2010-12-02
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, I table a draft bill titled the Building Act Amendment Bill. Members are aware government announced in July it would move to introduce consumer protection through home warranty insurance following the collapse of several builders. Today I am tabling a draft bill to amend the Building Act, and an explanation of that draft bill to allow wider consultation with industry and the community on this significant matter before a bill is presented to the Legislative Assembly.
The draft bill and yet to be drafted regulations contain a package consisting of home warranty insurance, named residential building insurance, progress payments, consumer guarantees and dispute resolution. Much of the detail will be in the regulations which will be subject to consultation with industry. Comment on this bill and the related documentation is invited from the community and industry. When the bill is formally presented to parliament I expect to table draft regulations so the full picture can be visualised.
Consultation was undertaken with industry and the community on the components of the package through a discussion paper in 2009. The building industry representative group managed the consultation, and has provided a report which supports the package. While there has been ongoing consultation with the building industry representative group on the detail of the package, the opportunity is now given to the community and the wider industry to have input.
Members may recall in 2004 amendments were made to the Building Act for the registration of residential builders, home warranty insurance and other changes to the regulation of buildings. In 2006, the registration of builders commenced. Home warranty insurance was deferred to allow industry to manage the other changes, and in recognition of concern being expressed by consumers, industry, and governments with the national insurance product. This concern culminated with a Senate committee inquiry in 2008, which generally endorsed mandatory, last resort home warranty insurance. However, the committee recommended a change of name to better reflect its function and a dispute resolution process to give consumers a way forward when the builder is still operating.
A major criticism of home warranty insurance is it is last resort rather than first resort. A statutory dispute resolution process bridges the gap. Insurance claims can only be made when the builder becomes insolvent, has disappeared, or died. The Senate committee recommended that loss of registration be added to the trigger for claims. The draft bill, as tabled, addresses the Senate committee’s recommendations.
During 2009 and the first half of 2010, national private insurers withdrew from the home warranty insurance market to the extent there were only two insurers left. In response, governments in New South Wales and Victoria have fully underwritten the product through their statutory insurance authorities. Western Australia and South Australia have underwritten, to some degree, the two remaining insurers to ensure policies are available. Queensland always had a government underwritten scheme. The Australian Capital Territory continues with private insurers, and Tasmania made home warranty insurance voluntary in 2008 and few, if any, take out a policy.
In recent years, several building companies have collapsed, adversely affecting consumers, subcontractors and suppliers. These failures erode confidence in the residential building industry. Given the events since 2004 regarding home warranty insurance the existing yet to be commenced provisions in the Building Act needed to be repealed and replaced by provisions in the act and regulations which cover not only insurance but also the regulation of progress payments, consumer guarantees and a statutory dispute resolution process.
Members will appreciate this matter is complex, and the body of law and test cases which have accumulated interstate over decades is substantial. While we have the benefit of this background, care needs to be taken to ensure the balance is found between legislation which covers the most common scenarios on one hand, and a scheme that is relatively easy to manage and understand on the other. The balancing being sought needs to be appropriate for the Northern Territory: affordable, efficient and effective. The balance also needs to ensure residential building insurance does not unduly encourage consumers and builders to be less diligent before, during, and after contracts. Personal responsibility and mutual obligations need to be in the foreground with regulation as a backdrop.
The consumer package consists of four components. These are covered in a proposed new Part 5A. I will now comment on these components in the same order they appear in the bill.
The first is the regulation of progress payments. This requirement for a contract builds on the existing regulations and is essential for residential building insurance to function properly, and for the risk to be managed. Existing regulations require contracts that cover progress payments but do not specify the quantum, except the deposit which is to be no more than 5%. Those that suffered most from the collapse of builders had made, sometimes under pressure, progress payments well ahead of the works completed. As a minimum, the regulations will state a builder cannot request payment for more than the value of the work completed, similar to what exists in South Australia. An option is the provisions in Victoria, where the percentages of each stage are set by regulation with the ability to vary for non-standard buildings.
The second component is consumer guarantees which provide a statutory backdrop for consumers and builders in resolving disputes or processing claims under residential building insurance. Consumer guarantees will specify such matters as the use of new materials unless specifically stated otherwise in the contract, work to be in accordance with the building permit, and work to be in a workmanlike manner. They will be complemented by practice guidelines that will quantify the tolerance range of acceptable work. The guarantees provide the measures of what is acceptable practice when resolving residential building insurance claims and other building disputes. The guarantees will run for the same prescribed period as for non-compliance under residential building insurance. The new provisions are not to replace any other rights a consumer has to make claim under the reasonable life of a product and other general consumer laws.
The third component is residential building insurance itself. This name better reflects its function, as it does not use the word ‘warranty’ that is in home warranty insurance. It also aligns with the term ‘residential building’ used for building permits and builders’ registration. Residential building insurance is to be mandatory and last resort. The triggers for claims are proposed to be insolvency or bankruptcy, disappearance or death, and loss of registration. In these circumstances, the insurer would honour a claim and seek to recover the costs from the assets of the failed builder. Given the national scene of the withdrawal of private insurers and the corresponding reactions of state governments, and the relatively small scale of the housing market in the Northern Territory, government intends to underwrite the scheme. This will give certainty that an affordable product will always be available.
As in the case of the existing home building certification fund, the Territory Insurance Office is proposed to be the fund manager for residential building insurance on behalf of government. TIO may enter into commercial arrangements with national insurers and other brokers as part of that delivery. The details of the cover and the premiums will be subject to the proposed consultation, actuarial advice currently being sought, and the level of risk the government accepts. The bill allows private insurers to enter the market. While such action would be welcomed by government it seems unlikely to happen, at least in the short term.
Residential building insurance will consist of two components – non-completion and non-compliance. The cover is only for additional costs directly related to changing from the original builder, and the claims will be capped. National norms are 20% of the contract price up to a defined maximum. Non-completion covers the construction stage and is designed to meet the additional costs if another builder needs to be engaged to complete the building works. Only prescribed work in relation to houses will be subject to claims. Claims will be subject to caps.
The cover is designed to protect the consumer against the failure to finish a building. Therefore, governments, owner-builders, and developers will not be required to take out the non-completion cover. Non-compliance cover relates to structural and non-structural defects which become evident during the prescribed times I have already mentioned in relation to consumer guarantees. Again, claims will be capped. Prescribed work in houses and low rise flats will be subject to claims.
Developers and owner-builders will be required to take out this cover at the time a building permit is issued so, in the event of sale and any of the circumstances that could trigger a claim, future owners are protected during a non-compliance period.
Government will not be required to take out non-compliance cover as, by definition, governments continue to exist and self-insure. The non-compliance component will replace the existing Home Building Certification Fund established in 1993 with the introduction of private certification. This fund is managed by the Territory Insurance Office on behalf of government. While its purpose was to underpin the certification process, in practice, it has underpinned the building process, giving unlimited cover for 10 years for non-compliance with the building code.
The Home Building Certification Fund is first resort and is unable to recover funds from a building practitioner, including a builder; hence the government takes all the risk. It is clearly a product overtaken by events and needs to be wound up. It will have liabilities for 10 years after the policy is issued. Renovations and domestic sheds are covered by the Home Building Certification Fund but will not be covered by residential building insurance. To function effectively, residential building insurance requires contracts with regulated progress payments and registered builders who are subject to financial assessment. Currently, renovations may be done without a mandatory contract and by a person who is not registered.
As mentioned, government carries all the risk related to Home Building Certification Fund policies without the ability to recover costs and, as such, is clearly unsustainable. Consumers not covered by residential building insurance and the related provisions in the bill will continue to have recourse through general consumer and contract legislation and established processes and, ultimately, through the courts.
Builders will be required to obtain an eligibility certificate which will determine limits for their turnover based on their financial and business capacity. It is proposed the eligibility requirements will be as generous as possible and most existing builders will qualify, even those not very active in the market. In such cases, the turnover threshold may be only one house at a time.
The fourth and last component is a statutory residential dispute resolution process. The process will have the power to make a binding determination, otherwise known as a rectification order, which may be appealed.
Regulations will prescribe the circumstances that need to apply for a formal application. A residential statutory dispute resolution process effectively makes last resort insurance equivalent to first resort.
The provisions establish the statutory position of Commissioner of Residential Building Disputes. If no other appointment is made by the minister, the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs holds the position.
As with any dispute, every encouragement will be given for the consumer and the builder to resolve their differences themselves by providing information on obligations and industry practice.
In regard to the full package, transitional arrangements are necessary for consumers and builders who have just entered into contracts or are part way through construction when the proposed consumer package commences. The draft bill describes the proposed arrangements. Prior to the commencement date, an existing registered builder will be able to apply to TIO for eligibility under transitional arrangements. As an interim step, to reduce the risks to consumers, it is proposed to make a regulation under the current Building Act which makes it an offence for a builder to request a progress payment for more than the value of building works carried out, similar to the provisions in South Australia.
Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned those who suffered most when their builder failed had made payments beyond the value of the work which had been done. I invite comment on the draft bill from honourable members, industry and the community by 28 February 2011, and encourage you to get involved in the forthcoming consultation on the development of the regulations.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 10 am in Parliament House or at such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Information Act seeks to protect the privacy of individuals concerning personal information which is held by government agencies and related bodies. The protections are set out in the Information Act, particularly in sections 65 to 67 and in the Information Privacy Principles, also known as IPPs, contained in Schedule 2 to the act.
The Information Act sets out the circumstances in which personal information can be made available. This bill deals with some practical problems concerning the operation of the Information Act. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the circumstances in which NT government agencies may share information among themselves and with others for the purposes of research or statistics by repealing section 71 and amending sections 81, 86 and IPP 2 of the Information Act in relation to the sharing of information.
The amendment arises as a result of NT Treasury advising that the Information Act has limited the effectiveness of past Australian Censuses, and in its present form is likely to also hinder planning for the 2011 census. The Information Act limits the information which can be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics by NT agencies, resulting in undercounting for the census.
The Department of Justice, in consultation with NT Treasury, the Department of Health and Families, and the Office of the Information Commissioner has identified minor amendments to the Information Act to alleviate these problems. Where there is an inconsistency with the IPPs protecting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information and sensitive information, section 81(2) of the Information Act allows the Information Commissioner to grant an authorisation, if justified as being in the public interest, and where the benefit to the person collecting, using, or disclosing the information outweighs any interference with privacy.
There is no obvious reason for the commissioner having to be satisfied on both matters. If an activity inconsistent with IPPs 1, 2 or 10 is in the public interest, it ought to be sufficient that the commissioner is satisfied the public interest, to a substantial degree, outweighs the interference with the privacy of others. Similarly, it should also be sufficient that the benefit to persons outweighs the interference with the privacy of others. The amendment to section 81(2) introduces an alternative between public interest and benefit to persons by replacing the word ‘and’ with ‘or’.
The interpretation of section 71 is problematic in that it is not clear whether the function of compiling statistics or conducting research has to be central to the operations of the agency. Accordingly, section 71 is replaced with an amendment to IPP 2 which is based on IPP 2(1)(c) of the Victorian Information Privacy Act 2000. This new exception to IPP 2 is to enable the use or disclosure if it is necessary for research, or for the compilation or analysis of statistics if it is in the public interest, and a number of additional criteria apply. The additional criteria require that information can only be used if it is not published in a form which will identify an individual, it is impracticable to obtain the individual’s consent, and it is reasonably believed that the recipient will not disclose the information.
Victoria has separate legislation which governs health information, the Health Records Act 2001. In the Territory, health information is governed by the Information Act. In order to provide robust protection of health information an additional requirement based on Victorian Health Privacy Principle 2.2(g)(iii) has been introduced into the new exception in IPP 2.1(ca).
The Victorian HPP 2.2(g)(iii) requires the use and disclosure of health information to be in accordance with guidelines issued by the commissioner. The Victorian guideline requires a research proposal to be submitted to a human research ethics committee for approval. The research proposal must establish, among other things, the necessity to collect the information, impracticability to seek consent, and that a public interest test is satisfied.
The bill also incorporates an amendment to cover a minor issued raised in the report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System released on 19 October 2010. The rest of the issues raised and recommendations made in the report regarding information sharing will need to be given further thorough consideration to ensure any amendments do not result in unintended consequences. Substantial discussions with relevant agency divisions are required to ensure that any amendments to legislation properly address the issues and provide a framework which is useful. It is important that hasty amendments are not made to legislation.
However, we felt an amendment could be made immediately to the Information Act to insert a new exception in IPP 2.1(d) to remove one of the barriers raised to the sharing of information. This amendment specifically addresses an issue raised in the report that the requirement of a serious and imminent threat undermines the serious harm inflicted by sustained and ongoing abuse which may not be perceived as immediately life threatening. The Information Act has been amended by requiring that there either be a serious threat, or an imminent threat to a child, rather than both a serious and imminent threat.
Other minor amendments of a statutory law revision nature are also included to tidy up the Information Act and bring it into line with contemporary drafting practices.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references, correcting typographical and grammatical errors, and omissions. The amendments contained in the bill do not constitute changes in government policies or programs.
This bill is the second statute law revision bill for 2010. The bill follows the general pattern of statute law revision bills in revising and correcting the law of the Northern Territory in minor respects. The bill provides for a comprehensive statute law revision of specified Justice portfolio acts and regulations including:
Bail Act;
Fences Act;
Parole of Prisoners Act;
Prisons (Correctional Services) Act; and
Sentencing Act.
These amendments are the result of a drafting review of these acts and regulations. Some of the amendments in this bill have been specifically included to update corrections legislation, such as the Parole of Prisoners Act and the Sentencing Act.
All other Justice amendments have been identified for inclusion by Parliamentary Counsel, following examination of the Northern Territory statute book. The bill amends these acts and regulations by implementing various improvements to reflect the current legislative drafting style.
The bill provides for the minor revision, correction, and clarification of selected laws of the Northern Territory. The minor amendments made to each act and the regulations are broadly similar. Some examples include:
Additionally, four non-Justice acts and regulations have been amended, including:
Care and Protection of Children Act,
Traffic Regulations; and
Overall, the bill amends these selected laws in minor respects and corrects minor errors which have been updated to reflect current drafting practice and ensure consistency across the statute book.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have flicked through the bill and am looking forward to doing the research on this one.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs. The first is from 10.30 am to 11 am today for the members for Arafura and Port Darwin; and the second is for the period 3 pm to 4.30 pm for the members for Wanguri and Blain. Both documents are signed by both Whips. I table those papers.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, passed by the Assembly on 9 September 2008, be amended by adding the following paragraphs:
Madam Speaker, on your behalf as Chair of the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I advise the Assembly of the next stage of the Northern Territory Statehood Program and seek the consent of the Assembly to advance the constitutional status of the Territory through the creation of a new advisory committee.
The Statehood Steering Committee and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have, by mutual agreement pursuant to the terms of reference agreed to by this Assembly on 17 August 2004, and last amended on 12 February 2009, agree to dissolve the Statehood Steering Committee after its next meeting.
The Statehood Steering Committee has undertaken a massive job of work over five years preparing for this next stage, and is to be congratulated. Over 50 public forums were held this year. The next stage is the consolidation of the information gathered and the creation of an organising committee to deliver a democratic constitutional convention process. Territorians will be able to participate at the proposed constitutional convention and the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee, or NTCCC, will be the vehicle which ensures that approach.
I understand membership of the committee is being finalised and you, Madam Speaker, will be in a position to announce the membership in conjunction with your standing committee and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for statehood in coming weeks.
Madam Speaker, this is, essentially, a procedural motion, but an important next step in the Territory’s constitutional development. I urge all members to support the motion.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House support the motion; it is an important step on our path to statehood. As the minister said, we have had five years of the Statehood Steering Committee and it has done a sterling job. We are moving into the next phase which is to plan for the convention and the next step towards statehood. We commend the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also rise to speak to this. I take some heart from what I have been advised; I am not sure if it was mentioned in comments by the Leader of Government Business, but we talk about a constitutional convention, and whilst I realise this is a procedural motion, I want to dwell on that for a few moments.
I suspect I am one of the few members in this House who was around in 1999 when the ill-fated convention …
Ms Purick: I was here.
Mr ELFERINK: Were you in the House?
Ms Purick: No, I was part of the convention.
Mr ELFERINK: … and, although I was around when the ill-fated referendum was held, it was held on the basis of a prior convention which proposed, for referendum, three questions rolled into one and put to the people of the Northern Territory. That question had a preamble attached to it, which was wordy, lengthy and did not gain the trust of the people who were asked to sign up to the question.
The consequence of that is the dream of people like Steve Hatton, John Bailey and several others - I was involved in the committee process at that stage - of statehood was lost. The process prior to that, through the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, headed primarily by Steve Hatton and John Bailey, was to produce a document which I once derisively referred to as the ‘green dream’. I regret making that comment because it was an options paper inviting people to talk about matters which should go into a constitutional document. I referred to it as the green dream because it was, as an options paper, exploring things outside my naturally conservative disposition which made me think the document was unnecessary.
The Constitutional Convention considered that document as well as documents proposed by Denis Burke. Shane Stone was Chief Minister and Denis Burke had a document which was something much more than I expected a constitution to look like and not entirely different to the Australian Constitution or our current constitution, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. That constitutional document, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, could probably operate as a constitution in its own right. It would require some tweaking, but would come to us in the same fashion the Australian Constitution has come to us.
