that report. God knows where the children of the Northern Territory would be right now if it was not for the exceptional work done by the former member for Araluen, with the cooperation of the opposition. Where would those children be now if the opposition had not dragged this government kicking and screaming to that child protection report?
It showed an almost complete breakdown of child protection and - to use what has become a bit of a clich, the word ‘tsunami’ - a tsunami of need amongst neglected children in the Northern Territory. Some of the findings were quite alarming and very disturbing. The report included the rate of children on care and protection orders in the Northern Territory was at the highest across Australia in 2008-09, with 9.2% per 1000 children, compared to the national average of 7%. This is for the Northern Territory, a jurisdiction this size. While the proportion of notifications which resulted in an investigation has increased over threefold, the total number of substantiations appeared to have changed little across the years from 2003-04 to six or seven years later, to 2009-10.
There is a raft of findings, and I move to another one. Less than one-third of the notifications to Central Intake are processed within 24 hours, and 24 hours is the target period. Further to that, there were 785 outcome child protection matters that had been referred for formal investigation for which there was no record of the investigation having ever commenced.
Madam Speaker, my point is, our debate is about the Children’s Commissioner - the watering down of the powers of the Children’s Commissioner, the watering down of the powers of the Ombudsman and all statutory officers, the watering down of the health complaints commissioner, when we need it the most. We need the strongest powers invested in these statutory officers when you consider what is happening right before our eyes across the Northern Territory.
Child protection in crisis - what do they do? What does the government do? It waters down the powers of the Children’s Commissioner, diminishes the powers of the Children’s Commissioner and, at the same time, distances government responsibility from any findings that commissioner may come to.
We see a health system in crisis, acute care at the brink, with hospital waiting lists the worst in the country in many cases, second only to perhaps Tasmania or the ACT in other cases with elective surgery and emergency department waiting times. And what do we do? We diminish the powers of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. So, when you are spending all your time waiting in the hospital emergency department and you want to make a complaint, well, I do not like your chances of the government ever acting on that complaint because it will probably go into a report that will sit in the bottom drawer, just like the 2004 review has done.
We firmly believe the bill will further undermine the independence of the commissioner by stripping the commissioner of the ability to hire and fire. You will see that in section 14 under clause 9 of the bill, something we strongly oppose. I do not know why the government is so obsessed with stripping and diminishing power from these statutory officers. You really have to ask yourself what you have to hide. What is wrong with giving the health complaints commissioner some own motion powers of investigation? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to set their own budgets? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to hire and fire whoever they like? What is wrong with allowing the health complaints commissioner to hire six AO8s, four AO7s, and three AO4s if that is what they want to do; if they think that is the best way to deliver health outcomes or at least compile comprehensive reports to be presented to the government and tabled in this Legislative Assembly for the benefit of all Territorians and all Territorians who use our health system? What is wrong with that, minister?
We think there is nothing wrong with that because common sense would tell you that there is nothing wrong with it. Only a government or someone who has something to hide would think that is okay and there is nothing wrong with that. Only a government that has presided over a culture of cover-up for so long - the raft of cover-ups that I have just highlighted, the list of failures in child protection, the acute care side of our health system we all use – and has presided over such failures would feel it is okay to diminish a statutory officer, someone who is there, supposedly independent, working at arm’s length to fight for you. I, who go in with a complaint, hope it will be heard, it will be presented to the government, and the government would do something about it. If the government does not want to do anything about it then, at least, the commissioner has the opportunity to investigate why nothing has been done about it or, at the very least, they can rely on the opposition to bring it to the attention of not only the government but the people of the Northern Territory.
No, this is not good enough. This is something the government is desperate to keep from us all. It is desperate to keep hidden its failures in health and child protection. What about the failures in law and order? Where do we start there? Madam Speaker, I will not push, but there are a number of law and order issues facing the community of the Northern Territory. What is the government’s response? What does it do? It fails to front a protest of people out the front. It fails to turn up. It brings an irrelevant motion about uranium mining in here and accuses us of playing politics.
The minister sits there and says to the member for Araluen, the shadow minister: ‘I understand. I know about this. I care about this. You are just trying to play politics’. Is that hypocrisy or is that hypocrisy? The government and the Chief Minister bring in these motions. They waste taxpayers’ time and money with motions that serve no purpose except to allow them a bit of chest beating, and attempt to wedge and portray all this division in the opposition. Again, we have a government that does not care about you, the Territorian. It is so obsessed with the opposition, so obsessed with its own cause, so obsessed with the culture of cover-up and ensuring the information you and I deserve, we all have a right to see, we all expect to be acted on if there are issues - all that information the government is so obsessed with keeping from you.
This is where we are as a Northern Territory in the 21st century in 2011: a government obsessed with not only its own power - drunk on power - but this unhealthy obsession with the opposition. The number of times we hear it mention the opposition, the Country Liberals, the CLP in a sittings is staggering. It is a worry and, if I were you, the people of the Northern Territory - I am; I live in the world we construct - I would be very concerned all they seem to care about – I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker. All the government cares about is itself; it is drunk on its own power and obsessed with the opposition. That is a worry.
When I say we have enormous failures in the acute side of health, this goes directly to where this bill comes into play. This is about diminishing the powers of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We saw the minister caught out today. The government introduced a bill to silence a report - no doubt another damning report from the Ombudsman. That is exactly what the minister did. He was caught out. Attention was drawn to him. He was caught out at the last sittings. All of a sudden, there is a little media because he is front-page Kon - he is chronicle Kon. This is the Health Minister each morning: he gets up, has his coffee, looks at the paper. There is nothing about health on the front page of the NT News, so he has done another great job; the health system is on track. That is the benchmark. That is the key performance indicator, fellow Territorians. That is the key performance indicator of our health system according to the member for Casuarina. That is his key performance indicator ...
Dr Burns: Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: If I was you …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: If I was you, member for Johnston, I would not – people in glass houses should not throw stones …
Dr Burns: Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business! Order!
Mr CONLAN: People in glass houses should not throw stones. We have a fellow who has presided over the worst health system. In fact, if it was any …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: If it could possibly get any worse it was when the member for Johnston took over the health system. We thought it could not get any worse. The member for Casuarina has done a pretty good job, but you are a hard act to follow, member for Johnston. You are a hard act to follow ...
Dr Burns: Where is your policy? Where is your policy?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: We have a number of policies; however, I am not going to pick up on the interjection at this stage ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr CONLAN: We see a government that opens the front page of the newspaper to see it is not there. What it would normally do is get one of its mates to write a good story so it can say: ‘Great, things are looking pretty good’. If there is nothing on the front page of the newspaper, it is a pretty good day for the health of Territorians. That is the government’s KPI – how many bad stories it gets in the NT News. That is the key performance indicator of the member for Johnston, the Chief Minister, the member for Karama, the member for Casuarina, the Minister for Health. It has been the key performance indicator for the entire term of the Northern Territory government: how much bad media it is receiving, and how to minimise it. It thinks it must be doing okay.
It is an absolute disgrace that we are seeing powers of statutory officers stripped just to cover their backsides. This is exactly what we have seen today when the minister went to shut down the Ombudsman by way of a legislative tool in the form of a bill. It is exactly what he was trying to do. The situation is pretty grave for Territorians, particularly those Territorians who utilise the health system - and there are many of them. Tens of thousands of them are utilising the acute side of our health system; in other words, our hospitals.
What we have at the moment - and this might be of some interest to those tens of thousands of people who utilise our health system - is there is no General Manager at the Katherine Hospital. We have no Medical Director at the Katherine Hospital. We have no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital. Fancy that! No General Manager, no Medical Director, no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital.
The Alice Springs Hospital General Manager position will soon cease to exist, and so will the General Manager position at Royal Darwin Hospital, according to a letter they have just received. Where does this leave the state of our hospital system? We currently have no medical consultant and no nursing consultant. The acute sector in the Northern Territory is in a complete state of flux. I will say that again. No General Manager, no Medical Director and no Director of Nursing at the Katherine Hospital. Where does that leave the people of Katherine?
The Alice Springs Hospital General Manager position will soon cease to exist or move to some position - we are unsure because the government is obsessed with this so-called health reform. So-called reform - I use that word so loosely because it is anything but reform. It is a change in funding arrangements because the government rolled over, got a tickle on the belly, thanks very much. Same with the General Manager at the Royal Darwin Hospital. We are currently seeing across the NT no medical consultant and no nursing consultant.
We are in a complete state of flux, and all the minister can do; in fact, all the Cabinet and the government - the members for Johnston, Fannie Bay, Arafura, Wanguri, Daly, Karama, Stuart, and Casuarina. He has opened the front page to just see how many bad stories: ‘Is there a bad story in there about us today? If not, we have had another great day’.
I go back to 2007, where the then failed minister for Health, the member for Johnston - one of the worst, a very hard act to follow, the member for Johnston as Health minister. But, he is doing a pretty good job. He is the ingnue of failed Health ministers, that is what he is. Here is the media release, 9 February 2007: ‘Patient care must come first’. Well, we have just demonstrated that patient care is the last thing when it comes to this approach by the Northern Territory government.
By diminishing the powers of the health complaints commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner, and the Ombudsman, it allows the government to proceed with this culture of cover-up. Anything that might come to attention in the newspaper, in the public arena or, indeed, through the opposition can be buried - it can be shuffled to the bottom drawer and never see the light of day, just like the 2004 review.
The department is paralysed by its own reform agenda and, indeed, the national reform agenda. The minister does not know which way to turn. As I said, the General Manager of the Alice Springs Hospital is on notice; so is the General Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital. They are on notice. Those positions are in a state of flux. Where are the people who hold those positions going to end up?
It is all about the National Health Reform and, indeed, the paralysis of the government. Local boards have been diminished; hospital management positions have been diminished; the gap between the doctor and the patient is widening, ever widening; and the accountability by the government is becoming farther and farther away. This is the problem. Local boards have gone. As a Country Liberals’ potential government and a Country Liberals’ opposition, we believe in local hospital boards. We believe in local boards to act as champions for the communities they represent. Who better to represent the community than those who live in the community? Who do you want representing your community - some bureaucrat on a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year in the Top End? Or do you want someone who lives and works among you?
The only ones who can represent your community effectively are the ones who live and work in your community. We believe in local boards - we strongly believe in local boards. This government has sought to diminish local boards. In fact, if it was not for a raft of amendments, supported by the member for Nelson in 2009, we would have, again, some seriously diminished boards. We fought rigorously to protect some of the integrity of the boards and at least keep them as local as possible. There are still a number of mechanisms in the new hospital boards bill which allow for the abolishment or the amalgamation of hospital boards. It is a big worry and we should all be greatly concerned about that. We firmly believe in hospital boards, they act as the champions for the community they represent.
We believe in a much closer doctor/patient relationship, not a close patient/bureaucrat relationship. It is about the doctor and the patient; it is not about the patient and the bureaucrat 2000 km away. It is about the doctor and the patient - bringing the doctor and the patient together - not about bolstering up the bureaucracy and the red tape that sees patients waiting at hospitals for hours and hours on end, and seeing some 11 300-odd leaving hospital without even being seen, and 1000 of those leaving hospital at their own risk. It is about bringing the patient and the doctor close together. That is what the opposition believes. We believe that is what the community wants; they want better, more convenient healthcare, not more red tape, not more bureaucracy – more convenient, better healthcare sooner. That is what they want.
I am exploring options about public/private partnerships when it comes to elective surgery. This is something the government is obsessed with: all public procedures going through the public system. It must be some Labor ideology; I do not know. Allowing the private sector to perform publicly-funded procedures, particularly when it comes to orthopaedic, ear nose and throat, and facial trauma, can take a great deal of heat and pressure off our public system.
I am not talking about last minute purchasing. The minister might say: ‘Oh, we already do that’. Yes, you might already do it at the last minute when you need to meet specific targets as it comes to the end of the financial year, or however you do it. You may well, but we are talking about a planned approach; an approach that is not just an ad hoc, last minute resort, to meet specific targets. We are actually talking about planning through the Department of Health and the private sector to perform public sector procedures. This would ease pressure on our public sector hospitals. It will free up beds and bring occupancy rates to a much more acceptable level, and a much safer level. Our occupancy rates are already well above 100% in many cases. Anything above 85%, as we all know, according to the AMA, is at dangerous levels.
So, this would free up those beds, bring occupancy rates down to more acceptable levels. And by beds, I mean real beds. I am not talking about bassinets or armchairs for chemo. I am talking about real beds - overnight acute in-patient beds. A bed is a bed. This is a mechanism and a tool to embark on public/private partnerships with the private sector.
I believe this approach will significantly reduce elective surgery waiting times. It will deliver enhanced and more well-suited healthcare for Territorians who have been deprived of it for such a long time - way too long: 5.9% of Territorians waited more than 365 days for elective surgery, which is up from 4.4% nine years ago.
There were 11 332 patients who entered Territory emergency departments and left without treatment. That is one in six. As I said, 1000 of those left hospital at their own risk. We are dragging the chain. It is risky business because it is people’s lives and their health we are talking about. Just like law and order, it is people’s lives, people’s health, people’s livelihoods. These are the big issues confronting Territorians, not wedge politics, not wasting taxpayers’ money trying to play some sort of game. Let us focus on real issues. This is what you will be remembered for: the government that took its eye off the ball and did not focus on the real issues. That is what people will remember you for, minister. That is the legacy you are going to leave.
This is your last chance. You do not have long. People are sick and tired of it. People have stopped listening. Many stopped listening a long time ago. This is the last roll of the dice for the ALP. Can it step up and really do something for Territorians? Can it leave a lasting legacy? When it comes to hospital waiting lists and better, more convenient healthcare, I do not think so, particularly if it is going to shut down the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. What hope do we have of providing better healthcare, more convenient healthcare for Territorians, if we are going to shut down the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner? We have no hope. What hope do we have of providing a good solid child protection system? What hope do we have of protecting our children if we are going to shut down and diminish the powers of the Children’s Commissioner? We have no hope; there is no hope. It is the last roll of the dice for front-page Kon.
Madam Speaker, it is pretty obvious the opposition will not be supporting this bill. I hope I have made that clear in no uncertain terms; that we will not be supporting this bill. In fact, I could not get far enough away from it; it is an absolute disgrace.
I make a pledge. I promise all those people out there, all those people in the gallery, all those people listening, that if elected to government, I or any one of us, whoever becomes Health minister, will not be shying away from the problems facing the health system by burying it in reports and shutting down statutory officers - whether it be the Children’s Commissioner, Ombudsman, or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We will not. Openness and accountability is the way to the hearts and minds of Territorians, not the culture of cover-up we have seen over the last 10 years.
We will not be supporting this bill; that is obvious. It is appalling the way the government has handled this situation and the way it treats Territorians, the health of Territorians, insults Territorians’ intelligence time after time after time, and the lip service it pays to Territorians, particularly us here in Central Australia. Central Australia is very much a part of the Northern Territory, but you would not think so sometimes.
I hope I have made my point clear. I hope those who have listened to this speech are a little wiser to the games and tricks of the Northern Territory Labor government, the length it will go to make itself look good, its drunkenness with power, and obsession with everything else except what really matters to Territorians. It is quite amazing how a government can take its eye off the ball.
We have had 10 years of Labor - 10 long, years of the Labor government. Ten long years of hard labour and all I can say is that Labor has to go.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I did some quick calculations - that drivel cost Territorians $5250. It was drivel because much of it was not true. Let us a look at some of the things the member said. He promised, when elected to government, they will open real beds. Really? The Country Liberal Party closed Ward 3B 16 years ago. It was reopened in 2009. Thirty beds - that is their record. The opposition wants people who go to hospital to be looked after. The reality is people who attended hospital and left unattended were people who could not have access to a GP. We have addressed that with super clinics. Who is opposing super clinics? The Country Liberal Party.
Let us look at some of the other things he said. He said Katherine Hospital does not have a general manager. The general manager went on sick leave. There is an acting general manager, and the new general manager will be arriving in April. We are currently recruiting for a director of medical services.
He said the principal medical and nursing advisors are not there. They finished their contracts. As happens in the Territory, people come and go, and we continue recruiting new people into these positions. He could not even get right who was the minister for Health in 2004. It was not the member for Nightcliff, it was a member from Alice Springs, Peter Toyne.
Let me tell you about Central Australian Territorians. The CLP botched the renovation of the Alice Springs Hospital which has cost this government $26m because the design and construct was stuffed up so badly. It did not check the company and we are now in court. He wants private/public partnership. After 27 years in parliament, where is the private hospital in Alice Springs? No one knocked on my door to establish a private hospital in Alice Springs. No one asked me to establish a private hospital in Alice Springs. We have a private hospital in Darwin working closely with the Royal Darwin Hospital, and we have some private/public partnerships utilising the theatres.
Who cut nurse numbers? It was the CLP. Who cut $2bn from the health budget in Australia? It was Tony Abbott when he was the minister for Health. Do not tell us what the CLP would do …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The last person to talk about the health sector should be you. It took you a year and a month to find out there is an oncology centre in Darwin and to visit it. You tried your best for that oncology centre not to become a reality, because you were playing up to some of your local constituents, who now, when they come up to Darwin, see the oncology centre and the Barbara James Hostel, and they admire it and are very impressed. How many complaints have I received about that from people in Central Australia? Zilch, none, zero ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: You are a truck, so keep rolling!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: He said they are not going to support this bill - that is their prerogative – and that somehow we are diminishing the power of the Ombudsman. Well, in this case, it was the Ombudsman who came to us and said she did not want to have the dual role of Ombudsman and health commissioner for several reasons: first of all, the workload and, second, because she perceived there was some conflict of interest between the two positions. So, we had to separate them and ensure some amendments in order for the health complaints commissioner to be appointed, like other statutory officers are appointed in the Territory.
He talked about the government changing the legislation for the employees to be public sector employees. As with the Ombudsman’s staff and the staff of most other independent officers, the employees of the commission are to be published as employees as defined in the Interpretation Act. This, in fact, maintains the status quo - nothing changes. What it was before, it will be now.
He said we gagged the health complaints commission. We cannot because the health complaints commissioner must provide an annual report to the minister for tabling under section 19. That is a requirement of the legislation, which I bet he did not bother to read. Also, the commissioner must provide an investigational report to the minister or to the Speaker of the House under section 65, which I bet he does not realise is in the act because he simply did not read it. Of course, the commissioner has to provide a report to the complainant, the provider, and the relevant provisional board. So, the health complaints commissioner is accountable to more than one person. He is accountable to the minister, to parliament, to the consumer, and to the provider. He has to provide reports on investigations that the commissioner decides are of significance to public health and safety. That is under section 65 of the legislation. On top of that, the Legislative Assembly - that is the parliament; that is me and you, all of us here - can refer any matter to the health complaints commissioner who must provide investigation reports to the Speaker for tabling under section 21.
The health complaints commissioner cannot be directed by me not to do things, because there are provision in the legislation that makes them investigate, report - that is in the legislation. If they do not do it, that means they are in breach of their own act.
The bill also puts, in statutory form, the commissioner’s capacity to hire consultants such as lawyers and medical experts outside the public employment sector. Consultants provide independent advice and are not employees for the purpose of the act. The bill also allows for the office of the commissioner to be held in conjunction with any other public office. The effect is that the Office of the Ombudsman is no longer tied to that of the commissioner.
The bill also makes amendments to the statutory law revision nature as identified by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Penalties and amendments are dealt with in a separate bill.
Let us have a look at the bill. The bill has a significant history. For the period from the commencement of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act on 10 June 1998 until 29 August 2010, the Ombudsman held the position as the Commissioner for Health and Community Service Complaints. This also meant the Ombudsman had the responsibility for the day-to-day administration of that act.
During 2010, the Ombudsman wrote to me indicating she did not want to be reappointed as the commissioner after her appointment expired. In not seeking the appointment, the Ombudsman raised the commission’s increased role and took the opportunity to highlight the review of the dual positions of commissioner and Ombudsman was desirable on the basis of potential conflict between the two roles, as there had been situations in the past where investigation by one of the two organisations had given rise to investigation by the other.
Further, in her annual report for 2008-09, the former commissioner noted that separate appointments of the commissioner and Ombudsman would remove actual conflict of interest, as well as public perception of conflicts, and provide the public with a more equitable health complaints service, given that one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries during this period of reform in delivery of health services.
That sounds familiar. The Ombudsman argued to have two separate people because one person cannot adequately perform the duties of both functionaries. However, the opposition wants the Ombudsman to actually do the role of the Children’s Commissioner, which I find rather surprising because the Ombudsman herself admits that it cannot be done by one person only; it needs two people to do the job properly.
It is generally agreed that the functions of Ombudsman and the commissioner are potentially incompatible, given the commissioner, like many other independent statutory officers, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman concerning some administrative actions. As a matter of policy and governance, the office of the commissioner should not be administered by the Department of Health, given the department is a provider of services that are subject to the commissioner’s complaint jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Administrative Arrangements Orders made by the Administrator on 9 December 2010 transferred, with effect from 1 January 2011, the functions related to the commission to the Department of Justice. Ministerial responsibility for the commissioner remains with the Minister for Health.
It has been identified that other than the Ombudsman, and to a more limited extent, the Auditor-General, most of the independent statutory officers relevant to administration of justice, such as the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Public Interest Disclosures, are appointed and removed from office without any involvement of the Legislative Assembly. I stress these amendments make no change to the powers of either the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner or the Ombudsman. Both positions retain the same statutory powers. The amendments have simply separated the position of the commissioner and the Ombudsman so the commissioner can hold any public office, including being the Ombudsman, or hold the position of commissioner exclusively.
Since the Ombudsman decided not to seek to renew her appointment as the commissioner last year, it was agreed by the Department of Health, Department of Justice, and the acting commissioner, that action needed to be taken without delay to separate the positions of the Ombudsman and the commissioner. As the nature of the position of the commissioner, the employees, and the method of appointment of the commissioner are related matters, it was decided to progress the administrative changes to the act sooner rather than later to ensure a smooth functioning of the office.
Last year, the opposition introduced a bill that focused on increasing the powers of the commissioner. The government believes that before such amendments can be made, a thorough statutory review of the operation of the act will be needed. This is anticipated to be finalised this year. This will include an updated report on the act by the Department of Justice and the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints, and encompass significant public consultation.
Additionally, a recruitment process is currently being undertaken to fill the position of commissioner. It is thought the future commissioner should have input in the next review. It is anticipated that any necessary amendments to the act will be introduced within the next 12 months.
The position of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner is very important. This is one of the avenues that consumers of health services, be it private or public, can seek retribution and advice, and then put their complaints. The reality is, some of these complaints are quite serious. We have a situation where people are dealing with malpractice, complaining about the lack of services, or the provision of inadequate or insufficient services. There has to be an avenue to make these complaints and for these complaints to be investigated by an independent person such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, in order for these complaints and issues to be addressed.
My measure for health efficacy and outcomes is not what the member for Greatorex comes up with here and performs about in front of parliament. He is a good performer, I must admit that. What I say is a good health service is when I see the outcome - when I see the reduction of deaths from renal dialysis; when I see people who undergo renal dialysis have the same life expectancy as those in Melbourne or Sydney - bearing in mind that the CLP did not allocate any funding for renal dialysis in the communities; when I see the rates of cervical cancer collapsing; when I see the infant mortality of Indigenous kids dropping by 35%; when I see people here in the Territory receiving adequate health services; and when I see services like RAPU, the Rapid Admission Unit.
I admit that our hospitals are overstretched. Our emergency departments receive one admission every 10 minutes. However, I remind you, that when we came to government, the health expenditure - and probably the member for Nightcliff remembers this very well as she was the Minister for Health in 2001 - in 2001 was $400m. Today, it is $1.2bn. The reason for that? Nearly 120 more doctors and a significant number of nurses. We introduced the nurses per patient ratio to have adequate nurse numbers looking after people in hospital.
Health is a tough portfolio, not only because it is big and difficult, but because we are dealing with people’s personal problems. In the Territory it becomes more difficult because it is more personal. The person who is treated at the hospital today may be my neighbour, my friend, my wife, or a person who I know very well, and this information will come to me firsthand. Also, having kids growing up in the Territory – and, hopefully, it never happens - I am a consumer; when my kids did something that was not very good, I sometimes turned up to the emergency department and had to wait because somebody who had a heart attack had priority over a person who had to have a couple of stitches.
I know it is very difficult. We actually have listened to the community. I agree with you that local input is very important. That is why I have instructed the department that there will be two local hospital networks: one in the north and one in the south.
With regard to the letters to the general manager of the hospital, nothing is going to change, but things have to be readjusted because now we have the Gove and Katherine hospitals and Royal Darwin Hospital in the north local hospital network, while Alice Springs and Tennant Creek will be the south local hospital network.
Madam Speaker, these are a number of amendments which some people might think are not significant, but I believe they will strengthen the position of the health complaints commission. Having a commissioner by himself or herself will provide a better service to our clients in the health system.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am sorry I did not know who the Health minister was in 2004; it is very hard to keep up. Labor has had 17 ministerial reshuffles and 141 ministerial appointments since the 2001 election, so it is a little tricky keeping up with what is going on. I apologise to the member for Nightcliff for the allegation she somehow presided over one of the worst Health departments in the Northern Territory.
It is hard to top the member for Johnston, the man who lives in a glass house and is more than happy to throw stones. He has a cloud hanging over his head like in the cartoon. We might get to that in adjournments, member for Johnston.
The minister talked about the wonderful things that have occurred in the Health department, about renal dialysis and, of course, that is great. Does that then somehow diminish the 800 or so outstanding notifications of child protection? I ran through a stack of child protection failures by the Northern Territory government. Somehow, the renal dialysis investment offsets the care and protection of children? One is great; it does not mean the other is okay by any stretch.
The achievements we have seen in health are good and, for the most part, the government is doing its job. Employing more nurses and doctors is the government doing its job. In 1950, there were 80 police officers in the Northern Territory. You would not be much of a government if, in 2010, you still only had 80 police officers. Of course, you are going to employ more police officers as the population grows and we face the law and order tsunami we have. Nevertheless, you are going to employ, recruit and attempt to retain more doctors and nurses as the population grows and we move into the 21st century.
I give the government its achievements. Renal dialysis is a great leap forward - a wonderful step. Perhaps it was an oversight by previous Country Liberal governments - they were building the Northern Territory. That is not an excuse; the Northern Territory government deserves credit where credit is due. However, does that mean the 800 or so outstanding child protection matters are okay? No, it does not. Does it mean the 11 533 people waiting in emergency departments is okay? No, it does not.
The minister said it is okay if I take my child there needing a couple of stitches and someone has a heart attack - we are okay; we are prepared to wait. Does it mean for those 1000 people who left the emergency department without being seen at their own risk - potentially life threatening - it is okay because we are seeing the person who potentially is having a heart attack? No, it does not make any of this okay. Because you have made some achievements does not mean your failures are okay. It does not mean your raft of failures is okay because you have made some inroads, because you have employed doctors and nurses. You are doing the job you are paid to do. It makes no difference to those children abandoned by the Northern Territory government who are at risk every single night.
For the government and the minister to suggest it has done much good and it makes everything okay - it is not okay; it is far from okay. The minister talks about the PATS and the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre - a wonderful centre, something the Northern Territory can be very proud of. It is something that was 10 years overdue. It was promised in 1999, from opposition, and it took 10 years to deliver. Nevertheless, it is there and is great. However, it does not make all the failures any better. It does not vindicate you from all the failures you have presided over, minister. It does not make one iota of difference to those children abandoned by the Northern Territory government. You should all hang your head in shame. The Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre is wonderful, no doubt about it; however, it does not mean the people of Central Australia are lining up to go to Darwin to use it. You have not been listening. It has not been on the front page of the NT News. Front-page Kon has not read it so, obviously, people are not requiring the services in Adelaide any longer.
People in Central Australia all of a sudden want to utilise the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre - untrue by a long way. Central Australians have enormous kinship with South Australia, like the people of the Kimberley have a kinship with the Top End. Speak to your Liberal counterpart in Western Australia; speak to your Labor colleague, the member for Kimberley, and ask her whether we can negotiate. Can we have a cross-border arrangement for people of the Kimberley to utilise the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and get some money to offset the cost for the people of Central Australia who still want to utilise Royal Adelaide Hospital despite the fact it is a well-overdue wonderful centre? I have been there, you know that ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It does not matter. You were 10 years too late in delivering it. It took 10 years to deliver. It was promised in 1999 by the member for Fannie Bay, the Leader of the Opposition.
The situation is the minister is diminishing local boards. He is taking local autonomy away from you and me as Territorians who utilise the health system. He is diminishing it. The bill is difficult to read and government will spin it any way it wants. It will say: ‘No, no, it is not all that bad’. If it is not that bad, why are you touching it, diminishing local boards; diminishing local control?
It talks about local hospital networks. Once again, we see the Central Australian community having to win the argument. Everyone has to win the argument with this government. It takes the high moral ground: ‘What we say is right, and you tell us why it should be otherwise’. The Central Australian community recently held their protest to draw the government’s attention to law and order. They had to do it with health, and with the local hospital networks because if not, we would have one local hospital network for the whole of the Northern Territory - a super board running our hospital. So much for locals being the champions of their community.
This bill goes a long way toward diminishing local control, local input, and the powers of our statutory officers and, in this case, the health complaints commissioner. We see it with the Ombudsman and, of course, the Children’s Commissioner. It is okay, according to the minister, because we have made some positive inroads. I am not diminishing the hard work that has gone into renal dialysis; however, that does not make everything else okay. It does not make all your other failures okay, minister.
I implore everyone in this Chamber, the member for Nelson in particular, the member for Macdonnell, and members on the other side of the House who utilise our public hospitals, who want independence and government at arm’s length, who care enough about it, to vote against this bill. This is not a good bill; this is not good law; it is not good legislation. It does not enhance the Territory at all. I urge everyone with a conscience who cares about the future of the Territory to vote against this bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, first I would like to correct the member. The backlog of children notifications is not 800; it is 237 because we worked hard to bring it down. We have made inroads, not ‘some’ inroads. We have made many inroads despite the best efforts of the federal government.
The member for Fong Lim tried hard. The problem was he had a very difficult minister to work with in the Liberal government who would not cough up the money. It took a federal Labor government to provide the money - not $13m, not $15m, nearly $25m. We have a state-of-the-art oncology centre with two linear accelerators. Why? People do not go to Adelaide any more because there is a waiting list. In Darwin, we do not a waiting list. In fact, my Liberal counterpart, Kim Hames in Western Australia, has asked if he can utilise our facility to send people from the Kimberleys and as far away as Broome. Currently, we get people from east of Warburton in Western Australia being treated by renal dialysis. Obviously, states like Western Australia recognise the good work we do with the health system. I tend to believe Kim Hames, who is a doctor, rather than the member for Greatorex.