We need to remember our constitution is a bill from a superior parliament, namely the Palace of Westminster, as it passed through both the Commons and the Lords to give us the Australian Constitution. Their system of governance has no constitutional structure; it is based on a series of conventions and can change radically without the will of the people. The Scottish parliament, around the 1600s or 1700s, voted itself out of existence - an example of how a non-constitutional parliament can operate. Another example is the Upper House of Queensland, now a unicameral system, which voted itself out of existence in 1923, if I recall. Where you impose constitutions it takes the will of the people to change them, which is the American basis.
However, I return to the green dream document. It was an options paper which explored things like bills of rights and constitutional arrangements. Some of the elements made me nervous then and make me nervous now; however, as an options paper it deserves to be explored. The Constitutional Convention at the time turned its attention to that document as well as the document finally passed by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention had a public trust issue in that the majority of its members were appointed not elected, and as a consequence it engendered a sense of distrust by the public.
That distrust found its focal point in the question people were asked on the ballot paper. It was defeated, albeit narrowly - about 48 to 51 - and the irony is, any document proposed by the people of the Northern Territory, albeit a conservative or radical document, means nothing because our constitutional admission to the commonwealth of states cannot occur unless the Commonwealth parliament accepts us on such terms and conditions as it sees fit. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution deals with the admission of new states.
Issues arising immediately for any federal parliament considering allowing the introduction of a new state would include the number of senators the Northern Territory would have. The current constitutional arrangement is that every jurisdiction, be it little old Tasmania or big old New South Wales, has the same number of senators. The number of senators shall be as close as possible to one half of the number of members of the House of Representatives. For every two reps there is one senator and that is spread across the country. The reason for that structure was so the small states - and Western Australia was one of the small states at that time and they were still unsure as 1901 approached if they would join the Federation - would be protected by the same number of senators as New South Wales.
Sadly, that noble concept of a States’ House was almost immediately abandoned by the operation of our political system. Perhaps the structure was somewhat nave; nevertheless that was the structure. As a consequence, a citizen of Australia living in Tasmania is far more comprehensively represented politically in our Upper House than a citizen of Australia living in Sydney, for argument’s sake. Moreover, Tasmania has another advantage in it has constitutionally protected the five House of Representative seats. The normal formula for the establishment of House of Representative seats is calculated by the Electoral Act - I could stand corrected on that; basically we say ‘x’ number of people make a seat - between 50 000 and 100 000 will give you a seat in the House of Representatives.
We saw the division of the seat of the Northern Territory into Lingiari and Solomon, and the federal parliament had to enact a law to protect those two seats because the threshold was getting perilously close. Knowing the growth of the Territory would ultimately generate that second seat, a law was enacted by the Commonwealth to protect Lingiari and Solomon and prevent amalgamation into the seat of the Northern Territory. Population growth has now reached that point and there are about 50 000 voters in each seat.
If we were to enter the Commonwealth we would seek as much representation as possible. The number of seats would not necessarily change in the House of Representatives. One of the options available to the Commonwealth would be to offer us 12 senators. If our population grows substantially there might be 13 or 14 senators per jurisdiction, which leads us to the difficult question of: will we take statehood on any terms?
The almost hostile attack on states’ rights by the High Court over the years has diminished the states. If you look at the federal creation anticipated by our founding fathers, which you can see in the debates, the role of the Commonwealth government was to be quite limited. Nowadays, the role of the Commonwealth government has become even more substantial, so much so that recently a High Court judge said, before upholding a Commonwealth argument, if they continued down this path the states would become nothing more than debating societies.
In this jurisdiction in the 1970s, self-government was something we celebrated profoundly. I remember self-government celebrations. I did not quite understand what it meant. I was in Year 8 at school but I understood it was important because it meant something. It gave us a state-like quality, and we have many state-like qualities in the way we are treated. Look at the way horizontal fiscal equalisation is applied. The Commonwealth Grants Commission treats us like a state, national agreements on all levels treat us like a state, however, we do not have the same political representation as other states or the same constitutional protections.
The passage of the Andrews Bill through the Commonwealth parliament is a fine example of the constitutional protections we do not have because of the capacity for federal parliament to play with our constitution at any time it chooses to do so. I suspect not many Territorians are aware that if the Commonwealth parliament chose to repeal the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act the room we are standing in now would make an excellent backpackers’ accommodation.
If we are admitted into the federation as the seventh state, something I hope occurs, one of the issues a constitutional convention will have to address is: will we accept it on lesser terms than the other states? If the argument underlining statehood is exclusively that of equal political and legal rights, we should be arguing for the right to have 12 senators like every other state. The question we have to struggle with is: will we allow any less to occur?
It is not my position to discuss these issues. It will be an issue for the constitutional convention this motion seeks to pursue. That convention will have to put together a constitution which will have within it certain presumptions that it will have to take to Canberra to get it to acquiesce to what is in that document should a referendum be successful. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution makes it abundantly clear it will be upon their terms how this new state is admitted to the federation, not ours.
A successful and resounding result in a constitutional referendum will make the argument for stronger state rights even stronger. Therefore, I am heartened by the fact this constitutional convention will be a fully elected one. Moreover, I hope it produces a document which is sober and temperate in what it seeks to achieve so we can assure Canberra we are not engaged in anything excessive or radical. Whilst I am no fan of bills of rights, they are not necessarily destructive and I am not worried about them one way or the other. However, the more reasonable and restrained the document presented to the people is, the more support it will receive. If we had a document supported by 80% of the population, it would give an argument in Canberra much more credibility. If 80% of the population supports a constitutional change such as the one in 1969, which saw the Commonwealth take over the capacity to make legislation for Aboriginal people, it will be a much stronger argument. For that reason, sober and temperate is the way to go with this.
The constitutional convention will see people wanting to secure all types of rights and expectations into a constitutional instrument - which is normal. In debates which occurred prior to federation, many reasons and issues were worked on for many outcomes. Off the top of my head, section 107 of the Australian Constitution went to protect states’ rights on waterways. If you look at what is happening now on the Darling Basin, the Murray River, and the Murrumbidgee, and how that constitutional section affects those water rights, you have an understanding of the argy-bargy occurring through constitutional instruments.
If you read the debates on that there was never an intention to protect irrigators’ rights; it was never expected those rivers would run out of water. It was more about the transport of material up and down the rivers - an access issue. The right to draw water was almost an afterthought. We now have a constitutional issue where, in the southern states, these rivers are heavily relied upon. The southern states are in a strong position to battle the Commonwealth over their right to access those waterways at the detriment, arguably, of the nation. You can see from that example, and other examples such as the expectation at one stage New Zealand was going to be a state and Western Australia was not, and the changes which occurred after that. It had much to do about the states’ interests and interested parties at the time.
What made the constitution ultimately palatable was it was not a radical document. It created a hybrid structure of the American system. We do not have a House of Commons; we have a House of Representatives, as does Congress. We do not have a House of Lords; we have a Senate, as does the House of Congress. We have a written constitution which does not exist in the Westminster system. Consequently, the document produced was sober enough to take to Mother England for a new nation to be formed. I am still surprised we celebrate our birthday on 26 January, commemorating an event from 1788, rather than the birthday of our nation, which was 1 January 1901.
If we can bring such a document and convince the federation, we then become part of the federation. That will be good. However, it will present Canberra with problems. If, for argument’s sake, we were to have 12 senators it would shift balance of power issues substantially in the country. Where would the extra seats in the Lower House be found to accommodate an extra 12 senators? Not in the Northern Territory. The population of the Northern Territory can only support two seats, and the House of Representatives is drawn from all jurisdictions in the country. We would have to have another 20 seats in the House of Representatives to accommodate the extra 10 senators from the Northern Territory.
There will be strong resistance to that because many southern people believe they are overrepresented, which will be to our detriment. That is something the constitutional convention …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is regrettable the member’s time has expired. If I had noticed, I would have asked for an extension. The member for Port Darwin is very knowledgeable on constitutional matters and will no doubt have a mighty input into this process.
I thank the opposition for its support. It is the way forward for the Territory and this is the next step. It will be a long road for all the reasons the member for Port Darwin outlined. He was getting to the political nub of it at the end of his speech regarding the issue of representation and how that might be viewed by people in southern states, and not just people who vote, the politicians and the political landscape of Canberra. We have to work together in a bipartisan way and with the Independents as they hold the balance of power in Canberra. The Independents in this parliament also have a mighty role to play in this process.
The member for Port Darwin outlined some of the trials and tribulations the process of statehood has had already, and some of the history. Let us not trip over history; let us not repeat history. Let us move and achieve a result for the Territory which I believe everyone wants. It was a shame it was lost last time; let us not go down that path again. Let us move with the people because that is the way they want to go. We need to listen to their concerns. We have a very diverse population in the Northern Territory, with very diverse interests, needs and concerns around statehood. It will not be an easy task, it will take time. I am heartened by the opposition’s support.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Before putting the motion, as the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I thank honourable members for their support in the House today. Much work has gone into this. I thank the Minister for Statehood and the opposition shadow for Statehood for their hard work in putting this together.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ESL students from Darwin High School, accompanied by Ms Vida Goodvach. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 128)
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill. I believe an amendment has been circulated and we will be going into the committee stage.
Before I discuss the contents of the bill, I want to pick up on something not pronounced in the second reading speech. It is a fine second reading speech and I have no major problem with it. However, creeping into second reading speeches are comments I consider potentially political. This bill is very mild:
That is neither here nor there. In other bills coming before this House overt political comments have been made by government ministers in their second reading speeches.
Second reading speeches tend, by their nature, to have a special role. They are not just another speech. They have a critical function because not all legislative instruments, despite the best efforts of the drafter, the government department and the minister, are clear on all occasions. A good example is the Water Amendment Bill before this House on urgency. It was intended to do one thing but was unclear in its intent.
Courts can deal with that in several ways. One is to take a very literal approach: the black letter law says this is what the bill says, that is the intent of parliament and that is what we will apply. Another approach, more favoured by the courts in recent times, is the purposive approach to the interpretation of legislation which works out what the law wants to achieve. A court will never step away from what a law says; if the law says X it will not interpret the law to mean Y. However, there are times when words, by their use, contain an ambiguity and in containing an ambiguity courts are stuck with figuring out what was intended by the instrument. Courts have struggled with this issue on and off over the years.
In the 1950s and 1960s – for Hansard’s information, I am quoting from Statutory Interpretation in Australia 5th Edition by Pearce & Geddes, the Butterworth edition - there was a tendency to shy away from the use of extrinsic material and instead literally translate the instruments. I quote from Geddes:
Quoting again from Geddes:
I quote from CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 141 ALR 618 where Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow commented:
They quote some cases then say:
This is not pronounced in the second reading speech but has been in others, particularly by members on this side, and I am always cautious about second reading speeches because they have a different role. They are a guide to the courts which have to use the instruments we pass through this House.
The growing tendency to see political statements working their way into these speeches gives me some concern. We should not ask our courts to wade, knee deep, through the mire of political rhetoric to find the intent of the legislative instrument. The tendency is not to look at the political debate as a whole. The tendency is to turn exclusively to the second reading speech. Were the political debate as a whole the reference point for the courts, I would argue we would have a duty to provide them with more considered, well-researched debates than we do. The second reading speech is the touchstone for a court when there is doubt or uncertainty in a legislative instrument. The court deserves second reading speeches which guide them.
Having made those opening observations, I turn to the issues contained in the bill. The bill is designed to enhance the quality and operation of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Domestic violence legislation has been around for close to 15 years, and has probably been one of the more amended acts in the history of this parliament. It predates my entry into this House.
I remember the first of these instruments, and I pause briefly to describe the world which existed before the introduction of domestic violence legislation. In that world we occupied a strange environment; we would turn up to circumstances of gross domestic violence and often be utterly disempowered to do anything. I will give an example: Many years ago, while on duty as a police officer, my partner and I visited a house in Ludmilla to see the husband, dear soul that he was, had dragged his wife, in her underwear, into the middle of the street and as we drove down the street, he grabbed her by the throat, dragged her to the ground, and was punching her about the head in an extremely aggressive and violent way. Naturally, we climbed out of the car, leapt on him, threw him in the back of our van and took the bleeding wife inside the house whilst he, in his enraged state, screamed from the back of the van the most disgusting and vile threats, kicked the van and, generally, acted as a man possessed.
We spoke to the wife, a shattered shell of a human being. Her time with this man had broken her so completely that any suggestion we offered which would in any way upset him was something she would not abide. As we pleaded with her to make a complaint against her husband, the thought of challenging him was so pummelled out of her that she just froze into a state of almost catatonia when presented with the concept. We were unable to extract any complaint from her for assault.
There was no capacity for us to do anything in relation to the domestic violence and, after thinking about it, I took the fellow back to the police station, still in custody, and I had to write in the charge sheet, ‘disorderly behaviour and objectionable words’. They are very minor offences under the Summary Offences Act; however, it was the vehicle by which I was able to keep him in custody for as long as possible, using the provisions of the Bail Act to hold him as long as we possibly could - perhaps not entirely legal but necessary in the circumstances. As I prepared the file, the prcis of facts was quite short - a single page. My notes to the prosecutor were twice as long as the prcis because of the obvious questions which would flow from the bench when this fellow was finally brought to court.
As a consequence, he went to court. I cannot recall if bail was refused or not; I recall being summoned by the prosecutor, and he said: ‘We have to explain this’. We sat in a courtroom and, in spite of my copious notes, the magistrate wanted to know why this guy was not locked up for assault. I had to tell the magistrate we could not, in a pink fit, get an assault complaint out of the victim. He was duly fined for his objectionable words and disorderly behaviour and released from the court - a wholly unsatisfying result from the public perspective. If any person witnessed what I had there would be a strong desire to throw this man in gaol for a very long time. That, naturally, did not occur.
Those are the things this domestic violence legislation sought to remedy. There were many cases before the courts during that period where homicides were reported, where women who had suffered for many years at the hands of abusive husbands had finally taken to stabbing them, or setting the caravan on fire, and were being convicted for manslaughter. Domestic violence legislation was originally introduced in an effort to deal with those issues.
As legislative instruments go through time they are finessed; they are changed with different expectations. The original domestic violence legislation dealt exclusively with the relationship between husband and wife, and de facto partners. That now has a much broader intent and is an example of how these legislative instruments have evolved.
This bill before the House deals with issues arising out of domestic violence arrangements. In many, a party, often the wife, who flees the house and seeks refuge in another place then finds themself out of a home. It is only at that point they seek a domestic violence order, and that has an impact on their tenancy arrangements. Often, the person who flees the home is still duty bound to pay the rent. This legislative instrument allows the court to interfere in those arrangements to a degree - reasonable arrangements because they enable the party involved to deal with issues of tenancy after the fact, something currently not the case.
The other component touched on by this legislative instrument is police domestic violence orders and, as the minister said in her second reading speech:
The Attorney-General went on to say:
This bill seeks to address that issue and we on this side of the House see no problem. There are practical components to policing legislative instruments which are not immediately foreseen by legislative drafters, even the police themselves. The nature of this is to bring amendments to legislation to make things more clear, or to allow the flexibility required to deal with such matters - precisely what is under consideration by this proposed amendment.
I turn to the other component, the matter of intoxicated people being taken into custody by police for the purposes of issuing a DVO. It is my understanding that currently the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act are used in an unofficial capacity to hold intoxicated people once they have been apprehended, and a DVO is issued in the morning. It is not the intention of that section - but not unlawful - and the approach taken by the Attorney-General seeks to address that issue.
Currently, when a person is arrested for the purposes of having an interim order issued by a police officer, the DVO must be served within four hours. There are times when police officers will take people into custody who are in such a state of intoxication it may well be arguable by someone in a later court dealing with the breach of a DVO offence that the person given the DVO was so drunk they could not understand the terms of the document. Therefore, police have used section 128 - not illegally - perhaps inappropriately - as the cover-all, or have taken the risk of issuing a DVO after four hours and potentially providing the person a defence for breach of the DVO.
Consequently, I presume the Attorney-General has been approached by police saying: ‘We need to fix this’. The fix is that the legislative instrument will allow for a person to be held in custody for a further two hours. This is reminiscent of the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act which enabled police to hold people in custody for periods of six hours when seriously affected by alcohol or drug. Under the provisions of section 128, if a person is intoxicated and their release time is in the wee small hours of the morning, police may hold that person until they wake the next day.
This instrument allows that extension of time to occur. If, however, after the passage of those extra two hours police are still of the opinion the person is sufficiently intoxicated as to deprive them of the capacity to understand the provisions of a domestic violence order or interim order, the police may seek to hold that person for a further four hours.
At this point the issue of the individual’s health becomes a matter for consideration. Any person so intoxicated that after six hours they are still too drunk to understand the provisions of an order, becomes a person to which a health issue may be ascribed. Consequently, the Attorney-General seeks to make provision that a person may be held for up to 10 hours, however, after six hours a health inspection needs to be conducted by a practitioner.
This raises one issue of concern - I am not making my comments in reference to doctors or registered nurses per se – practitioners, for the purposes of this section, should include Aboriginal health workers. This gives me some pause for consideration. A doctor presented with a person suffering from hypoglycaemia will, in many respects, consider what is wrong with that person, because a person suffering from hypoglycaemia may give the impression of being drunk. If a person has hypoglycaemia and is thrown into a cell and left unattended for an excessive period of time, they will not be merely drunk, they will be dead. That is a difficult thing for a doctor or registered nurse to assess, particularly in the absence of any useable equipment to assess things like blood sugar levels.