Our health system is not perfect, but it is much better than the system the CLP had in place.
Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Postponement of Business
Postponement of Business
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, through agreement with the opposition, the Occupational Licensing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 139) will be postponed to a later date.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I advise the opposition concurs that we have reached agreement on that issue.
MOTION
Note Statement - Taking Real Action
for Alice Springs
Note Statement - Taking Real Action
for Alice Springs
Continued from 29 March 2011.
Madam SPEAKER: I note the member for Araluen is in continuation with 13 minutes to go. I advise honourable members that at 5.45 pm I will be suspending the House in readiness for Question Time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I commenced my speech addressing the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement on Tuesday, 29 March. Just to recap, the ministerial statement by the Chief Minister called Taking Real Action for Alice Springs was, indeed, an eye-opener for all of us that day.
As you will remember clearly, we gathered in a festive situation on Tuesday for the opening of parliament, and the Chief Minister had 300 or so angry residents out the front of the convention centre in Alice Springs expressing concern about particular issues that are included in the ministerial statement. He opened this statement by saying:
- … it is great to be back in Alice Springs. I say thank you to everyone in Alice Springs for hosting the March 2011 parliamentary sittings, and for providing those of us visiting this great town warm hospitality.
Well, Chief Minister, you did not get much warm hospitality on Tuesday morning, 29 March 2011. In fact, the hospitality you received was quite cold.
The Chief Minister has been dodging bullets shot from Alice Springs people of late. The law and order and antisocial problems on the streets in Alice Springs escalated from around late December 2010. As a result, a group formed - Action for Alice - which consists mainly of business people who felt the government was not adequately listening to their concerns about how their businesses were being attacked by people who had no regard for their property or businesses.
The crowd on the lawns of the convention centre requested the Chief Minister address them, recognise their issues and acknowledge their concerns, but he ignored them. It would have been satisfying for them to have the Chief Minister’s attention for a minute or two, but he shied away from that. He showed no courage, no leadership, and no conviction or real commitment to those angry residents and business people of Alice Springs who deserved more than they received on Tuesday morning, 29 March 2011.
The Chief Minister went ahead with his ministerial statement espousing the great successes of the Labor Henderson government and the marvellous things it has provided Alice Springs, claiming he has listened to the concerns of Alice Springs. I quote from the ministerial statement:
- I want to reassure the Alice Springs community that my government has listened, and has acted.
Well, it has listened and has acted, but only in the last few weeks; only since the advertisements from Action for Alice appeared on Imparja Television; only since the Chief Minister was publicly shamed, nationally humiliated, and drawn into having to respond.
In true form, the Chief Minister has turned it all around on the good people of Alice Springs - he calls them ‘the good people of Alice Springs’; I have heard him use those words several times - saying those people are putting the town down; they are trashing the town. He accused me of whipping up crime. He said that these advertisements on television were irresponsible and doing enormous damage to the local economy. This is not true. He has flipped the whole situation around to enable him to take no responsibility for the fact that law and order is out of control.
We all know something had to be done, and thank goodness Action for Alice has the troops together; rallied some support within the community, performed a great community service in illuminating the problems they are experiencing, and bringing it to the attention of the Northern Territory government. Had the Chief Minister listened to Action for Alice earlier, they may not have gone to the extent they did. They received national attention for their campaign and, unfortunately, the Northern Territory government had to respond. Unfortunately for them - fortunately for us!
I described, in the first part of my speech on Tuesday, the general mood in the town is one of cynicism. This town has lost faith in the Northern Territory government. It is suspicious; it does not trust this government to come through with outcomes for Alice Springs. However, we live in hope, and although people are very scornful of the words of the government, they still hope something will be done because we are not talking about simple matters of low meaning or value to the people of Alice Spring - we are talking about people’s livelihoods. We are talking about our children’s future and the safety of the town; how our children are growing up, what they are seeing, what they are experiencing, and the stamps imprinted on their minds they will take forth into their adult lives. It is very significant to all of us in Alice Springs. It is very important to the people of Alice Springs that the Chief Minister act and resolve these problems. I am stating the obvious, not something people do not know.
We heard about the community action plan from the government - an action plan put together a few weeks ago. It is a great action plan but, after 10 years of government, to come up with a community action plan for Alice Springs a few weeks ago does not really amount to much credibility. It is disingenuous of the Chief Minister to embark on a series of community consultations given so much time has lapsed and so many opportunities have been wasted.
People are attending these consultation meetings, business people have met, the youth people have met; however, the feedback I am getting is one of cynicism and scepticism. They attend because they feel they have to; they believe in the town, they want change to happen. But, do they think anything is really going to happen? No. The Chief Minister will say: ‘You are just being doomy and gloomy. You are just being negative and talking down the town’. That attitude is how this town has been treated for many years stretching back to the beginning of this government’s term in office.
The Deputy Chief Minister accused the business people of Alice Springs of being disingenuous. She said they were not genuine in their response. The Deputy Chief Minister said: ‘disingenuous of the business people’. The Deputy Chief Minister has been neglectful and is, once again, turning the argument around so she does not need to take any responsibility for this government’s lack of action, poor behaviour, mistreatment of Alice Springs, or maladministration of the law and order issues in this town.
There is no doubt that this town wants the attention of the government. We have yelled and screamed, and we will do anything to get your attention. We will tap dance on the table if it means you will truly listen and act when it comes to Alice Springs. The Deputy Chief Minister made some very disrespectful remarks: ‘We are giving you attention. You do not have to make a fuss’. Well, we do, and the proof is in the pudding. If we do not make these demands loudly and clearly, you do not listen. There is proof of that, and I do not need to list for the parliament today what that proof is - it has all been said before.
The Deputy Chief Minister spoke about the Kilgariff land development, which is very encouraging. I intend to be part of that design process coming up this week. However, what happened to the CBD rejuvenation plan on the table years ago? It was on the table when I was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council. I asked a public servant what was happening with the Alice Springs CBD rejuvenation plan. It has only been in the consultation process for five years - goodness me. What has happened to that? Obviously, the commitment was not there for funding and real change so it has been stuck in this very lengthy, very thorough, I hope, consultation process. We look forward to what the Labor government does with the CBD rejuvenation plan for Alice Springs, which would make a huge difference to this town. It is a very positive idea and has been on the agenda for years. People would psychologically, financially, and in all ways, benefit from a CBD that was brightened up and reflected a more positive, modern Alice Springs.
We always go back to alcohol because, unfortunately, this town is, in some ways, controlled by the alcohol problem in this community. The government define it for us time and time again. You do not need to define the alcohol problem to the people of Alice Springs - we know about it; we live it every day. It is a source of great worry, great heartache, great despair, and great loss for every one of us. It is highly disrespectful that the people of Alice Springs are lectured by this government on the desperate state of the alcohol problem. We know about it and have been trying to stem the flow of alcohol in Alice Springs for many years - five minimum, probably six or seven years now.
We have all been subjected to the alcohol restrictions that have failed. We have been used as guinea pigs. We have had to adjust our behaviour regarding when we buy alcohol and how much we buy. It was all on the premise that crime was about alcohol consumption and, if you reduced alcohol consumption, crime would reduce. There has been absolutely no evidence to support that. All the alcohol restrictions have done for Alice Springs is prove, without a doubt, alcohol restrictions do not work. They do not minimise crime in this town. I will be slightly more accurate: the alcohol restrictions this Labor government has put in place have not worked - they have failed. I say that with great regret ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I understand there has been an agreement between the government and the opposition that this debate would end at 5.45 pm. I remind the House, and the member for Araluen, of that agreement.
Mrs Lambley: You are going to cut me off at the knees again.
Dr BURNS: It is an agreement between us and your Whip. I am not trying to cut you off; I am trying to abide by that agreement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is unfortunate timing for you. I suggest rather than interrupt you once again we stop now. We will be suspending the House, as agreed, at 5.45 pm to allow members of the public to fill the gallery seats.
Mrs LAMBLEY: So, I get to speak again - part 3.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have an opportunity to resume your remaining 10 minutes of remarks at a later time.
Debate suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Katherine
Member for Katherine
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Katherine to make a personal explanation. Honourable members, I remind you a personal explanation is not a debate and I ask you to listen with courtesy.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I provide a personal explanation about a number of allegations made through a letter written by Mr Michael Rowley and tabled in this parliament.
This matter of the purchase and subsequent sale of the vehicle in question was one of a contractual nature, and became a matter before the Katherine local court in 2003. Regarding the assertions made in Mr Rowley’s letter about this civil action, I need to correct the record and advise that, in this case, I was, in fact, the plaintiff. The author of the tabled document, Mr Rowley, was a respondent. The matter was settled in a court mediation process, and there are no further comments to be made.
In relation to other allegations that have been made, I can advise the House these allegations are not new. Mr Rowley made a complaint against police in 2003, some eight years ago, when I was still a member of the police force, and many years before entering public office. The allegations in his recent letter are the same allegations made at that earlier time. I advise this House that these allegations were, as per normal police procedure, thoroughly and rigorously investigated by the police as an internal disciplinary investigation. Most police officers, at some time in their career, have complaints made about their actions - I am no different.
During the course of that investigation, I admitted to making some mistakes; namely, I failed to transfer my driver’s licence from Queensland to the Northern Territory within the required time frame; I failed to transfer the registration of the vehicle purchased within the required time frame; I mistakenly put the wrong vehicle purchase date on the registration papers; and I was given access to the transfer of registration application for the purpose of completing a signature block. Notwithstanding the personal matters I was dealing with at the time, I was embarrassed - and remain embarrassed - by the mistakes I made.
These matters were dealt with fulsomely by the Police Ethical and Professional Standards Unit and were finalised. I trust no one would have an issue with the way the Ethical and Professional Standards Unit performs its duties and carries out its investigations.
Was I dismissed? No. Was I suspended? No. Was my rank reduced? No. Were there any punitive measures? Yes, indeed there were. I received a monetary fine of $750 and was placed on a 12-month internal police good behaviour bond. Were there any criminal charges? No, there were not. Knowing what I know about the internal police disciplinary process, if there had been any intent on my part, or if the seriousness of my infractions were such that warranted it, I would have faced criminal charges at the time.
There is plenty of precedent for police officers to face criminal charges if the circumstances warrant it. I did not face criminal charges. Did I pay my fine? Yes. Did I remain of good behaviour? Yes. In fact, within a few years I was promoted from senior constable to the rank of sergeant. That is how the system is meant to work: you make mistakes; you face the consequences of those mistakes. I can assure you the consequences for me personally, and for my family, far outweighed the punitive measures imposed by the police force. Natural justice allows us all to move on. This matter has been finalised for many years.
I have moved on, the police force has moved on; unfortunately, it appears Mr Rowley still feels, for whatever reason, a need to raise this matter. I have not had any contact with Mr Rowley since this matter was finalised. For me to contact him would be inappropriate. Therefore, in an offer of conciliation, if Mr Rowley would like to contact me to discuss any matters around this incident, I invite him to do so. I bear him no ill will.
For the record, I can also advise the House I have never altered records regarding my son, as alleged. My son has never had a DUI charge, and it is regrettable any person sees fit to refer to members of my family in their attacks on me.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Failure of Government to Lobby Federal Government
on Issues Affecting the Northern Territory
Failure of Government to Lobby Federal Government
on Issues Affecting the Northern Territory
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
- Madam Speaker
I propose the following matter of public importance for discussion today:
The failure of this government to lobby the federal government to stand up for the Northern Territory and its citizens to prevent the –
- Furthermore, this government’s failure to condemn the Prime Minister for her continued deception of Northern Territory citizens.
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues for supporting this definite matter of public importance.
Deception has not been visited on the Australian people like the deception relating to the carbon tax in a long time. Let us be very clear about the carbon tax, it, is driven by politics, by opportunism and cynical self-serving politics. It is the price of a single vote in the House of Representatives, and the price will not be paid by some big, nasty, corporate shark, it will be paid by all Australians - all Territorians. The deception started before the last federal election. On several occasions, the then Prime Minister ruled out the introduction of a carbon tax. On 16 August 2010, on Channel 10, Ms Gillard claimed:
- There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
Then, on the Friday before the election the Prime Minister stated categorically:
I rule out a carbon tax.
Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, said on Meet the Press on 15 August:
- … what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we were moving towards a carbon tax.
He said on 7.30 Report on 12 August 2010:
- We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
Sadly, on 24 February this year, the Prime Minister, flanked by The Greens, announced she wanted to introduce a carbon tax on 1 July next year. She said this might morph into an emissions trading scheme three to five years later; however, this carbon tax could be with us for years and years.
This is not a tax on big emitters; it is a tax on every Australian. It is disheartening that the Chief Minister has engaged in this deception. During Question Time which has just finished, the Chief Minister was asked whether he opposed the carbon tax. He said Territorians have nothing to fear, that this is a tax on those electricity generators who use brown coal in Victoria and Queensland. Clearly, it is a tax on more than just brown coal power stations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It is a tax on every industry that emits carbon dioxide. Those charges will be passed on to every single Australian in higher food costs, higher transport costs, and higher electricity costs. Every single Australian will be paying higher prices. What is even clearer is this tax will affect the Northern Territory to a much greater extent than anywhere else, unlike what the Chief Minister said.
I want to go through some of the deceptions visited on Australian people about this carbon tax. We quite often hear Australians are the biggest per capita polluters in the world. It is almost like every Australian now believes we are the biggest per capita emitters in the world. Julia Gillard said in the House of Representatives on 3 March 2011:
- Because we are, by the standards of the developed world, the biggest per capita emitters of carbon pollution, we have got a lot of changing to do.
I have a swag of other quotes saying the same.
According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, the international body which conducts tests on what countries emit - all these things can be referenced through
In no way is Australian the biggest per capita emitter in the world. In absolute terms, Australia’s carbon emissions are 396 million tonnes. That is dwarfed by countries such as China, 6538 million tonnes; the United States, 6094 million tonnes; Russia, 1579 million tonnes; India, 1600 million tonnes; Japan, 1300 million tonnes; Germany, 841 million tonnes; Canada, 590 million tonnes; and South Korea, 503 million tonnes.
On a relative to land mass basis we are dwarfed by the rest of the world. Australia’s relative to land mass emissions - we emit 51.52 tonnes per square kilometre; China, 681 tonnes per square kilometre; the United States of America, 632 tonnes per square kilometre; Japan, 3500 tonnes per square kilometre; and the United Kingdom, 2249 tonnes per square kilometre. These are absolutely amazing numbers.
Other deceptions visited upon us by this Prime Minister, and some of the people promoting a carbon tax in Australia, are that the world is surging ahead and Australia risks being left behind; and that other countries are doing so much in relation to carbon taxes and an ETS but Australians are being left behind. The European Union has an ETS and, under the carbon leakage provisions, more than 80% of industrial firms covered by the ETS are exempt for 100% of their emissions.
In Canada, it failed. The failure of the US cap and trade legislation and the troubles besetting the western climate and emissions prompted an analyst to comment visions of emissions trading in Canada are fading in a puff of smoke. Korea has failed; Russia is failing; China has failed; and in India it has failed. Countries around the world are not leading.