During my briefing, I asked what training an Aboriginal health worker received to become a health worker. I am uncertain if that has been forwarded to my office; I have not seen a copy. As a consequence, I will be raising that issue during the committee stage of this bill.
If the training of an Aboriginal health worker is at a certification level substantially lower than a registered nurse or doctor, is there a danger we are exposing Aboriginal health workers to difficulties regarding liability? Many of the acts they operate under will indemnify them from criminal or civil liability, nevertheless, that does not deal with the stress felt by people who have to go through the coronial process and give evidence, particularly if they feel they have made a mistake.
If the knowledge of an Aboriginal health worker is not sufficiently comprehensive to make an effective assessment that someone is drunk, and in fact their only true point of reference will be their own personal experience, and the personal experience of the police officer is just as good as an Aboriginal health worker in determining a state of intoxication, or something else, of a person, if some other malady is detected by a police office or an Aboriginal health worker, health considerations of the person in custody become paramount.
Many bush nurses tend to be over-cautious. The District Medical Officer is phoned by the registered nurse or Aboriginal health worker. On the basis of that telephone conversation a determination is made by the DMO to transfer a person to a hospital, which usually involves an aeroplane. Pause briefly to think about the position the DMO is in. They receive a telephone call - second-hand information about a person’s signs and symptoms related to them by a health worker or registered nurse - and on that basis they have to make a judgment call as to whether or not a person should be evacuated to, for argument’s sake, Alice Springs from Yuendumu. The DMO will err on the side of caution and, as a result of those circumstances, this legislative instrument runs the risk of imposing a substantial financial burden either on the Health department or the police.
It is difficult to deal with because if the police, who through their own general orders seek medical advice whenever they have doubt, seek such advice, they do it for the best possible reasons. It would be difficult to say the blame for these things must rest with the police officers on duty. All that happens, from a government perspective in circumstances where a person has had an excessive time in custody, is they have to be dealt with by one department or another. Responsibility has to lie in one place or another.
If it does not lie with the police officer, it lies with a health worker. It is therefore incumbent upon the government to ensure Aboriginal health workers who have to make these determinations have the education, training and equipment necessary to make the correct determination. I would not be well pleased as minister for Health to discover there is an increased expectation and liability upon the people who work for me being shifted from another department without having the requisite budget to ensure my Aboriginal health workers could deal with this issue. Having taken the time to explain that to the Attorney-General, I signal I will be asking some questions about this during the committee stage.
Ten hours is a long period of time to hold any person in custody, essentially, without charge. Our criminal justice system is predicated on the assumption that when the state chooses to apprehend a person, that person, under normal circumstances, will be taken before a court to be dealt with according to law. It is a necessary and important component of the way we separate our powers within our democracy. The longer we hold people without charge, the more we offend the concept of liberty upon which our system is structured. To say a police officer may take a person into custody without charge and hold them for 10 hours is a matter I take seriously.
There are other examples of such circumstances. I direct members’ attention to section 128 of the Police Administration Act, where police, and the state, are allowed to take people into custody by the powers vested in them by this House. It is an extremely unusual power. Under normal circumstances, a person taken into custody would be taken before a court at the nearest available opportunity or, also by the powers invested by this House in police, if some other further investigation has to be done. Sections 130, 137 and 138 of the Police Administration Act are examples of this. This is another power of custody which becomes a longer power of custody.
I express caution in relation to giving away a power of custody of this nature. Nevertheless, having considered the implications of this and the regulations, the restraints, the checking which has been put in place, and the fact I trust our police force to do the right thing, my colleagues on this side of the House are prepared to acquiesce to this power. We understand the practical implications of custody in the Northern Territory, such as vast distances between courts. It is for this reason we allow fax and telephonic communications, fax and telephonic warrants and the issue of telephonic domestic violence orders.
Nevertheless, it is always a matter of great pause for me when the rights and liberties of people who are not charged with criminal offences are truncated for the sake of administrative convenience. This stays within the realms of reasonable, and is why it enjoys the support of this side of the House. We will always, on this side, be cautious of offences against individuals’ liberties, particularly offences inflicted by the state. I use the word ‘offences’ in that context not meaning criminal offences, but in the broader scheme of the offence against liberty a section like this represents.
All in all, this bill does not carry substantial controversy; it is a bill designed to be convenient and functional in the environment in which we live. We are not of a disposition to make things difficult. We concern ourselves with the implications this may have for Aboriginal health workers. I am well aware of the limitations police have to deal with matters pertaining to intoxication. Their judgment is often based on nothing more than experience and, of course, I am not unmindful of the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
I want to talk about the effects of coronial investigations on people. Most people see coronial investigations as trials.
Aboriginal health workers have often lived their lives in remote Aboriginal communities and do not enjoy the sophistication of having lived in a worldly environment. That does not suggest they are stupid or of limited intelligence. Rather, their lack of experience, necessitated by the environment they occupy, makes them more vulnerable to the systems around them. Many of these health workers have language skills and an understanding of the European justice system which are less than perfect. Again, this is not to diminish them; this is an observation of reality. Where this is the case, to ask them to do something without training is to expose them to a system of inquisition through a coronial inquiry which may frighten them. I do not want these people to be frightened, I do not want them to be scared; I want them to live in an environment where they do their job effectively for the community they serve.
When coronial investigations occur, particularly into deaths in custody, they normally attract public interest. Deaths in custody have traditionally seen a close public scrutiny with large reports in the newspapers. To have cameras turn up in communities and pointed at Aboriginal health workers involved in an inquisition, which they emotionally respond to as a trial, makes me express misgiving. You could imagine how people without a world view, without a high level of sophistication, might feel as they walked into what they saw as an inquisition with a camera shoved in their face. Potentially, that is what we are asking people to be exposed to should there be a death in custody as a result of the change of this legislative instrument.
Police officers, usually, are somewhat more robust. Most come from European society and are trained in giving evidence and understand an inquisitorial process. A police officer who takes all reasonable steps to look after a person in custody will never be criticised by a coronial investigation, and as long as a police officer can satisfy themselves, as the custodial officer, they have done all necessary to protect the person in their custody, they will be far more robust in their capacity to deal with the issues should a death in custody occur.
It is this differentiation upon which I base my argument and observations. The comparison between a police officer in a remote Aboriginal community and an Aboriginal health worker going through the inquisitorial process of a coronial inquiry means the emotional and profound effect of the experience will be much less for a police officer who had a person in custody than a health worker who had given a person a clean bill of health only to find the person died as a result of a complication arising from an underlying, undetected health issue. It is not only hypoglycaemia which can present itself as drunkenness - subdural haematomas can also have the same effect.
Consequently, we cautiously support this bill. We are careful on the grounds I have outlined. I look forward to the committee stage debate to receive some comfort from the Attorney-General that our support is well-founded.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill (Serial 128) as presented by the Attorney-General.
I listened with great interest to the characteristically learned and academic contribution from the member for Port Darwin, who has a law degree and was also a police officer for many years. I do not come with the same level of experience or expertise. However, in my role as an elected member of this House, which includes, very importantly, being a legislator, I am satisfied through the information received through briefings and through the expertise this government possesses in its agencies, including the Department of Justice, that this bill is solid and these changes are warranted.
I highlight the recognition the member for Port Darwin provided at the end of his speech and his concession this bill is convenient and functional and is the path we need to be taking, in spite of some reservations he had. He has flagged that he will be asking the Attorney-General for further details at the committee stage.
It is timely this bill is before the House a week after White Ribbon Day, an important annual event marking an international and very public stand to eliminate violence against women, and one which this government and, I am sure, members opposite, fully support. We showed our support in the Chamber last week by wearing the distinctive white ribbon on our lapels.
This bill is not about politics. It is about making strong laws and strengthening and, where necessary, amending existing laws to protect women and children, in particular, from violence. The Domestic and Family Violence Act commenced in July 2008, and important amendments about mandatory reporting were introduced in late 2008 and passed early in 2009.
The intention to introduce mandatory reporting laws for domestic and family violence was announced in a media release from the Chief Minister on 9 July 2008. At that time I was the preselected candidate for the electorate of Nhulunbuy and welcomed the announcement which recognised domestic violence is a community problem and needs a community response. In the same way we accept there is mandatory reporting for child abuse, those who commit domestic violence are protected when a community remains silent, which is simply unacceptable.
It was an historic occasion when the bill for mandatory reporting was debated in this House in February 2009. This jurisdiction was the first in Australia and, I believe, the world, to make the reporting of domestic and family violence mandatory. It was also an occasion when many members rose to speak, quite emotionally, also rationally and passionately, with firsthand stories of family members who had witnessed, lived with and even died at the hands of domestic violence.
As a government we recognise there is a clear and direct link between alcohol abuse in the Territory and violent assaults, including domestic violence. Introducing legislation and amendments to the Domestic and Family Violence Act alone will not fix the scourge of violence in our community. This is why the government has introduced tough reforms to put problem drinkers off tap, to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour, and why two draft exposure bills, the Smart Court Bill and the Prevention of Alcohol Related Crime and Substance and Misuse Bill, are currently in the public domain for scrutiny and comment. I thank the Attorney-General in her capacity as Minister for Alcohol Policy in pressing ahead with these crucial reforms, fully supported, I would add, by the Caucus.
In dealing with problems of violence we must look to the root causes and deal with the issue of alcohol itself. Statistics paint a stark and disturbing picture and point to the level of alcohol-fuelled crime in our community: 60% of all assaults are alcohol-related, with 60% of all domestic violence incidents being alcohol-related. Alcohol abuse was also raised in the recently released report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, which heard evidence from Territorians that grog is a key contributor to child abuse and neglect. This government is working hard, and in consultation with key stakeholders in the community, to address community expectations that we need to deal with alcohol; we must deal with alcohol and the domestic violence it leads to.
The bill before us today seeks to make a number of amendments to ensure the Domestic and Family Violence Act is workable legislation which closes loopholes. Moreover, the amendments seek to strengthen the act to better protect victims of domestic violence and allow police to have greater powers in relation to domestic violence orders, or DVOs, so they are positioned and empowered to better protect victims.
It is not my intention to address all these amendments because the Attorney-General provided a comprehensive overview during her second reading speech, and briefings have been offered through the Attorney-General’s Office by the Department of Justice. I took the opportunity to receive a briefing and I thank officers for their time and expertise.
Amendments to sections 22 and 23 of the act have come about as a result of stakeholder feedback from victim services, including the Domestic Violence Legal Service, the Top End Women’s Legal Service, and the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service. I thank Sue Phoo, Teena Balgi and Beth Wild for their efforts and contribution. Whilst I have not met these women, I am advised they have made an enormous contribution in seeing this bill come before us. Amendments to these sections deal with premises access orders, and enabling replacement tenancy agreements to be arranged with much greater ease.
Under the current act, the victim is disadvantaged in that when fleeing the place of residence to escape domestic violence, it becomes extremely difficult to return home. Under the current act, premises access orders can only be part of a DVO if the protected person is still living in the premises. The reality is, a person flees domestic violence first then seeks to take out a DVO. As the Attorney-General mentioned in her second reading speech, some victims are understandably fearful about taking out a DVO whilst still residing with the defendant - fearful of reprisals. A victim should be entitled to flee their home but retain the right in court to apply for orders to live in their home. No victim should be punished for fleeing domestic violence, and their lives should not be made more difficult by the fact they have left. It is incredibly unfair and unjust that someone escaping domestic violence can currently only be granted premises access orders if they remain living in the premises, and no doubt living, in some circumstances, in fear of their life.
The reality of domestic violence is that in the real world we know this is not how the chain of events usually evolves. Acts of domestic violence can erupt with little or no notice. The violence can be both physically and mentally traumatic. In a fight or flight scenario I doubt a victim has time to think about or would even be aware, in trying to return to the residence after fleeing the scene for safety, they need to have taken out a DVO and obtained a premises access order first. The amendment in section 22 ensures a premises access order can be made in relation to a protected person – the victim - after they have left the premises.
Amendments to section 23 - and this includes the committee stage amendments which have been circulated to members following stakeholder feedback from the Domestic Violence Legal Service - deal with tenancy matters. It allows the court to take into account all circumstances of both parties and make appropriate orders as to who lives in the premises and, in turn, whose name remains, is added to, or removed from the tenancy agreement. The court is not limited by who is on the tenancy agreement, or who remains in the premises. Therefore, should the protected person have no desire to remain at those premises, the amendments enable the court to have that person’s name removed from the tenancy agreement. Previously, to make these arrangements, the protected person had to go through the process set out in the Residential Tenancies Act to have their name removed from the tenancy agreement. These amendments make it possible for this to happen in court when domestic violence orders are being made.
This amendment also allows for a replacement tenancy agreement, which may benefit the protected person or, with the agreement of the protected person, the defendant.
Other key amendments in this bill have come about following issues raised by officers of the Northern Territory Police as to the workability of the act, in practical terms, with regard to police DVOs as opposed to court DVOs. Amendments to section 41 are quite sensible and will allow an authorised police officer to raise a police DVO in certain circumstances, which are now more clearly prescribed. These amendments will particularly benefit police carrying out their duties in remote areas where there is not ready access to a court and will afford better and more timely protection for victims of domestic violence.
The circumstances applying when raising a police DVO, as outlined by the Attorney-General, include, first and foremost, that the DVO is necessary to ensure a person’s safety - and there must be a degree of urgency. Second, it is not practicable in the circumstances to obtain a court DVO. Third, a DVO might reasonably have been made by the court. All three criteria must be met. Amongst members opposite we have four former police officers who have all served in remote areas. I hope they recognise the limitations within the act and welcome these amendments around police DVOs, especially for officers trying to do their jobs in remote areas.
The other amendment I wish to highlight relates to section 84 which deals with police power to remove and detain, particularly detaining intoxicated persons. Currently, a person can be detained for up to four hours. Police have raised concerns that in detaining a person in order to serve a DVO it is very difficult, or nigh on impossible, when that person is intoxicated. Under the act, police are required to - and I quote from the Attorney-General’s second reading speech:
Three things associated with it. I quote further:
For police this is difficult to do when, at the end of four hours, a person - the defendant - is still intoxicated and in no position to understand an explanation from police about the DVO, or anything else for that matter. To release someone at the end of four hours, still intoxicated and not cognisant of the implications of having been served a DVO and what would constitute a breach, is risky to say the least.
The amendment before the House will allow police to detain an intoxicated person for up to a maximum of 10 hours so police can give a copy of a DVO to a person in a state such that they can reasonably understand it. The broadening of police powers is clearly outlined in clause 84(5) which states a person can be detained for more than six hours provided the police officer is of the view a person is intoxicated, and this can mean under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or a combination of both; that a senior officer has been informed of the continued detention, that senior officer being at the superintendent level or above; and that information is recorded about the detention in the custody log; and finally, arrangements be made as soon as practical for a health practitioner to examine the detained person.
I acknowledge misgivings around the definition of health practitioner and the role of Aboriginal health workers in this area; as the member for Port Darwin has flagged, he will take that further during committee stage amendments.
The proposed section 84 clearly states, as a safeguard measure, if during the period of detention the person requires medical attention, they must be released into the custody of a health practitioner, and if they cease to be intoxicated before 10 hours and understand the information they receive about the DVO, are to be released.
I have not gone over all the amendments in the bill, rather what might be considered to be the key ones. Importantly, these amendments will provide better protection for victims of domestic violence and allow police to carry out their duties more efficiently and fairly to both the protected person and the defendant.
This government does not tolerate violence and is singularly committed to doing everything it can to tackle domestic violence and ensure we have workable laws which protect victims and send a strong message to perpetrators of domestic violence.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and commend it to honourable members.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the changes. The amendments have been brought by people who know the issues - the domestic, legal, and violence services have brought these matters to the government.
I thank the minister for the briefing. It is obvious from the briefings that the second reading did not quite reflect the amendment. That is why we now have the amendment to the amendments. It now makes sense, and makes it easier for people who have left the house because of a DVO and gone elsewhere. It enables them to have an access order, and from that access order they can apply for a tenancy agreement. I now understand the changes.
The definition of DVO has worried me, especially since we had the ugliest Question Time I have seen in relation to certain people being used in a political debate because of a DVO against them. The issue I have is that the word ‘violence’ to most people means you belt someone up; however, section 5 of the act says:
(a) conduct causing harm;
(c) intimidation;
(d) stalking;
(e) economic abuse;
(f) attempting or threatening to commit conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e).
The notes also mention procuring someone to commit domestic violence.
We called them restraining orders previously, and other states still do. I am not saying government needs to respond at the moment; however, in light of the terrible debate in the last sittings, when one hears a person has a DVO they immediately think that person has violently attacked someone. I am not saying these matters should not be attended to; the concept relating to these issues could be split so it more reflects what the average person thinks when an order has been placed on a person. It is worth looking at. The questions and inferences around the issue of domestic violence left a very sour taste in many people’s mouths. No one knew the details of the DVO. An outsider with no idea of the circumstances, or who saw it as a headline in the paper, would presume there was a physically violent act towards another person.
That is slightly away from the crux of this debate. The issue is about police amending DVOs, police issuing DVOs and a DVO being in place in relation to access agreements. It would be good to debate the wording at some stage. I am not trying to downsize the seriousness of the situation. I sometimes feel that people could be unfairly targeted for something they may not have done.
Nothing mentioned in section 5 of the act is nice. Intimidation, stalking, and economic abuse are not pleasant; however, I do not put them in the same bracket as conduct causing harm or damaging property, including the injury or death of an animal. That area could do with some distinction. It is an area which has concerned me for some time and I felt, after Question Time in the last sittings, it needed more attention.