Julia Gillard says a carbon tax - I cannot believe this one - will be a boon for Australian jobs. In a speech on 16 March this year she said it is the choice we face; action will protect jobs, inaction will cost jobs. Even her climate change expert and advisor, Professor Ross Garnaut, in a National Press Club address on 17 March said:
- First, imposing a carbon price in Australia through a price on carbon or through other means such as regulation or direct government expenditure which proceeded or exceeded that of other countries that are the host to major competitors, could result in some movement of emissions intensive trade exposed activities from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint.
- This could result in an increase in global emissions in the event that the activity moves to a country that uses a more emissions intensive production process than Australia.
Even the government’s chief climate change expert, Professor Ross Garnaut, understands jobs will go overseas and it could lead to an increase in carbon emissions.
Do not just take his word for it. Access Economics said there will be 126 000 job losses. Acil Tasman, another respected company, said there will be a closure of 16 coal mines and the loss of 10 000 jobs in the coal industry. Acil Tasman has estimated in the first 10 years of the scheme 16 mines would close prematurely and, by 2021, there would be 9900 fewer people employed within the coal mining industry. Concept Economics said 24 000 jobs will be lost in mining. Frontier Economics said 45 000 jobs will be lost in the energy-intensive sector. Bjorn Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus, said in February this year Dr Glen from the Green Job organisation concluded:
- … that job creation ‘cannot be defended as another benefit’ of well-meaning green policies. In fact, the number of jobs that these policies create is likely to be offset - or worse - by the number of jobs that they destroy.
The idea that somehow we are creating jobs by introducing a carbon tax is being proved wrong by so many experts.
There is a whole range of other deceptions. The idea about petrol - the Chief Minister said: ‘It is not going to affect the Northern Territory because it is only aimed at coal-fired power stations interstate’. One of the areas that will be hardest hit is petrol. The Prime Minister was extremely cagey about the inclusion of petrol in her carbon tax when she announced it on 24 February 2011. She said the matter was yet to be discussed and resolved. However, her own paper says it is on the table.
The Greens MP, Adam Bandt, the guy the Prime Minister has designed the whole thing for, let the cat out of the bag when he told Sky News on February 25:
- … we are very pleased that the paper that’s been released and the agreement that we’ve reached has transport as being included in a carbon pricing mechanism.
Adam Bandt, The Greens MP, one of the people the federal Labor government is now totally in love with, has belled the cat.
Soon after the carbon tax announcement, The Greens climate change spokesman, Christine Milne, pushed for petrol to be included in the scheme, which earned her a rebuke from Ms Gillard. She said, on Sunday 27 February, Senator Milne’s comments on the inclusion of petrol were not appropriate in the sense that these discussions are still to come.
In relation to petrol, the government’s chief climate change advisor, Mr Ross Garnaut, had this to say in his speech to the National Press Club:
- Transport fuels need to be part of the scheme. There are difficult geographical distribution effects of an immediate increase in petrol prices.
He said:
- A substantial amount of revenue should be allocated to transitional assistance to emissions intensive trade exposed industries to remove distortions … applying on weaker carbon constraints.
He also said later when questioned at the National Press Club by media people:
- There is a difficult regional distribution effect of that in outer suburbs and rural Australia.
What he is saying is parts of Australia, particularly highly urbanised areas, have the ability to access public transport; however, places more remote will be paying an excessive amount for petrol. You have to wonder for a place with almost 30% of its population living in remote communities largely on welfare, and being desperate for access to transport fuels, what an increase in the price of fuel will do to those industries.
Ross Garnaut also belled the cat on where compensation will be. If you believe our Prime Minister, she says it will all go in tax cuts for low-income earners and subsidies for people on Centrelink or social security benefits. Ross Garnaut says first we need to subsidise the cost of transport fuels - that is a major one. We need to subsidise trade-exposed industries because he recognises jobs will go overseas from this. He says at least 15% of revenue raised has to go to carbon farming initiatives. Also, there has to be a sizeable chunk to subsidise renewable energy industries because, even though we are having a carbon tax on fossil fuel energy industries, the renewables will still need massive amounts of government assistance and the remainder - whatever little is left - can go to low-income earners and social security recipients.
I have outlined a whole range of different areas where the Prime Minister has misled the Australian people on this tax. One thing that is certain is very little detail has come out so far on this. It is a deception in itself that you announce a tax, you have to search for all of the detail from people like Ross Garnaut who is advising the government, and from people like the Australian Greens who are quite happy to bell the cat on a whole range of issues.
It is clear this is probably the most deceptive Prime Minister Australia has had since Gough Whitlam. She is an absolute appalling joke, and the deceit she has visited on the Australian people is unheralded.
I am keen to hear what members of the government have to say. For goodness sake, I hope the minister for Business speaks. Let us hope his Chief of Staff, David Halliday, has done a good job in providing him with plenty of speaking notes. I am also hoping the minister for the Environment might stand up, and likewise, Kieran Phillips has done a good job in providing him with some adequate speaking notes. Goodness me, these guys cannot think for themselves. Let us hope their staff are up to the job of defending the indefensible.
I would like to see the government defend Territorians in particular, although this is an issue bigger than just the Territory - this will affect the whole of Australia. We need to call this for what it is: a massive deceit on the Australian public. We need to call the Prime Minister out, get her to start putting some meat on the bones, because the reality is, whatever type of carbon tax she introduces it is going to hurt the Northern Territory more than any other place in Australia.
The Chief Minister is quite funny saying we went to gas a long time ago and, therefore, will be saved. The reality is, therefore, we will be doomed, because there are very few places we can make cuts to carbon emissions. It is very difficult to cut carbon emissions from the gas industry, so how are we going to grow energy if there are further taxes on carbon emissions?
I hope members of the government support this matter of public importance today, and I look forward to hearing contributions from the ministers …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Are you going to interrupt me, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr TOLLNER: You are a darling. Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, sadly for the member for Fong Lim, we will not be supporting this matter of public importance today. The matter of public importance is the failure of this government to lobby the federal government to stand up for the Territory and its citizens to prevent job destruction in the Territory, export of Territory industry, and the high cost of living which will result from a carbon tax deal; and furthermore, this government’s failure to condemn the Prime Minister.
I have quite a few notes on jobs and business in the Northern Territory. The member for Fong Lim is talking about the carbon tax and jobs, so I will abandon some of my notes that …
A member interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, yes, you have now cost my Chief of Staff a carton of beer, also Kieran Phillips a carton of beer, and there goes another carton of beer.
This debate has been around since the previous federal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and it has been the subject of a great deal of conjecture, not so much on the Labor side, on the Coalition side. Obviously, Malcolm Turnbull believes in climate change, as does a great body of academics and experts. The crux of this MPI is: do you believe in climate change? The member for Fong Lim is on the public record as not believing in climate change. Nice to see the member for Brennan is joining us as a believer in climate change. We have disparity on the other side of the House. The crux of the MPI is: is climate change real? If not, you should not put a carbon tax in place.
Our belief is that human-induced climate change is real. There is a need to take action and leadership ...
Mr Giles: What type of action should be taken?
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Braitling. I will list that, member for Braitling.
We need to take action, we need to reduce our carbon emissions, and that is happening within government in a whole range of areas ...
Mr Giles: Do you drive a car?
Mr KNIGHT: I drive a four-cylinder four-wheel drive, member for Braitling. I believe you drive a six-cylinder car. You need to be looking at your carbon emissions! Government has the green fleet policy and the green buildings policy. The Henderson Labor government has reduced its carbon emissions with a 20% reduction in fleet emissions. Government is looking at a whole range of other areas as well. Within the business area we have ecoBiz, which helps businesses convert to low-emission, low-carbon technology. That not only helps the environment, it helps the bottom line of those businesses because even though our power is the second lowest in the country, any less power we use is less gas generators are using.
That brings me to our energy sources in the Northern Territory; obviously, we are on gas. The majority of Territorians use power from gas turbines, which was not the case when Stokes Hill Power Station moved. One of the things I asked Power and Water when I became minister was why we used Channel Island because having your generation source closer to your population reduces the likelihood of interruption.
It is located, member for Brennan, at Channel Island because it was going to be a coal-fired power station - coal ships were going to offload the coal there. Luckily for us, the gas industry kicked off and we were able to source gas. Now, we have current gas sales agreements in place for 25 years. We will be looking at extending those as the contract moves through.
There is a great deal of conjecture about climate change. Malcolm Turnbull, at the federal level, is a very strong believer and supporter of climate change. Recently, Tony Abbott took the opportunity to talk with Malcolm Turnbull. It was quoted on ABC Online that he asked Malcolm Turnbull to embrace the new Coalition policy, which does not accept climate change, and Malcolm Turnbull refused to do so.
There is a split on that side of the House in so many different ways and for many different reasons. We are supporters and believers in climate change and we have to take leadership.
The member for Fong Lim talked about industry in the Northern Territory being lost. I mentioned today how well our economy is going; how businesses have been successful, how people in the Northern Territory have jobs, and how our retail trade figures are improving quarter upon quarter, which is good for business.
With a climate change policy, industries change, and settings change for taxation in particular industries - industry moves with that. The information technology industry is shifting and society is shifting with it; those industries are moving with it as well. The information technology industry is a classic example of Silicon Valley. A whole industry started almost overnight and changed the way business and society operated.
With a new low-carbon industry, Australian businesses will be first cab off the rank, able to reduce their running costs and get into new areas of the low-carbon industry. We will, hopefully, be world leaders and it is good to see Northern Territory businesses are taking up this challenge. A number of businesses in Darwin have moved to some new and efficient air-conditioning and lighting systems to reduce energy consumption. This is what you will see. There will not be job losses per se; industries will change, the focus will change, and people will change with it.
Programs run by the Department of Business and Employment allow for that. We have a lot of promotion with our October Business Month, with the themes generated from industry. As the focus changes to low-carbon technologies and more energy efficiencies, businesses will be seeking that in October Business Month presentations. The work we do with our upskills programs with businesses will see that focus - coaching of businesses in new areas. Also, the jobs plans - getting school leavers and adults transitioning into other sectors, with the training programs focusing on new industries that are low carbon. We have mechanisms in place to allow for a change in the focus of the industry. The Northern Territory is well positioned to make that happen.
The member for Fong Lim highlighted the Northern Territory government’s stance. I repeat what the Chief Minister said in Question Time today: we do not want to be any worse off with a carbon tax. We have gas. We want to be recognised for our leadership, and this goes back to decisions of previous governments. We want to show that Territorians have shown leadership in this area, and we want credit for having a low-carbon energy source. We want to be given credit for all the savannah burning technologies and work that occurs, because that is one of the biggest emitters of carbon in the Northern Territory. The work happening in northwest Arnhem Land with savannah burning is world-leading. We are very well advanced, but will be looking very closely at the makeup and final construction of a carbon tax. We will be lobbying for credit for gas. We do not want this to be at the expense of the brown coal-fired power stations of the east coast. We are well placed to make that happen, and are under no illusions about it. We will make a very strong stand about any impact. The Prime Minister has alluded to giving some relief to low-income earners and pensioners for any higher living costs incurred. We are aware of what is happening in the Northern Territory and will be taking that, very strongly, to the Prime Minister.
I have alluded to most of the member for Fong Lim’s matter of public importance. We do not support it. The premise is there is no climate change, thus you do not need a carbon tax. We believe there is human-induced climate change. We believe Australia and the Northern Territory needs to show leadership. It is something the world cannot ignore, and you will see the Northern Territory and Australia being world leaders in more efficient use of energy and lower energy operations for industry. Whether you like it or not, we have seen peak oil. Countries that depend on higher cost energy sources will ultimately pay the price for not converting to low-carbon, low-energy industry sources. Australia will be world leading.
Member for Fong Lim, I disagree with your matter of public importance. I respect you have brought it forward and have a view; you are the most vocal and hard-working backbencher on the other side. You are a man of conviction and good for you; however, we will not be supporting this MPI today.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague’s matter of public importance regarding the failure of this government to lobby the federal government in regard to the rights of Territorians and the impact the carbon tax may have. I would like to direct my comment to a part of the MPI - job destruction in the Northern Territory by this Labor government, and the possible export of Territory industry from the Northern Territory. I have mentioned these before, but I would like to get them on the record again because it is important people hear how the government does not really stand up for the mining industry in the Northern Territory.
I previously mentioned Arafura Resources, which has the Nolans Bore project just north of Alice Springs - a rare earth project. It is a scarce commodity and the company is hoping to be in production by 2013. It is 100% owned by Arafura Resources. There will be growth in this commodity as world appetite grows. It is a supply and demand issue but the company is confident it will be able to meet demand on the world scene.
Sadly, the processing operation associated with this project has gone to South Australia. The company wanted to have the processing operation in the Northern Territory, and looked at alternative options regarding where they could place it - whether it is Alice Springs, at site, or Darwin. It always wanted to stay in the Northern Territory but did not get any real help from the Northern Territory government in finding a suitable location around Darwin. As a consequence, it looked further afield and settled on the site in Whyalla. The company was only there for a short time before the South Australian government gave it major project status. That loss to the Territory is a project worth $750m, possibly up to a $1bn, with 200 to 300 direct jobs gone from the Northern Territory, and possibly 200 to 300 indirect jobs, plus all the service and supply that go with the associated operation. It was, and is, a lost opportunity.
Another example of lack of support of the mining industry by this government is the HNC (Australia) Resources potential project called Area 55. Potentially, there is a four-year mine life. It is a polymetallic oxide ore project. In January 2010, it was referred to the Commonwealth under a controlled action because of threatened species. Under the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, it was to be assessed with a full EIS. That is okay; the company has no issue with that. However, guidelines drawn up for the company to undertake the environmental impact assessment were unbelievably tough. The company has no issue with a rigorous, robust assessment, but what was put into the guidelines - which was a precursor to the EIS - made it such that the company would never be able to comply with environmental management and performance.
One the things in the guidelines, for example, was negligible impact on the environment. We are talking about an open cut mine. I have gone through the documents and spoken with the company. Wanting the project to have a negligible impact was mentioned 37 times. That is just not possible. We are talking about a four-year mine life; a project that would have employed many people bringing economic opportunities to the town of Batchelor.
I will give a comparison. The guideline documents given for Area 55, as it is called, were 55 pages long. The same guideline document for the INPEX project was 22 pages. That is not very balanced. The lack of support given to this company and the project from not only the government, but the mines minister in particular, is dismal.
Another thing is the government wanted the company to investigate - and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your town of Nhulunbuy, will find this interesting - bringing red mud from the Alcan project to neutralise the acid. It wanted the company to investigate bringing the red mud, either by road or sea, to Darwin. When the company pointed out to the government there were some fairly serious environmental issues associated with this, the government, through NRETAS, basically shrugged its shoulders.
The government talks about the Chinese strategy. The HNC project is a significant project in the Northern Territory with Chinese investment. The government talks about $120m in investment from Chinese operations and companies; $100m of that is invested in this project at Batchelor, so it is shooting itself in the foot when talking about the Chinese strategy.
Another area of lack of support this government has shown towards projects and potential businesses associated with the mining industry is the ‘faded lily recycling project’. Six months ago, a large mining company wanted 30 road train loads of recycled product delivered from Darwin to its site. The project was about recycling waste product off a mine site near Pine Creek to possibly go into construction material for roads, or concrete production. The company had discussions with the Resources department as to whether the product would be geo-chemically stable. Every time it went to the department, it took month upon month to receive replies.
The department recommended the company get some Australian standard testing done to see if the rock was acid mine drainage potential. The company did that and the department said: ‘No, that is not good enough’. The company questioned why it was asked to get tests done, which passed the Australian standards and guidelines. Another month passed and this small company was desperately running low on funding and still pushing the Department of Resources for approval to be granted so it could recycle this product and, sadly, no response was forthcoming.
This is not new in the Territory. People from the Top End would be familiar with the product called rooster red rock, which comes off the old Rustler’s Roost mine site. Also, pebble rock has been recycled off the old Woodcutters mine site. No one would want unsuitable material removed from a mine site, but the government has not helped this small business and, as a consequence, this business has ceased operation and put off six to 10 employees.
The other one is lost opportunity and lack of support, and I have mentioned this before. We have talked about Cameco Exploration Australia, which has a major exploration office in Darwin employing upwards of 25 permanent employees. This company has relocated its office to Western Australia for corporate reasons. The government knew about this for over 12 months, yet did not offer any incentives. It did not offer encouragement, it did not find out why the company wanted to relocate to Perth. The government allowed 22 to 25 permanent employees to leave the Territory, shut shop and take all that investment opportunity to Western Australia where, obviously, it was welcomed with open arms by the government as well as local business. Lost opportunity, lack of support and lacklustre is how this government deals with the mining industry, despite the hype and talk we sometimes receive.
In regard to the specific nature of this matter of public importance my colleague has brought before us, many questions are unanswered by this government. We do not know the economic impact this carbon tax will have on the mining industry. What is its impact on electricity generation, on oil and gas, and all the proposed new projects? Yes, the Commonwealth has indicated agriculture will not be included, but for how long?
We do not know if fuel is to be included in this regime. If it is, the increase in input cost could be dramatic on industries in the Northern Territory such as those that are high fuel users; for example, the transport industry, the cattle industry, and the commercial fishing industry. I do not see any comment, documentation, or detail from the Northern Territory government as to the potential impact on those businesses.
Whilst it is not included in the scheme, one of the biggest issues in the Northern Territory is emissions from bushfires - 35% of our emissions. I could not get a figure for Australia; however, the Northern Territory is the highest emitter from bushfires or wildfires. Again, I hear no comment from the government as to any possible negotiations or discussions it could have with the Commonwealth government to encourage further abatement schemes as we have in West Arnhem.
Other comparisons - 27% of our emissions come from static energy compared to 50% for Australia; 21% agriculture in the Northern Territory and only 18% in Australia. That is why it is important for the Northern Territory government to ensure agriculture is not included in this scheme. Also, 10% transport for the Northern Territory compared to 14% for Australia. Our land use is 3% low compared to Australia, which is 11%. However, there are still many unanswered questions as to what the Northern Territory government is doing to protect industries and jobs in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this matter of public importance is important and I urge the government to consider how it can assist industries, and to give full and frank details of the impact on industry across the Northern Territory, particularly the mining, oil and gas, and primary industries.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this very important matter of public importance. It is surprising that for such a topical issue government only had one speaker. It is surprising government is not even in the Chamber, except for the Leader of Government Business ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member well knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in this House.
Mr GILES: I did not talk about any member.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business is quite correct, member for Braitling. You made reference to the presence or absence of members and that is in breach of standing orders. If you would withdraw that, please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr GILES: I find it surprising that members of government are absent from the debate on this topic. They should be participating ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Clearly, the member for Braitling was not referring to the absence or otherwise of members in the Chamber. He was talking about being absent from the debate, which is exactly what they are.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I ask you to withdraw as well. It is open to interpretation and I am asking you to rephrase, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Government is absent from this debate; it is not interested in it. Government had only one speaker, and it looks like only having one speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. You can resume your seat. I ask you to refrain from any reference to absence, in its most literal sense or otherwise, thank you.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for Daly for participating in this debate where his colleagues did not. It is good to see him contributing. It is disappointing his other 11 colleagues have not spoken on this because it is the greatest risk to the Northern Territory’s economy we face into the future. During Question Time today, the Leader of the Opposition asked about GST revenue and a future carve-up by the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan. However, this whole carbon tax debacle threatens the economy of the Northern Territory and the lifestyle of Territorians.
The carbon tax is nothing but a tax. This great, big new tax the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is putting forward - the same tax she promised before the federal election would not occur - is the result of a marriage of convenience with The Greens Leader, Bob Brown. This great, big new tax will add at least 6.5 per litre to the cost of filling a car. For a 100-litre car, you do the sums. It will drive up power bills by $300 a year.
There is much debate about the cost of housing in the Northern Territory. This new carbon tax will add $6420 to the price of a new home, and we are estimating that carbon tax will come at $26 per tonne. This is the biggest threat to the Northern Territory economy; we already have high petrol prices, high cost of living expenses and we know the impact this will have on the transport section. My colleague, the shadow minister for Transport, will talk more on transport costs, particularly in rural and remote Northern Territory, where it will have an even bigger impact.
Look at the amount of carbon dioxide produced in burning fuels. By burning one litre of petrol, 2.3 kg of carbon emissions is produced; 2.68 kg of carbon emissions for every litre of diesel; 1.93 kg for a cube of natural gas; and 1.396 kg for a kilogram of coal. Do the sums - 6.5 per litre increase for petrol; 7 for diesel; 5 for natural gas; and 3.6 for coal. The government is focusing on coal, but that is the lower amount.
This is a great, big new tax for the Northern Territory, which will drive inflationary pressures. It is tantamount to economic vandalism in the Northern Territory.
We often talk in this Chamber about developing economies in the region and how it is important to develop industry. This carbon tax will slow development of industry in the Northern Territory, and slow development of industry on Indigenous land. This carbon tax will be the wild rivers of the Northern Territory. I repeat that: this carbon tax will be the wild rivers legislation of the Northern Territory. It will prohibit development of the Northern Territory. Many people are saying having this carbon tax will be great for Indigenous Territorians; the carbon tax will put the handbrake on development in the bush. It is not designed to reduce emissions; this is a wealth redistribution tax. This is taking money from the big companies which produce the emissions, using that wealth, and redistributing to individuals. That is what it is about. It is in stark contrast to the federal opposition’s direct action plan on addressing the climate.
We are not climate change deniers. This side of the Chamber recognises there is change in the climate all the time. How much is human-induced is debated on a regular basis. If we look at Tony Abbott’s direct action plan we see tangible investments which will limit the amount of emissions in Australia. Part of the Coalition’s direct action plan includes: capturing carbon in soil; planting trees – a simple thing such as planting trees; cleaning up coal-fired power stations; cleaning up gas from coal mines; making buildings more energy efficient; and a $10.5bn fund established by 2020 to commence buy-back of greenhouse pollution. This is about direct and real action by the Coalition, not about raising hundreds of millions of dollars through taxes for a redistribution model on the carbon tax.
The federal government, in seeking to raise billions and billions of dollars through this tax, will not make one iota of difference in reducing emissions. All it will do is tax industry development in the Northern Territory to extinction.
I would like ministers from the other side of the Chamber to advise us of the impact in the Northern Territory. We know the government’s approach to industry development. We have seen Arafura Resources remove itself from the Northern Territory to Whyalla - a $780m project gone. We have heard concerns about Dow Chemical; we hear about Magellan. I am keen for the government to talk about INPEX and what the carbon tax means for INPEX.
This is economic vandalism and terrorism on the Northern Territory. We will see negative development in the Northern Territory as a result of this carbon tax. We should be investing in the Northern Territory, investing in the bush, developing industry and creating jobs. Let the government talk about the price of clinker. What is going to happen with clinker and the production of cement? What is going to happen to the limestone plant at Mataranka? This will directly affect those jobs. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, spoke about the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of this carbon tax. Different reports from different industries give numbers of jobs to be lost.
We have not had the debate about how bad Australia is as an emitter. We are not on the world stage as an emitter. Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, on 8 March 2011 on ABC said:
- The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.
That is completely wrong. According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than those of the United States of America on a per capita basis. It goes on:
- The per capita emissions of Australia and the United States are fairly comparable to other resource rich countries such as Canada which is 17.91 tonnes, and well below those of other developed and developing countries including Luxemburg, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. In absolute terms, Australia’s carbon emissions are dwarfed by those of other countries such as China who has 6.538 million tonnes and the United States with 6.09 million tonnes, Russia with 1.57 million tonnes, India with 1.6 million tonnes, Japan with 1.3 million tonnes, Germany with 841 million tonnes, Canada with 590 million tonnes …
The list goes on.
The deception by Labor is everywhere. Here is another one from Julia Gillard on Q&A on the ABC on 14 March 2011:
- China is closing down a dirty, coal-fired power generation facility at the rate of one every one to two weeks, putting up a wind turbine at the rate of one every hour, and has set a target by 2020 of reducing carbon pollution by 40 to 45% per unit of gross domestic product.
It is interesting to see they are closing dirty coal-fired power stations and replacing them - not just closing them down and leaving; replacing them with larger, economical, environmentally friendly and efficient plants. To say they are closing dirty stations - well, you have to tell the whole story. They are not just closing stations down; they are putting in place cleaner coal-burning stations.
It is interesting to look at China’s CO2 emissions. Not many people would know China’s offer in the Copenhagen discussions would have seen China’s emissions rise by 496% by 2020 based on 1990 levels. Here is tiny Australia, with umpteenth global emissions, and we are having a massive debate about a carbon tax which is going to completely destroy our economy, particularly in the Northern Territory.
I cannot believe the government has been absent from the debate on this, apart from the minister for Business, who did not touch on anything. This is of significant interest to the Northern Territory. A tax does not protect the environment; a tax does not reduce emissions. This is a tax on every single Australian in a wealth distribution model so Labor can start pork-barrelling electorates at the next election. That is what it is about. This is not setting up anything to address emissions in Australia, it is about raising revenue.
Warren Truss, Leader of the Nationals, had 21 questions for Kevin Rudd on Labor’s CPRS tax. I have gone through the list and found 16 or 17 that are still reflective of Julia Gillard’s carbon tax. I will read through those before my time runs out:
- How many jobs will be lost in regional Australia under Labor’s carbon tax? What impact will the closure of mines under Labor’s CPRS have on the economy of regional communities? Will Kevin Rudd explain what will be the impact of the CPRS on inflation as prices and household costs increases? How much more will the working family have to pay for electricity, groceries and transport after Labor’s CPRS is introduced? How much more will pensioners and self-funded retirees pay for electricity, groceries and transport under Labor’s CPRS tax? How much more will it cost to use a taxi or an electric train because of Labor’s CPRS?
How many industries will leave Australia because of the extra cost to business for electricity, fuel and freight under Labor’s CPRS tax? Why cannot Australian farmers claim the same credits for their carbon abatement activities as their competitors in other countries? If low-income people, wage …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired. Member for Sanderson.
Mr GILES:
- … compensation for the higher cost of living under the CPRS, why will they reduce their carbon emissions?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Braitling, it is the member for Sanderson’s call.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the MPI on carbon tax. In the Chamber today, the Chief Minister talked about climate effect, climate change, and climate deniers. This MPI is about a carbon tax - we are not here to debate climate change. The Chief Minister said it should not cost more for families in the NT to have a carbon tax. Unfortunately, the realities of the proposed carbon tax will mean more cost for Territory families.
In fact, the calculations are running at about 6.5 per litre for fuel if a carbon tax is about $26. That is an oil industry number, and it calculates for every $10 of carbon price the impact on the retail price of fuel will be 2.5. Even Professor Ross Garnaut agrees. He told the National Press Club in 2008 that the impact of a $20 carbon price would be 0.5 per litre.
The impact from a carbon tax will have the biggest effect in the Territory because we are reliant on transport of all types. The federal government has not yet formally signalled that transport will be included in its carbon pricing arrangements; however, it seems inevitable it will be included - a major concern for Territory families. Transport is one of our major sources of emissions, and the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee said it wanted it included, and it is believed The Greens will agree.
The policy is not only to include transport and for it to be taxed, the government wants to end the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, which is due to be extended to cover most businesses from 1 July this year, where there are big concessions on excise rates. When you look at the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme and the flowchart here, a number of industries and businesses can receive a 38.143 per litre reduction in the cost of fuel. Those industries are: agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining, marine transport, rail transport, nursing and medical, generation of electricity, and non-fuel use.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 38.143 per litre is a substantial amount of money, and if this goes as a result of The Greens’ pressure on the Labor government in Canberra, that will affect Territory families.
Most of us can see how disastrous that will be for all Australians, particularly Territorians. If transport is included, and if it goes hand-in-hand with The Greens’ call for an end to the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, even with a 5 per litre for $10 of carbon price, the impact on the Northern Territory is going to be dramatic. Not only would it increase fuel prices at the bowsers, it will cascade through our economy. Everything that moves by road, rail, air, or coastal shipping will be more expensive and, for the Territory, that is just about everything. Because goods will reach us after a longer journey than is the case for most Australians, the price impact will be huge and will compound our historical problem of paying considerably more for our goods than the Australian average.
I refer to the Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch policy platform document where, during the 2008 election campaign, Labor promised to achieve a reduction in the cost of energy for the Territory. Since that promise was made, the price of electricity has increased by almost 25% over the past two years. The price of water has increased by 40 and will increase next financial year by 20%. That is already having an impact on Territory families.
Look at things like the cattle industry, the mining industry, the costs of transporting cattle and other goods from the Territory to its ports. Nearly every part of tourism sees people flown or driven to places. Even the emerging Aboriginal tourism industry will be hard hit. The cost of living - everything around the Territory, road, rail, sea or air - will increase.
The government mutters about relief measures but has not been specific. Under the old Rudd plan the idea was to provide 10% price impact relief for the first three years. After that, all bets were off. What has been suggested this time, even from Professor Garnaut, is a one-off reduction in fuel excise and then as Mr Oakeshott would say: ‘Let the market rip’.
The attitude of the Independents is one of the most unsettling aspects. The position of The Greens, which will hold the balance of power in the Senate from July this year, is clear and deadly. Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor are no better. Mr Oakeshott has consistently said in parliament he wants to let the market rip and let the signs fly. Mr Windsor had a bill in parliament in 2008 for a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, which is way ahead of the bipartisan support of the 5% target. Thus, Labor could be led by the nose by The Greens in the Senate and the Independents in the House - a very scary thought.
Another impact for the Territory will be power prices. Many in our major population centres are reliant on air-conditioning, and every new house - when eventually built - has air-conditioning. It is certainly a requirement. As opposed to heating in southern homes, we have air-conditioners, heavy users of electricity not only for domestic use, but for every office and shop. Estimates are the average household would have a $300 a year power increase if the carbon price is $26, a number Professor Garnaut has recommended.
As with the cascading impact of the fuel price, the same is true of the increases in power prices. Think of supermarket cold rooms, abattoirs - everything that uses refrigeration to keep food cold and transport it to the Territory. Even services will be hit. If the office air-conditioning bill increases, so will the advice to help you ease the impact. Energy-intensive manufacturing will face the same problem.
The tragedy is Labor and The Greens think that forcing Australians to emit less greenhouse gas by making it more expensive will work. It appears perhaps it does not. The starkest example comes from the very easy debunking of the claim by Prime Minister Gillard and Mr Garnaut that China’s efforts to reduce carbon intensity of its economy is something we need to match. Emissions in China, already the world’s biggest emitter, will virtually double between the 2005 figure of around five billion tonnes to 10 billion tonnes in 2020. Whatever Australia does will not make a huge impact. If we want to reduce global carbon emission at all, it might slow the growth of emissions in a totally irrelevant amount.