I support the bill; the amendments are sensible. They make it less complicated for people in fear of returning to their home. I understand from the briefings that the government was contacted by someone in a relationship who found they had no rights because they had left their premises. The amendments today allow those rights to be restored and allow fair process to occur so a court can establish who has rights in these matters.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members who contributed to debate. I particularly thank my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who took the time and effort to receive a briefing. She brought a positive and strong dimension to the practicalities we deal with in this tough area of domestic violence. Her representation of many remote communities in Arnhem Land enables her to recognise the practicalities the police have to deal with, which has prompted many of the amendments we have before us.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for the cautious support indicated by the opposition to the amendments. I note his concerns tend to go to detaining intoxicated offenders and the use of Aboriginal health workers; I will go into that in further detail. I thank the member for Nelson for his support, he also received a briefing. In regard to the broader debate the member for Nelson wants to have, I am happy to entertain that but we need to do it from a platform of understanding where this law is at nationally and what reports have occurred. I will ensure the member for Nelson receives a copy of the Australian Law Reform Commission report. If anyone knows about the creation and movement of law in our nation, there is no more august body than the Australian Law Reform Commission in looking at legal policy. It handed down a report, Family Violence – a National Legal Response, in October of this year so it is very current and very topical.
In regard to the broader debate on the definitions and do we introduce into the legislation definitions such as ‘restraining order’ versus the existing definitions of ‘domestic violence’, I refer to page 17 of the report summary:
a) physical violence;
b) sexual assault and other sexually abusive behaviour;
c) economic abuse;
d) emotional or psychological abuse;
e) stalking;
f) kidnapping or deprivation of liberty;
g) damage to property, irrespective of whether the victim owns the property;
h) causing injury or death to an animal irrespective of whether the victim owns the animal; and
i) behaviour by the person using violence that causes a child to be exposed to the effects of behaviour referred to in (a)-(h) above;
I checked, after hearing the member for Nelson’s thoughts during the briefing, regarding the terminology across the jurisdictions. I will table the breakdown of like legislation across jurisdictions for the member’s benefit.
Before I do that, I will refer to the jurisdictions and the DVOs, and the description of those DVOs. In the Northern Territory we have the Domestic and Family Violence Act of 2007; we have a domestic violence order …
Madam SPEAKER: Members at the back of the Chamber, please have your conversation elsewhere. Members for Stuart, Fong Lim, Nelson and Brennan! Order! Please have your conversation elsewhere. You are interfering with the parliament. Out the back, thank you!
Ms LAWRIE: In the Northern Territory, we have the police domestic violence order. In New South Wales, there is the apprehended domestic violence order, the interim apprehended domestic violence order, and the provisional order. In Victoria, the family violence intervention order, the interim order, and the family violence safety notice. In Queensland, the domestic violence order, the temporary protection order, and the violence restraining order. In Western Australia, an interim order, and a police order. In South Australia, an interim order, an interim intervention order, and a police interim intervention order. In Tasmania, a family violence order, interim family violence order, and a police issued order. In the ACT, the domestic violence order, the interim order, and the emergency order. In New Zealand, a protection order, and a temporary protection order.
We can see a consistent theme in the terminology used across the jurisdictions of Australia as well as our counterpart in New Zealand. I table that information for members.
Whilst there is support from the member for Nelson for the existing amendments which go to the practicalities and workability of the legislation to improve rights for the victims, a broader debate around the terminology of this is essential in the context of where our fellow jurisdictions are at, particularly given the Australian Law Reform Commission report which urges us to be in sync with each other to send very clear unambiguous messages to our courts in the area of this very distressing violence which occurs across our community. As the commission report said, it predominantly occurs to women and significantly affects children.
The amendments before us today address unforseen practical issues identified by the Northern Territory Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They also address issues identified by domestic legal violence services and victims of domestic violence. The bill will ensure the law continues to work to protect victims of domestic violence by clarifying the circumstances in which premises access orders can be made, replacement tenancy agreements may be created, and authorised police officers may make domestic violence orders. The bill also provides a power for the court to refuse to hear an application or stay proceeding, provides for interim variation orders, expands the police powers of detention, and clarifies sentencing provisions.
The bill clarifies the circumstances in which premises access orders can be made, replacement tenancy agreements can be created and provides a power for the court to refuse to hear an application or stay proceedings. We undertook significant consultation in relation to the bill. The amendments were identified initially by the Northern Territory Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We then went broader and consulted with relevant government agencies such as the Department of Health and Families and the Domestic and Family Violence Policy Unit. We also contacted relevant legal services in an attempt to capture any other aspects to the legislation they would want amended, and we have done that.
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; NT Legal Aid; the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service; the Top End Women’s Legal Service; the Domestic Violence Legal Service; the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; and the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service all provided, to varying degrees, input. The Domestic Violence Legal Service captured a loophole in the access orders which has led to the committee stage amendment we have before us today. I thank them for their thorough scrutiny, analysis and work which led to that. They are very supportive as a result of us tidying up that loophole through the committee stage amendment today, and of the raft of changes before us today.
The member for Port Darwin requested further information around the qualifications of Aboriginal health workers when he received a briefing. He indicated in his response this morning he had not received that information.
Mr Elferink: I did not know if it had been sent to my office. I have not seen it.
Ms LAWRIE: I can clarify an e-mail was sent to John Elferink, Terry Mills, Francine Tomsen, on Wednesday, 1 December at 12.15 pm. It had the committee stage amendments to the Family Violence Bill. Further, I advise an e-mail was sent on Saturday, 27 November from my Justice advisor to Francine Tomsen. It detailed the Aboriginal health worker registration and the tertiary requirements and experience. Francine indicated in a return e-mail on Monday, I believe, that she had received it. We had expected staff to pass it to you. I will ensure in future you receive copies of any e-mail sent to staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s Office so we know the information has gone to you, given you were the author of the request in the first place.
It is important to go into some detail which may or may not satisfy the member opposite. This government did not take the decision lightly regarding the extension of hours. We recognised police were using the practices under the Police Administration Act to detain offenders for a longer period of time to reasonably let the intoxication wear off so they could perform their legal duty to ensure the offender was aware of the charges being laid. We know, in practice, police have been using the Police Administration Act, so it seemed reasonable to insert mirror provisions. In doing so, there was very strong consideration given to - these matters have been circulated to all government agencies, including police, and supported by all - if you detain people for longer what checks and balances can you put in place to ensure the safety of the person detained?
Regarding the comments made by the member for Port Darwin about the qualifications of, and role played by, Aboriginal health workers under the amendments, I will go to the suggestion that Aboriginal health workers are less qualified than police officers to assess the medical state of a person in custody who appears intoxicated …
Mr Elferink: I did not quite say that, but go on.
Ms LAWRIE: We received a rush of your comments to ensure we attend to the issues you raised, member for Port Darwin.
You commented about possible coronial inquests - if a person dies in custody after having been assessed by an Aboriginal health worker. Aboriginal health workers do not have a lack of experience, a lack of sophistication, or a lack of understanding of the justice system to the point where we believe they would be left frightened in any coronial inquest which might occur. Frankly, I find stereotyping of professional workers doing great work across our communities, and significantly relied upon across communities, disappointing. We recognise the justice system can be daunting for anyone appearing as a witness. However, to say Aboriginal health workers would be worse off than a police officer or any other person could be considered insulting.
The member for Port Darwin is ignoring the fact this process of assessment involves interaction between health practitioners and the police. It is one of those occasions where two people are better than one in the combined skill sets they bring to the situation. The individual is still in custody, and still the ultimate responsibility of the police.
That aside, whether the police officer is involved or not, I cannot let this pass. I will address the issue of Aboriginal health workers and the work in primary healthcare in remote Aboriginal communities they undertake. They are often recruited from their communities to enable local participation in direction and delivery of health services. We would all think that is a good thing. Aboriginal health workers also work in urban community health, in public health, and in hospitals. Aboriginal health workers are involved in specialist areas of health including renal dialysis, women’s and men’s health screening, early childhood screening and development, nutrition, mental health, alcohol and other drugs, health services management, and design.
Aboriginal health workers often use complex medical equipment, take and test samples of biological material, sometimes requiring invasive procedures, such as venipuncture. Aboriginal health workers are also authorised to administer a limited range of medications in accordance with the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, and have a significant cultural brokerage role in the provision of healthcare, enabling them to not only be healthcare providers but also facilitate care provided by other professionals. The value of Aboriginal health workers in the provision of our health services is widely recognised, is highly valued, and furthermore, a number of services provided by Aboriginal health workers are rebateable under Medicare.