This is a world problem – Australia is a tiny emitter. The big emitters - China, India, the US and Europe - need to lead the way. For Australia to lead the way and put serious strain on its economy while competitors do nothing does not seem fair on Australians, business people, and especially the Territorians the Chief Minister says should not be harmed by increases in cost.
The member for Daly inferred there is no climate change. The climate changes all the time; we all know that. He believes we will be world leaders in more efficient use of energy, there are no job losses, and new programs the Department of Business and Employment run will focus on the changes for this new industry. He believes that is what business wants. However, with the carbon tax an enormous amount of retraining will be required. We have not heard talk on increased trade schools, increased positions at CDU, research grants, engineering scholarships, architectural scholarships and other incentives needed if government wants to introduce a new carbon tax.
The member for Daly said brown coal-fired power stations need to be cleaned up - we need to get rid of those. Two years ago I was fortunate to visit the Bayswater Power Station in New South Wales, then controlled by a Labor government. The people running it quite openly said they were not going anywhere for 35 years. It produces 42% to 44% of New South Wales’ power requirements, and they said there was nothing in the pipeline available to replace them or that much power in the next 35 years. That came from people running the organisation.
Looking at the cost to the community, and the fact the Chief Minister says this should not cost more for Territory families - the few things I have put together in this short period of time indicates if this carbon tax is introduced by the federal government it is going to be a disaster for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will leave my contribution with a quote from the Prime Minister where she said there would never be a carbon tax while she was leader. She has done a complete backflip. What do we have? A carbon tax.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I come to this debate with an average understanding of what is happening, which is one of the issues regarding this carbon tax the federal government has not sold to people.
I will give two examples where our government has to show industries will not be adversely affected by changes caused by a carbon tax. We have, for instance, Mataranka lime, an important industry which supplies lime for Ranger Uranium. The National Lime Association of Australia Green Paper on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme tells you common to all lime is a generation of high temperature - 800C in the kiln requiring energy intensive use of fossil fuels releasing 33% greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of lime: calcination of the limestone in the kiln where the calcium and magnesium carbonate are converted to oxides, releasing 62% of greenhouse gas emissions per tonnes of lime.
The paper says:
- Lime production in Australia includes highly technical and sophisticated processes adopting world class technology, placing high demands upon service industries, and offering employment in a wide range of specialised skills for operators and professionals. Available resources in Australia lead to manufacturing of lime being suited to the economy. Loss of lime manufacturing to off shore production would result in carbon leakage and an increase in global GHG.
That statement hits the nail on the head, and that is the concern. If a carbon tax means the price of lime increases to a point where it is cheaper for Ranger Uranium to import it from China - China is one the biggest producers of lime in the world - what happens is (1) it is more than likely we lose jobs, and (2) by getting it from China, which is probably far less efficient at producing lime and reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted, from a global point of view, it means we have increased pollution in the environment.
A note at the end of this document talks about an emissions trading scheme, but a point has been made:
- The use of a price cap to ensure an initial low carbon cost to Australia is an important safety measure, until there is a global commitment to a cost of carbon.
That area needs to be looked at. Australia goes off, whether half-cocked or not, saying we will introduce a carbon tax and, if the rest of world does not, we are sitting there like a shag on a rock. The lime association stated it clearly: you have to have global commitment to a cost of carbon, otherwise we are literally blowing in the wind. I would hate to see this country lose jobs and buy lime from overseas because we decided it was a good idea - hand on the heart - good for the environment. If no one else goes with us, what is the point? We need to look at that.
Another area close to my heart is an industry in the Northern Territory, and you could apply it to others - vegetables. You might say: ‘Huh, vegetables’. We grow vegetables in Alice Springs, quite a lot in Katherine, and in Darwin. You could apply some of what I will say to the agricultural industry as well. The government initially said the carbon tax would not apply to the agricultural industry. However, what parts of it do apply? That it is the difficult question.
I found this Vegetable Industry Carbon Footprint Scoping Study which was done for the industry. It is interesting to go through because you have to ask yourself: what is required to produce vegetables? Well, you need fertiliser. What is the cost of fertiliser production? You can put some energy uses on that. Fertiliser is a fundamental requirement for most vegetable production in Australia. Organic might be okay to some extent; however, even that will have a carbon emission. So, fertiliser production. This document tells how much energy use you could associate for each crop when you put fertiliser on.
Look at agrochemical production; for instance, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators. To produce them requires a considerable amount of energy and most are based on oil. There is another energy requirement. Will farmers be taxed on that? Do not forget those chemicals have to be moved around using diesel.
Electricity generation: whether you produce electricity yourself - which would probably be by diesel, although you may use some renewable generation – the reality is you are not going to weld a couple of fence posts using solar or wind; you are going to need diesel. If you are going to have electricity through the mains, you have no control over how that electricity is produced. If it comes from the Bayswater Power Station, you will pay extra because Bayswater Power Station will have a carbon tax.
If you irrigate your crop it will require pumping. The pumping will require either electricity or diesel. Will that attract a carbon tax? Again, those areas need to be looked at. If you harvest your crop, you will buy a tractor - you are going to buy machinery to harvest your crop. Will the cost of that equipment be affected by a carbon tax? You will need to store the product; if you have cool rooms which require electricity, where does electricity come from? Will that be taxed as part of this scheme?
You will have to package goods. What will the cost be? Most packaging plants will be run on electricity. Will you be paying extra for the cost of your packaging? You also have basic transport. You may not be included in basic transport involved in the harvesting of vegetables, but there is a truck that will bring your fertiliser, chemicals and cartons which will be run on diesel and will be paying a carbon tax, and a truck will come to take your goods to market, and it will be paying a carbon tax. There are also manufacturing products, so if you buy boxes to put lettuces in from a company in Brisbane, they will have a carbon tax because they will be produced using electricity, which will more than likely come from a carbon source and, therefore, pay a carbon tax.
You want to build a shed - that is fine. You need roofing iron, timber, and cement. Cement is one of the highest energy products in the world - all will be taxed for the amount of emissions to produce those products. Will a farmer be taxed on the building materials required for the shed? How many of those will have a carbon tax? If most do, regardless of whether the direct costs - harvesting the crop - are not taxed, there are so many outside influences you would have to say the cost of vegetables would go up.
There is the manufacturing of machinery, transport inputs - and on it goes on. There are emissions from the soil. When you use nitrogen fertiliser, you get nitrous oxide emissions from the soil. You have to remember greenhouse gases are not just carbon dioxide - other gases will cause emissions.
I have picked out two industries which may not be very big in the Northern Territory; however, we rely on these industries as part of our small economy, and we want them to keep going. It is a requirement of this government to ask what it would cost. What are the chances of us losing the Mataranka lime facility? Will a carbon tax mean we drive it offshore? The same with the vegetable industry. If vegetables become so expensive, are we going to import them from countries where they do not have a carbon tax and operate on cheap labour? There is no requirement in some countries to check overuse of chemicals in the production of products, especially pesticides. How much carbon do they emit in the production of vegetables? Much more work has to be done by the federal government before it introduces a carbon tax to show us we will not be worse off as a country, or as a Territory, with the introduction of this tax.
Sometimes we live in cuckoo land. People talk about the carbon tax and I ask: ‘What is the alternative to fuel for cars?’ We do not have an alternative. We will still be using diesel and petrol. Will there be a carbon tax on that because we have no alternative fuel in the short term. People might say electric. Electric is okay for a car; however, carbon emissions occur from the production of electricity so it does not make any difference to carbon emissions.
The Chief Minister said gas is clean. I remember your previous Chief Minister saying the Northern Territory produces a green, clean form of energy called gas. Check on the carbon emissions from the LNG plant at Wickham Point. Check on the amount of gas burnt off when you use gas. It is not clean; it is less dirty. It is a matter of how you explain something. It is less dirty is probably the best way.
Using gas for vehicles, for industry and for electricity still produces carbon. Our problem today is we do not have a substitute for large base power. Unfortunately, the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and all the problems associated with the earthquake and tsunami, have probably put the nuclear energy debate back a way. However, that will not be the end of the debate because no one has said: ‘If we get rid of coal, what is there to produce base power? What is there to produce aluminium?’. Aluminium is one of the highest energy materials we produce. Cement is one of the highest energy producers and you will not make that out of wind, you will not make it out of solar. Not only because sometimes the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but the mammoth amount of batteries you need to store the power to produce it would be unbelievable.
That does not mean they do not have a part to play. However, if people are fair dinkum about getting rid of gas and coal as a source of energy, they have to look elsewhere. The debate about nuclear will happen when things have settled down and there has been discussion as to why the Japanese nuclear power station failed.
When Henry Ford built a car and the wheel fell off, we did not stop building the T-Model Ford. We said we had better fix that because people might die. As with any industry, one moves on when there is tragedy or mistakes and improves it.
I hope out of this issue with the nuclear power plants in Japan we look at the safety requirements of power plants to see whether new technologies could make them safer. We should not say it will not happen. We need to look at the safety issues and what alternatives there are. If someone can give alternatives to cement production, how to produce aluminium without a major source of electricity like coal, oil, gas, nuclear or hydroelectricity, please let me know.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth is it does not matter whether you believe in climate change or not, this tax will not make one iota of difference. In fact, even if Australia was able to stop its carbon emissions completely, it would be like a scratch on the backside of a pig. That is about as much difference as it would make ...
A member: A what? Scratch a what?
Mr CHANDLER: Back of a pig.
A member: How big is the pig?
Mr CHANDLER: A big pig. It is a big pig, a Central Australian pig.
The Prime Minister announced her government would introduce legislation to implement a carbon price, and we know that is a carbon tax.
Let us stop for a moment and examine climate change. First, do I believe in climate change? I have said time and time again I believe in climate change. Scientists can tell you through carbon dating and through core samples the climate has changed and will continue to change. How much of that is caused by mankind? Well, the jury is still out on that because for every bit of scientific evidence to prove one thing, you can prove the other side of the argument.
From books I have read, from research I have undertaken, it has been one of the most complicated journeys I have been on. A book titled The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climate Change and the Corruption of Science was a wonderful insight into one opinion regarding climate change. It pointed out many years ago we had a spike in a number of things around the world – rainfall, temperature and so forth. It showed our climate, at that time, was changing; however, it returned to normal and we went through some cooler years.
The climate is changing. Does human habitation of this planet have any effect on the planet? Damn right, it does! That is where we, as a parliament, and governments around Australia and the world, need to have strong regulations in place to ensure we do the right thing by our environment; that people involved in producing energy do everything possible to mitigate damage to the planet; and that we have due process
It is important to know what this carbon tax - I will not say proposed because we know there is a deal with The Greens - the watermelon party; green on the outside, red on the inside. The deal Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, has entered into is remarkable. I do not care whether you are a conservative voter or a Labor supporter. Everyone would agree a strong government needs to make decisions; a strong government needs to do what it considers is right. The situation in this country today is shocking, similar to the Northern Territory, where we need strong negotiation with Independents to let a government do what it should do: make decisions.
It is important people in the Northern Territory know what this carbon tax covers, and the first is stationary energy - things like power stations. Do we have power stations in the Northern Territory? You are damned right, we do. It will have an effect on them. The transport sector, road, rail and air: how many things in the Northern Territory are flown in or brought in by rail or road? This tax will have an impact on those services which will be passed on to the consumer. It will cover industrial processes like manufacturing and processing; emissions from non-legacy waste; for example, waste disposal facilities - fugitive emissions.
Although the Prime Minister has said farming emissions will not be included, will costs rise for our farming sector? You are damned right, because it still uses energy, it still requires transport. It will buy fuel regardless of whether it is grain farming or pastoralists or horticulturalists - any business that creates a living off the land will be affected by this tax.
If science proved this would make a difference, we would all agree. However, we cannot do that because it is wrong. This is a money grab. This Labor government has borrowed so much money recently it needs ways to pay it back. It has to start paying the mortgage, and the mortgage on this country is higher than it has ever been. The only way it can raise funds is through more taxes and, this tax, hidden in an emotional issue like climate change, is about as low as you can go. It is like stealing a dummy from a baby.
This tax will not stop the climate from changing. It is all about a deal between Labor and The Greens. Science is still out because for everything I have read suggesting the climate is changing due to the impact humans have on this planet, I have found equally compelling evidence to demonstrate it has nothing to do with it. When you see the emissions from volcanoes and other natural events which occur each day, you wonder how that scratch on the bum of a pig is going to make any difference whatsoever ...
A member interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: I will stop picking on pigs, I am sorry. Do humans impact on our planet? They do, absolutely. In some books I have read, humans are like a virus on the planet, overtaking every part of it. However, over the years we have learnt lessons.
I have used this argument time and time again. When I first came to the Northern Territory in the 1980s, I flew here in a Boeing 727, JT9 engines, which were pretty thirsty. Many tonnes of fuel were used to fly that 727 to Darwin. Today, engines are becoming more efficient and, to bring the same number of people to the Northern Territory on an aircraft today will use far less fuel. Aircraft flying around the world use far less fuel today than in the 1970s and 1980s. The old Boeing 707, with its jet engines smoking out the back, is replaced today by larger aircraft, far more efficient engines, and more people can be transported for far less fuel.
The lesson in that is, as we evolve as a nation and as humans, we use smarter technology. We get smarter, our engines are getting more efficient and we are finding better ways to do things. And, yes, renewables are a part of that journey.
If the government was absolutely fair dinkum about this tax, every last cent would be going into renewable energy sources, not paying it back to other people. I struggle with that argument. I can understand by introducing a tax you may change someone’s habits. For instance, if electricity rose dramatically people would be forced to use less electricity. However, by giving money back to people so their habits do not change and they use as much electricity as before, how does that change or reduce the carbon dioxide going into our atmosphere? It does not.
In this country, and around the world, we should support renewable initiatives. They are part of this journey. We should also be looking at new technology. We should be looking at ways to burn the fossil fuels in this country in better ways. There is technology which burns coal at higher temperatures so emissions are less. That is the type of technology Australia should be looking at if we want to reduce our emissions.
My worry about this tax, and any future trading scheme, is if there is money in it people will make money out of it. Humans will find ways to undermine, manipulate, or rip off the system - guaranteed. However, there is a real danger in trading air because what will be next - oxygen? This new tax is all about money and nothing about saving our planet, I cannot stress that enough.
If I was convinced this would have a positive effect, I would be the first to jump on. I care about the environment. As a father, I care about the future we leave for our children. We need to do the right thing by our environment, but we need to be practical because it can make a difference. If that means changing a light bulb, or using a more efficient car, it makes sense. If we spend money on technology, if we invest in renewables, over time, that will make a difference.
We are evolving; we are getting smarter. Over 20 or 30 years we have become better in what we are doing. That journey will continue. We will get better, we will get smarter - we have to get smarter. However, if you think this tax the government intends to introduce - which will impact severely on the lifestyle and livelihood of every single Australian - is good you need to wake up to yourself because it is idiotic.
This is a tax and nothing more. It has nothing to do with saving our planet; it is about paying the mortgage. How much will be syphoned off by a new government department in administration fees? This will fund a completely new department.
How much of this tax is going to make a difference? I say very little. We should be looking at renewables like solar, geothermal, new innovations in aircraft, cars, trucks, ships and trains, air-conditioning units, motors, things like heat pumps, hot water systems, and finding a better way to burn coal and better ways to generate electricity. There are answers, but they can only be found through funding and investment, and governments need to fund investment in renewables to reduce our carbon footprint on the world. This tax will not do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, people need to know this tax is on stationary energy. It is going to affect the transport sector and industrial processes. It is going to affect every mum, dad and child living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, or any other state in this country. We cannot do this alone, and I have to mention the pig again because this tax will have no effect whatsoever on the climate, just like the scratch on the backside of a pig. If it did, I would be first on board.
I want to protect our environment, but that can only be done through strength of regulation, strength of process, and allowing due process to occur. This is a tax and nothing more.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank the many people who have contributed to making the fifth regional parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs a success.
On behalf of all members of parliament, I thank everyone who visited our parliament this week, from the students who attended as part of the parliamentary education program to the busy Central Australians who took the time from their work day to view the proceedings. To have the Chamber gallery so full each day confirms the interest the Alice Springs community has in its parliament, and the importance of ensuring as many Territorians as possible have the opportunity to see their members representing them.
It was my pleasure to host a welcome reception with the Chief Minister on Monday before the sittings, and also to meet and talk to many Centralians. I particularly thank His Honour, the Administrator, Tom Pauling AO QC and Mrs Tessa Pauling, for attending the opening ceremony and the function on Monday night. I also thank the Deputy of the Administrator, Dr Pat Miller AO, for her welcome to country as an Arrernte traditional owner. I thank His Worship, the Mayor, Mr Damien Ryan, who has been here for almost every session of the parliament over the last three days. I am not sure these sittings were intriguing and inspiring; however, I look forward to other members’ comments on that.
I thank the Alice Springs Town Council Band for serenading us as our guests entered the convention centre, and I thank Ms Liese Gordon for organising this. Thanks to Ms Julie McEllen, Ms Glenda Ross and Ms Wendy Pierson of the We R 1 Choir for their performance of the National Anthem. The performance from Drum Atweme, made up of students from Yipirinya School, was fantastic, and I thank Principal Ken Langford-Smith and the group leader and mentor, Mr Peter Lowson, for making this possible, especially as it was a school day.
I congratulate and thank all the schools that entered the Legislative Assembly Central Australian primary and middle schools art competition themed 2011 - 100 Years of Being a Territory. I particularly congratulate Acacia Hill School and Braitling Primary School students who shared first prize, winning $2000 each for their school. I know that money was well received and will be well spent in those schools. Ross Park Primary School students were awarded $500 as runner up and, following the display of artworks at the Yeperenye Shopping Centre, the people’s choice prize of $500 has been awarded to the Gillen Primary School. I extend my congratulations to the winning schools and all those who entered. I thank Ms Nicole Walsh from the Yeperenye Shopping Centre for her coordination of the exhibition and works.
The Parliamentary Education staff provided educational programs for over 600 Central Australian students over the last three days, and there was also a program leading up to that, so they have been working very hard. In particular, I thank Ms Caroline Cavanagh, Mrs Jan Sporn and Ms Karen Parker for the hard work they put into those educational programs.
I acknowledge the volunteers assisting this week with the Parliamentary Education program: Judy Cotton, Darren Pittaway, Sharyn Elkin, Grant Butler, Allan Murray, Geoff Sloan, Annette Hill, Kellie Clear, Samantha Disbray and Anne Scherer. In particular, I thank Tracy Guerin from the department of Education who assisted in organising the volunteers.
It would be remiss of me not to thank the staff of the Alice Springs Convention Centre, in particular Ms Christine Clissold, for their resourcefulness, hospitality and assistance in ensuring members and staff have been well looked after.
My sincere thanks to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk for the organisation of these sittings. It is a significant project and requires considerable planning and organisation on their behalf. It particularly requires very good humour throughout the process - which is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.
Some people especially involved in organising the sittings are members of the staff in the Building Services area: Robert Donovan, Stephen Castillon and Joanne Burgess. They have been working for about six months to get the sittings together. Their task continues tonight with the pack-up of the Chamber. I encourage members not to leave too much rubbish around because they will be taking down the whole Chamber tonight. If you feel like you want to help, you could put in an hour or so to help the staff.
I particularly offer my condolences to Robert and his wife, Marie, who was here earlier in the week, who very sadly had to leave Alice Springs today following the death of Robert’s mother-in-law. I am sure all members join with me in extending our condolences and best wishes to their family.
The Table Office staff continue to help us to a very high standard. I appreciate the efforts of Graham Gadd, Annette Brown and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, Steve Stokes. Some people we have not seen this week are Hansard. Helen Allmich and her staff have been beavering away in Darwin and have very remarkably provided excellent Hansard records for us. It must be even more difficult doing it from afar. At least here you can ask a member what on earth they might have been saying; however, from Darwin you do not have that luxury.
I thank the Statehood staff for the displays they put together: Dennis Meehan, Nora Kempster and Matt James for their enthusiasm.
The information desk has been a hive of activity and I thank Legislative Assembly staff who manned the desk offering helpful advice and assistance to all: Russell Keith, Robyn Smith, Nhi Tran, and especially Jane Gunner who does so much behind the scenes to ensure the procedural aspects of the sittings go well.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my staff, Amy Robinson and Vishal Mohan Ram, who I know supported all members and ensured they had dinner on time. Thank you very much to those staff.
Our IT needs have been quite considerable in these sittings. I acknowledge Mark Trobbiani, Gary Wall, Will Finteln, Peter Dinham and Kamil Ciechanowicz for their patience with those of us who are less technologically blessed - particularly me - than others. They responded quickly when assistance was required. The Audio Technology staff, Tom Williams and Leigh Bramall, have also kept things rolling along smoothly.
I thank the security staff who ensured our safety throughout these proceedings. There has always been a presence in the Chamber and around the precinct. I add our thanks to the police, who have been very helpful and ensured our continued safety. We all appreciate that, and I am sure you join with me in thanking them.
Finally, I thank the people of Alice Springs. I love Alice Springs and it is wonderful to be here again. Next time I come I hope there are not quite as many mice. The Deputy Clerk was telling me he had some M&Ms yesterday which were completely eaten by mice, and we have seen quite a few around the Chamber. I am hoping at some point the mice go away and the normal Alice Springs returns.
Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone in Alice Springs for the sittings being so successful.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also pass my thanks on to all those involved. Also, ditto on the list of names.
I have another matter I wish to raise tonight. I would like honourable members to cast their minds back to the ancient history of 24 February 2011 - just a few months ago. A question was put to the Minister for Local Government by the member for Katherine in the following terms:
- In the Ombudsman’s report into the appalling treatment of hundreds of head of livestock at Mataranka Station, the last identified instance of cruelty occurred in February 2010. Given that the statute of limitations for prosecutions in such matters is 12 months, can you update the House as to when your special investigator is going to complete his inquiries into the animal deaths, and when will prosecutions commence?
I remind honourable members of the answer to that question. The minister said:
- Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for Katherine. It is good to hear from him. If he had listened to the question from the member for Nelson on Tuesday last week, he would have heard my answer. The special investigator, Ray Murphy, is close to completing his report, and I will be delivering the outcome of that report in the March sittings. Any questions in regard …
Then there are some interjections and argy-bargy. Ms McCarthy went on:
- I have explained to this House that an investigation is under way by Ray Murphy. That is almost near completion, and there will be a full report to the parliament at the Alice Springs sittings in March which will answer the questions of the member for Katherine as well as the member for Nelson.
It is now 9.03 pm. We are well into adjournment debates in the March sittings at Alice Springs. It is the last day with less than an hour of parliament to sit and I have not heard one peep from the minister, or any member of government, in relation to what is singularly called the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of the Northern Territory.
The monumental stuff-ups by this government in relation to management of the investigation into the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of the Northern Territory are legion.
The Ombudsman provided evidence to the people of the Northern Territory for the poverty of this government’s response to that issue, which made international news. Nevertheless, despite the promises of this government for full and frank disclosure as to the circumstances surrounding the investigation, and further investigation by the special investigator, Ray Murphy, we are still deaf as to what occurred because, like the promises of the Chief Minister on so many issues, the promises of the minister responsible for this matter are hollow, shallow, and simply incredible. I do not mean that in the nice sense of the word; I am talking about beyond credibility.
Surely, this government, after its crushing international embarrassment as a result of the circumstances surrounding animal husbandry issues at Mataranka Station would, as a matter of import and urgency, not forget in the space of one month the promise made to the people of the Northern Territory around demonstrating its capacity to deal with this issue. Yet again, this government has shown it has the attention span of a media release when it comes to these issues.
I am disappointed, dismayed, and disbelieving of this government. This particular issue will brand this government and cover it in shame from now until the day it is turfed out of office, whenever that may be. It goes to show it is more interested in hairstyles, media releases, and image than important issues. If the government intends, in the next half-hour, to dump this report on the Table, then even more shame on it To bury a report on the final day of sittings would be nothing more than an attempt to dodge responsibility in relation to this issue.
This government should be ashamed of itself. There are so many advisors in the back room - I had a quick sticky beak around the door the other day. You have no idea how many people - I suppose you would having seen inside those rooms - the government has brought with it, between the whole of Cabinet, the whole of Caucus, and all the staff, the ‘psycho-pants’, as I once called them. It is ‘sycophants’; but someone called me ‘psycho-pants’. The collective union of brains in that room have not, between them, been able to remember the promise of the minister - let alone the minister herself - to deal with this issue.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government sneaking in here at the very last moment and dropping this report on the Table. Has it simply forgotten, or does it hope everyone else will forget? In any instance, what has been achieved in relation to the Mataranka cattle station is nothing shy of disgrace upon disgrace wrapped in embarrassment and covered in shame.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, before I adjourn I place on record how well these sittings have been conducted. Congratulations, Madam Speaker; you have handled the sittings, despite all the going on. Congratulations to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, and the community of Alice Springs.
Once again, we have been subjected in these sittings to the same old school CLP party line on Aboriginal affairs. There are subtle differences in the nuances when you compare the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion speech yesterday with the speeches made by the members for Braitling and Fong Lim.
The Leader of the Opposition is trying hard to sugarcoat the ideology in his policy message so as not to undermine his long-standing attempts to ingratiate himself with selected male Elders or leaders. These attempts date back to his call, in the relatively early years of this government, for it not to proceed with removing the promised marriage defence to the offence of having sexual intercourse with a minor. That purportedly pro-culture stance, one which echoed the public pronouncements of one East Arnhem Elder in particular, makes a mockery of the Leader of the Opposition’s statement of concern in these sittings, delivered with wooden and shallow solemnity, about child welfare, similar to the stark contrast between his claimed strong stance on domestic violence, and the pathetic, pleading complicity revealed in the transcript of his telephone conversation with Leo Abbott.
The Leader of the Opposition’s early and fulsome support for a new paradigm in Aboriginal affairs policy, courtesy of Dilak in East Arnhem Land, coincided with its promotion in The Australian newspaper and articles by the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite journalist. It is a shame the Leader of the Opposition did not first talk to Gawirrin Gumana about that one. However, when it comes down to it, the member for Blain’s position on Aboriginal affairs is the same as the rest regarding the issues he seeks to raise by way of criticism of Labor governments. Left wingers - blah, blah, blah; pro-welfare - blah, blah; anti-economic development - blah, blah; anti-intervention - blah, blah. I refer to those issues in that way because they are ill-founded and result in the real point of difference in operational policy not being identified, let alone explored.
The members for Fong Lim and Braitling are more straightforward, without any pretensions to originality or independence. They channel the one-dimensional, broken-record rantings of Bennelong Society extremist Gary Johns, and those of his fellow travellers like Helen Hughes. While I know in advance the odds are against me when it comes to injecting some sense and focus into the debate, and that the most likely outcome is my words will be distorted and misrepresented at some future time, part of the reason for the attempt is my name has been directly brought up in the context by all three members I have mentioned.
Another part of the reason is I was absolutely sickened by the behaviour of the member for Fong Lim, who has a reputation of being a bully when it comes to women standing up, towards the minister …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows she has made an unparliamentary comment, and I request you ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, could you withdraw and reword please?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Bully?
Madam SPEAKER: It is the way you framed it; if you could reword it?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Is thug the same phrase? I withdraw. The behaviour I am referring to occurred not long after the member for Johnston delivered what I thought was one of the best speeches I have heard on Aboriginal affairs policy - calm, insightful, measured and crackling with the effortless authority of someone who has done the hard yards, working with and for the benefit of Aboriginal Territorians, including his time at Maningrida.
When it was his turn to speak, the member for Fong Lim could not help himself, drivelling on in his generic way about remote communities, perpetuating the lazy stereotype - and this man is lazy. I remember having the same debate with the member for Fong Lim when he was member for Solomon, and he said last night how he welcomed the intervention and fully supported it. I remember when he was on radio talking about this, and I asked the member for Solomon if he had read any of the legislation - I am talking about 500 pages of an intervention legislation - and embarrassingly, the member for Fong Lim, the then member for Solomon, admitted he had not but still supported the legislation. To this day, the lazy member for Fong Lim probably still has not read any of that legislation. How ill-informed and lazy this member is.
He will probably continue to support it, because, as he said - and why I took offence - I am a representative of what I believe is the most vibrant electorate and I join will all of my bush colleagues. We hold vibrant and diverse electorates ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would like the member for Fong Lim to say to Aboriginal people: ‘You live in hellholes. Why don’t you get out of these hellholes …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: My percentage is much better than yours, member for Fong Lim, you bully. You love this stuff because it gives you a chance to beat your chest and allows your testosterone to run ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Arafura well knows she repeated an unparliamentary comment and I would like you to ask her to withdraw it, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, just withdraw.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. However, the member for Fong Lim is doing it all on his own and his reputation precedes him. I would like to put on the record the minister for Indigenous policy is polite, engaging, and always tries to see the good side of people; she works hard and the member for Fong Lim owes the minister for Indigenous policy an apology for his behaviour. She did not deserve his drivel and aggression last night. The Leader of the Opposition, who has failed to show leadership to date with all the independent members of the CLP, should stand up …
A member interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … if this is CLP policy …
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The Leader of the Opposition should state whether it is or not, and an apology should be issued to those hard-working Aboriginal people who do not see their communities as hellholes. I find it offensive that CLP members - have a go at us if you like; have the discussion and debate about Aboriginal affairs and policy; however, keep your insults to yourself and get on the ground and inform yourself.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, given I have limited time I will not be responding at this stage to that which has been uttered; however, it will have a response. I will say the anger demonstrated in those comments could be channelled into producing results for the benefit of children suffering in our community and let us have a result. That would be a better channelling of anger rather than ideological wars ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I put on the record some words from a letter written to the Chief Minister. Not surprisingly, our Chief Minister has not, to my knowledge, responded, nor in fact did he respond to the call of the people of Alice Springs during the time parliament was here to reflect the will, interests, and concerns of this community. Shame on the Chief Minister.
I trust there has been at least some consideration, maybe even by the Chief Minister, of the matters raised in this letter. If not, they will be on the Parliamentary Record and I trust the author of this letter who has taken the time to serve this community will have a response. I quote from a letter dated 11 March 2011:
- Mr Paul Henderson, Chief Minister, Northern Territory government.
I regret to inform you that later this year, after 24 years of operations in the NT, I expect to close down my Territory business. This will be as a direct result (and solely as a result) of the policies and actions of your government.
I am writing to find out if this is of concern to you and if you might wish to do something to avoid such an outcome - such as, perhaps, finding out about, or addressing, the issues responsible. I remain willing to continue to assist in this regard, if I can.
Since your government first came to office, I have made three written requests to meet with the Chief Minister to discuss the high-level issues of concern, and have followed up each request by phone. Unfortunately, to date, my requests have been ignored.
Hopefully, the loss of any long-standing private sector company will be of concern to you. Perhaps, I might hope, the loss of a business such as mine ought to be of particular concern given that, when your government came to office, it could have been described as one of the Territory’s most successful businesses:
…
In many ways, then, my business might have been regarded as a model for your government’s stated aim of creating and supporting sustainable, long-term businesses in the Territory.
Unfortunately, as you may be aware, it is more expensive to operate here, especially in our high-cost industry, and the levels of government support are substantially lower than elsewhere in Australia and throughout the developed world - making it possible only for the most successful companies to compete in the huge international marketplace, as my company has done.
But what has truly crippled my business is that, despite my business having brought in and invested several million dollars in the Territory economy, your government has overseen massive and, I believe, inappropriate government competition with every facet of my business:
high-budget productions have been undermined as a result of your government providing subsidies, not available to Territorians, to interstate and overseas crews (many of whom, as it happens, have operated here illegally, without proper visas);
the relatively favourable pay and conditions offered to NT government employees …
Perhaps all the characters out the back providing advice to this appalling government.
- … have made it hard for NT businesses to recruit or hold on to staff; and, most recently,
- I table this letter. I will continue:
- Next week, your government intends to launch an online Visitor Centre, or website, for Central Australia.
This is undoubtedly one of the most egregious examples ever of NT government competition with the private sector as it is in direct competition with a commercially-identical private sector project in which our company has invested over $1 million. Your government has been kept fully aware of this project over the past decade and both you and your ministers were, in fact, invited to its Darwin and Alice Springs launches.
Your government’s new initiative is extraordinary in many ways:
- …
I furthermore request a full review of all government expenditure on film, television and media during this government’s period in office - with a particular focus on;
…
In the meantime, I look forward to your urgent action to the matters raised in this letter.
Yours sincerely
(Dr) David Curl.
I place that on the record. He is a man I have respect for. The arguments are compelling and the evidence is clear - this is an example of the way government has gone about its business. Government wonders why there is such anger in this community and why the business community was so offended when the Chief Minister lectured it – it already finds it difficult and makes significant contribution to this community - to do a little more. Pull the ads and invest in programs - offensive in the extreme.
To my knowledge this letter has not been responded to. I commit this to the Chief Minister, and hope there will be a response for Mr Curl.
Madam SPEAKER: Could you seek leave to table it because we are in adjournment. Thank you.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this letter.
Leave granted.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this brings to an end the Alice Springs sittings. What a fantastic time we have had. The Red Centre is far from red at the moment; it is green and more beautiful. I have listened to many stories from people, from our radio announcers to the locals, saying it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience to see the Red Centre so green and beautiful, presenting many great camping opportunities.
I take the time to thank the many friends I have in Central Australia, from my time as a police officer in the Red Centre. At one time I was the Officer-in-Charge of Kintore Police Station, a very remote station some 500 km due west of Alice Springs. The thing you gain most from being in a remote community is friendship. You get to know the people around you, your neighbours, and you connect with the community from which you come.
I still enjoy seeing people from the Kintore community walking around Alice Springs, and meeting and having lunch with people I call friends - people I worked with in the desert. Of course, further to that is the fact I formed great sporting relationships in this town. I competed recently in the Masters Games in this town, and took home two bronze medals in ten pin bowling. I presented hundreds of medals to people in Alice Springs during the Masters Games.
Today, we heard some very goods news from the Labor government - it supported the Finke Desert Race community. This year will be my fifth attempt at the Finke Desert Race - a great race founded in Alice Springs, not an imported or created event from somewhere else, but put together and supported by local people which has grown to an international event. Antony Yoffa, Damien, and the entire Finke committee have done an amazing job over many years. It is a fantastic event which I will continue to support. As the shadow minister for Sport, I support the Finke and the Masters Games in Alice Springs. It is a great centre for sporting competitions. It is an amazing place to visit - short term or long term. I look forward to the lush green fields attracting many tourists this year. I am sure the grey nomads will come, stop off at the lakes on the way, and admire such a beautiful place.
Whilst in Alice this trip, as I always do, I had lunch and breakfast at some fantastic cafs. A friend introduced me to a new caf in the Todd Mall. I had lunch there two days in a row because the pumpkin salad was so fantastic I had to go back for more. I hope I pronounce it correctly; it is Katja’s Kafe and is tucked down a little lane just off the Todd Mall. If you walk past Papunya Tula it is on your right-hand side. A small caf, very nice and does fantastic meals. I have enjoyed their salads over the last two days. Always remember when you come to remote areas, you can walk through the desert, or you can walk through the main streets, and find niche spots wherever you go. They are beautiful places.
The sad fact is whilst we have been in this Chamber we have seen very little from the Labor government. We have seen puff pieces, floundering acts from the Labor side, and very little real response from ministers. As shadow Construction minister, I raised concerns over the condition of the Stuart Highway. Whilst here, I spoke on two radio stations about the matter. It is in an extremely dangerous state of repair, and yes, we have more rain coming. However, that should not stop us from fixing the roads. Many areas of the Stuart Highway are down to one lane. This is our main arterial road, a supply route; it is essential.
Only two weeks ago, the Barkly Highway had been closed for one full week. Transport companies wear the cost until it comes to delivering the goods to your door, then the customer pays the on-flow cost. The government must plan its infrastructure better. It must deliver a better response to crisis and a better network for Territorians. Territorians already do it hard under a failed 10-year Labor government, but if they do not pick up their game, unfortunately, we will be stuck for another 18-odd months under this failed 10-year Labor government.
Madam Speaker, crime in this town has been horrific. I have lived in this town and have visited Alice Springs for over 20 years. It has not been a good place lately. However, it is full of people with great spirit, belief, and trust that this town will become great. It will become great again. We have seen this week a change driven by the people who came to the front steps of parliament to voice their concerns about this failed 10-year Labor government. The disrespect the Chief Minister and the Minister for Central Australia showed those good, hard-working people of Central Australia was a national shame. It was a national shame that the Chief Minister did not front those good Centralians and say: ‘I am sorry, I will do more’. The Chief Minister failed to do his basic duty: respond directly to the people; speak with the people, and allay their fears.
Instead, a week ago we saw the Chief Minister slap them in the face and tell the victims of crime they should be paying for programs for offenders. That is a national shame. Victims deserve better, whether it is in Alice Springs or anywhere else in Australia. You do not treat victims the way this Chief Minister has treated victims. They have a right to voice their concerns and have done so, and I do not believe the Chief Minister has listened. If he had listened, he would have fronted the crowds and spoken.
I love the Red Centre; it is an absolutely beautiful place. I have friends I will be speaking with tomorrow before I leave - quickly drive around and catch up with a few more people for a few more coffees. I probably will not sleep for a week after the amount of coffee I have to drink from friend to friend; however, it is important to see your friends while you can. There are many. This is a great town. Central Australia is a beautiful place which, unfortunately, I do not spend enough time in, because the other great place, of course, is the seat of Drysdale, part of Palmerston, the place I love. Unfortunately, I will not get back to my schools tomorrow morning. I cannot wait to visit my schools and see the kids and enjoy my time with them, because they are much better guests than the government.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you to the residents of Alice Springs. It has been a joy to be here and I look forward to my next visit which I hope to be very soon.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank all concerned with the Alice Springs sittings: the LA staff, security, the police and those who have been watching proceedings. There are a couple of gentleman on both sides of the Chamber - I do not know whether that is indicative of your political positions; however, I thank you for your interest and the time you have spent carefully listening to debate today. Thanks to all concerned.
Tonight I want to talk about the Top End and something evoking the Top End. About a week or two ago, I had the privilege to attend the Maurice Rioli Foundation Dinner, and Luke Morcom - I have known Luke for many years; he is an Imalu Tigers supporter - recited a poem at Maurice Rioli’s funeral. As it was such a beautiful poem I thought I would recite it in Alice Springs. The desert is beautiful; also the Top End is beautiful. It says:
- My Home Sweet Home
Someone please take me to my island home
To my mother country never more to roam
Back to the land of my birth
Comforted at last by mother earth
Where my family patiently waits for me
A land surrounded by a crystal sea
Ancestors directing my every path
An ancient land so dear to my heart
Where the sea eagle dominates the sky
And the beating waves sing a lullaby
Turtles come home to lay eggs on the sand
An environment of love where all understand
A place of harmony with tall towering trees
Daily refreshed by a cool comforting breeze
Where water lilies blossom in the billabong
The rising full moon brings the curlews song
Camping with families by the sea shore
Hundreds of stories are told like never before
Eating seagull eggs by the camp fire at nights
Looking for turtle eggs at first light
Spearing the fish from a dugout canoe
Feasting on Tom Piper’s stew
Eating damper and bully-beef
An island of complete relief
If death comes soon and I should die
Just ask the sea eagle up in the sky
She will guide you to my island home
My mother country never more to roam
That paints a beautiful picture of the Top End, and an area familiar to the member for Arafura - her home electorate. I table Luke’s lovely poem.
On Saturday 19 March, I attended the St John’s Presentation Ball. The debutantes were presented to the Most Reverend Bishop Eugene Hurley and Mrs Natasha Griggs, the federal member for Solomon. They made a great couple as they were presented to all the students. Also present were Sr Elizabeth Little, Chancellor for Governance; Ms Jane Sheehan, Chair of the Board at St John’s College; Fr John Kelliher, MSC; Br Gerry Burke, St John’s College board member; Mr Michael Avery, Director of Catholic Education Northern Territory; Mr Greg O’Mullane, Deputy Director of the Catholic Education Northern Territory; and Ms Mary Cutjar, Senior Consultant, Catholic Education Northern Territory.
The hard-working staff of St John’s College organised the night; however, special thanks go to Year 12 coordinator, Mr Tony Walton, and dance teacher, Ms Bronwyn Graham, who worked tirelessly, and the students danced really well together - it was great to see. Our thanks also go to all the Year 12 teachers, in particular the homeroom teachers, Ms Wendy Rawlins and Mr Macpherson.
The families and parents really supported the night; some came as far away as Papua New Guinea. It was a very important milestone for Year 12 students. I commend St John’s College, and I table the program for the night so my colleagues can see the wonderful work and the names of all the students who were presented that night.
I am proud to talk about the multicultural events I have attended recently at schools in my electorate. On 17 March 2011, I attended the Jingili Primary School Twilight International Market, a feast of international food and culture. The markets are an annual event - an opportunity for students to appreciate the richness of other cultures. Once again, it was great to see the community in force; it was a true testament to the sense of community which exists at Jingili Primary School.
Apart from the principal, Carin Symonds, who does a fantastic job in every way for the school, I extend my sincere thanks to the staff and committee who each year have organised the markets and Harmony Day activities: Larelle Gilbert, Judy Grills, Katie Howe, Yiota Devriadis, Judy Morgan, Susan Taylor, Leslie Turner, Kay Baldock, and Miss Patu Wart for her efforts in teaching some of the Year 5/6 girls the very graceful Balinese dance which was greatly appreciated by all present. It was a great night. The event raised money for the school, an outstanding event by any measure.
The Wagaman Primary School also celebrated Harmony Day on 24 March 2011, and I was pleased to be there on the night. Congratulations to principal, Michelle Cody, staff, committee, students, parents and the community for their fantastic efforts. The theme, Everyone Belongs has a strong message of togetherness for the community and the school, and is a great theme for Harmony Day celebrations. The evening was all about sharing food, entertainment and activities with friends and families from various cultures. I acknowledge the fantastic work of Emma McLean and Chloe Pangquee as the evening’s masters of ceremony. Also, to the Polynesian group who performed the hula dance - great performance by Gloria, Grace, Shona, Shae and Sophia. They were all different ages and really enjoyed dancing. There was also an Indonesian cultural dance performed by Year 4/5 Fulton girls. Congratulations to everyone involved for their great contribution to such an important community event.
On 26 March 2011, along with a number of others including the Chief Minister, I attended the Harmony Day soiree at the Darwin waterfront. There was a good turnout to the event; many people, many activities and much enthusiasm. I compliment the organising committee. The weather held off, and it was great to see such a large crowd enjoying the night. I even saw one young bloke, he was about that tall - the Indian community have a custom of using coloured powder for celebrations and this young bloke about this high was covered in just about every colour of the rainbow. I said to his mother I hoped she had a photograph of the night to show him when he was about 20 years of age. He could look back and they could both have a smile about all the fun they had on 26 March 2011 at the Darwin Harmony Day soiree.
It is great to be the member for Johnston; it is great to celebrate the electorate; and it is great to celebrate the diversity of the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record my congratulations, and those of the Country Liberals in the Northern Territory, to Barry O’Farrell and the team in New South Wales for their historic win in the New South Wales election.
It was a drubbing of Labor that was well and truly deserved. It had been 16 years in the making, and it was about time the government in New South Wales changed. It was not as a result of any one particular thing; it was the result of the concentrated effort by Barry O’Farrell’s team in bringing together a great team of people. It was also as a result of the massive failures by the Labor government over so many years in New South Wales. To go from the majority Labor had down to an expected seat number in the House of just 20, with a Liberal Coalition win of some 69 seats, was an absolutely outstanding effort.
I am not going to dwell on it; it is an outstanding thing Barry O’Farrell has done. On behalf of the Country Liberals, I say congratulations to Barry O’Farrell and his team.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I put on the record tonight my thanks to you, the Clerk, and all the team who have worked so hard to bring these sittings to Alice Springs - a big wave to everyone up the back - it is an enormous logistical exercise; it takes much time, planning and hard work to bring these sittings to Alice Springs. The operation of the Assembly this week has pretty much run like clockwork. There have been no failings in any of the workings as we go about our business.
It is well regarded by the teachers who bring the kids to witness democracy and their parliament in action. I have spoken to many teachers over the last three days who think it is a fantastic opportunity for those kids, who would never get to experience parliament, to come here. It feeds into much of their course work and assignments they will do in the future, and they will never forget the day parliament came to Alice Springs. On behalf of the teachers and kids who have had a great experience, my heartfelt thanks to everybody. It has been a very successful three days. The debate has gone backwards and forwards, as always, in Alice Springs.
From a personal point of view, I thank each and every one of my team. It has been a very hard three days; however, we are a government with a significant reform agenda. With some of the legislation introduced into this House during these three days around education, alcohol reform, even establishing our port as a marine supply base into the future, we will look back on these sittings and say some of the most significant social and economic reforms the Territory has seen for many a decade had their genesis in the legislation introduced into the parliament over these three days.
So, to all my team, thank you. To all the crew who came from Darwin to support the government, I place on the record my thanks. Everyone has worked a really hard three days.
Regarding Alice Springs and the Territory, the reform agenda of my government continues. I thank all the people of Alice Springs who have attended over the last three days to witness their parliament in action. Hopefully, they have taken away that democracy is strong in Alice Springs, the debate is lively, and we all want to move the Territory forward - some with more hysteria than others. It has been a good three days.
To you, Madam Speaker, the Clerk and all your team, thank you very much.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Chief Minister. Thank you, Alice Springs.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016