An Aboriginal Health Workers Board of the Northern Territory is established by the Health Practitioners Act. The board is a statutory body responsible for ensuring the public is protected through the regulation of Aboriginal health workers registered in the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Health Workers Board ensures: all Aboriginal health workers have received educational preparation to an agreed national standard; administers the scheme of registration; monitors the standard and provision of healthcare services; monitors the competence of the health practitioners; provides guidance on clinical conduct and ethical matters; initiates investigations of complaints made against health practitioners and initiates investigations into other matters which are prescribed; accredits courses for entry as an Aboriginal health worker; and accredits educational institutions to conduct these courses.
Aboriginal health workers are registered health practitioners governed by the Health Practitioners Act, as are Territory occupational therapists and radiographers. Until the recent national uniform legislation, Territory medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, dentists, physiotherapists, psychologists, pharmacists and so forth were also registered health practitioners pursuant to the act. Aboriginal health workers must be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. To be registered as a health practitioner, an Aboriginal health worker must, at a minimum, have completed a Certificate IV in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Practice, or a Certificate III in Aboriginal Health Work Clinical Studies awarded in the Northern Territory prior to 30 June 2008, or another equivalent qualification. The certificates are nationally recognised qualifications. In the Territory, the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education conducts the Certificate IV. It is a two-year course, where students are trained in basic clinical skills and primary healthcare issues – a two-year course.
An Aboriginal health worker provides clinical treatment, support and information to individuals, families and community members in relation to health and primary healthcare outcomes. The qualification covers workers who provide a range of primary healthcare services to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander clients, including specific healthcare program advice and assistance with medication. They must also have completed the applied first aid qualification to be eligible for registration.
In response to the member for Port Darwin’s concerns - I do not believe you are right. You are downplaying the important role and training Aboriginal health workers have received. We have ensured all proposals brought before the Chamber today have received full support from police, Justice, and all relevant government agencies this bill was circulated to. I understand your caution; it is an area where, whilst we may continue debate during committee stage, we will not reach agreement. Aboriginal health workers are an enhancement to the safety of intoxicated persons and provide significant support to the police. Police are highly skilled and highly trained. Police in remote communities have a very close working relationship with clinics in those communities. To provide a role for Aboriginal health workers assisting intoxicated persons who would be detained for a longer period of time is progressive and recognises, in a practical sense, the relationship that exists on communities at the workable level they exist today.
Madam Speaker, we need to go into committee to deal with Schedule 54, which has been circulated to all members of the Chamber. Prior advice had been given to the opposition and Independents of this proposed amendment, which is simply a loophole picked up by the Women’s Legal Services in regard to premises access orders, particularly for a person who does not want to return to the premises. It gives a range of options as to whether or not the defendant and protected person will live together, or do not want to live together, and who gets access to the premises. It is a very valuable step forward.
Sometimes people’s circumstances can lead to lawmakers understanding we need to evolve, improve and change our legislation. A woman, whom I will not name in this Chamber, took the time to write to the government indicating how difficult it was for her; she did not want to return to the premises she had rented with her former partner, but was still on the lease and therefore financially bound to that rental premises.
Madam Speaker, that was the genesis of the work and consideration we put to the raft of amendments we are dealing with today. I am glad women, despite the travails they go through, sometimes stand up and attempt to ensure things have changed so women, should they be confronted with those circumstances in the future, have a better run of it. I will write to that woman and thank her for taking the time and effort to write to the Attorney-General, and indicate with the passage of this legislation she has made it much better for women who find themselves in that circumstance in the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 128) together with Schedule of Amendments No 54 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 6 read.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 54.1 which is the schedule circulated to members. This amendment invites defeat of the proposed section 23(1) in current clause 6(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow for a new proposed section 23(1) in clause 6(1) to be inserted to ensure the intent of clause 6 is met.
Clause 6 is intended to enable a replacement tenancy agreement to be made for the benefit of the defendant in circumstances where the protected person does not want to remain as a tenant of the premises. Proposed section 23(1), as currently drafted, would have the effect of requiring a protected person, who no longer wished to reside in premises where they are a tenant, to seek a premises access order which either excludes the defendant from the premises or provides conditions in which they may exit the premises in order to then obtain a replacement tenancy agreement for the benefit of the defendant. This is nonsensical and cumbersome.
The proposed amendment to section 23(1) in clause 6(1) addresses this by allowing a protected person, who no longer wishes to reside in premises where they are a tenant, to obtain a replacement tenancy agreement for the benefit of the defendant without needing to first obtain a premises access order. The current draft amendment will also have the effect of excluding a protected person who is not on the lease from obtaining a replacement tenancy agreement in their favour.
The amendment also addresses this by allowing for replacement tenancy agreements to be made where either the defendant or protected person is a tenant, or both are tenants.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not going to say much about this amendment; we will not be opposing it. I need to address several issues.
I want to place on the record whilst I appreciate the Attorney-General thinks it is her function to barb, and barb relentlessly, there was no condescension intended. I have worked with traditional people for many years, both as a police officer and as a member of parliament, and in those two functions have spent well over 10 years in the bush. I spoke from personal experience knowing some of these people fulfil the description given.
My comments were a genuine effort to ensure the minister was comfortable the correct protections were in place. They were not intended, directly or indirectly, to be stereotypical or in some way condescending. I understand the reality of this, and am not the only person to be on the record making these comments. If you look at R v Anunga, Judge Forster’s guidelines in dealing with Aboriginal prisoners are based on similar assumptions and assertions.
I wanted to place that on the record, and I hope the Attorney-General understands my intentions and motives were nothing but the highest.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 54.2. This amendment inserts a new amendment after clause 6(2) into the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to ensure the intent of clause 6 is met.
Clause 6 is intended to enable a replacement tenancy agreement to be made for the benefit of the defendant in circumstances where the protected person does not want to remain as a tenant of the premises. Proposed clause 6(3) amends section 23(3)(a)(iii) by inserting ‘or defendant’ after ‘protected person’. This ensures where a replacement tenancy agreement is being made for the benefit of the defendant, the court must be satisfied the defendant will be able to comply with the replacement tenancy agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion on urgency, and I must say there was some trepidation in the House last week when the motion on urgency was brought on. You can be sceptical from time to time when legislation is brought on urgency; it does not provide the adequate time to do the research required.
We have debated this quite extensively and I could be going over old ground; however, some new things have come up and I want to put on the record my understanding of what this legislation intends, and to thank the minister and his advisors for the legal support and information we received. I will be raising several concerns regarding the urgency and the reason behind that, and clarify why some people are sceptical of urgency motions.
The Water Amendment Bill (Serial 137) was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 23 November 2010 by the minister for Environment, Hon Karl Hampton. The provisions of this bill were introduced under urgency. The purpose of this bill is to rectify an inadvertent misinterpretation of the act which would invalidate licences issued under section 74 of the act. This misrepresentation came to the attention of the department through advice provided by the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory.
The invalidation of these licences would leave businesses liable to prosecution under the Water Act, particularly for offences against section 16, Prohibition of pollution. The intention of this section is to allow a holder of a licence to intentionally pollute bodies of water by discharging waste, in specified circumstances, subject to specific conditions. Information provided to government and the opposition by the Solicitor-General suggests licences issued under section 74 of the act can only be issued to a person who holds one of the following licences: a water investigation permit under section 37; a construction permit under section 42; a licence to take or use water under section 46; a drilling licence under section 50; a bore construction permit under section 58; a licence to take groundwater under section 61; an underground waste disposal licence under section 64; and a recharge licence under section 68.
The minister has made a declaration relating to the beneficial uses, qualities, standards, criteria or objectives of water or waste under that licence, and the licence holder’s actions under the licence would otherwise prejudice the beneficial uses, etcetera, specified by the declaration. This interpretation by the Solicitor-General would invalidate waste discharge licences granted for the purpose of sewage discharge, etcetera, as none of the above criteria would apply to those companies. This would make a company liable to prosecution under section 16 of the act for allowing water to enter a body of water.
This problem is further compounded as the title of the section cannot be considered as part of the act, as explained to me by the minister and through advice I received. Sections which have not received amendments since 2006 are unable to have their titles considered as part of the legislation. As section 94 has not been amended since 1992, a licence can only be granted to the holders of the above licences in the aforementioned circumstances.
The urgency explained covers many areas we need to fix quickly due to the impending Wet Season. We have a number of mine sites, businesses, and employees who rely on their jobs continuing during the Wet Season. I can give you an example. Jabiru uranium mine, with a large tailings dam, has a storage capacity. I was shown over that mine site and was impressed with the work done to contain water on the site, as is their responsibility to protect the environment. The back-up systems, the piping, and the containment walls on the mine site impressed me. However, every Wet Season we are inundated with huge amounts of water. In that circumstance, a mine site would need to release water from the tailings dam, whether it wants to or not, because water will go over the top. So, they prefer to do it in a controlled manner. To do this they need a licence to exceed their normal licence conditions. This could not occur unless this legislation is corrected.
Second, organisations like Power and Water, until today, had a number of licences which provided for them to discharge contaminated water into our environment. There would not be a person in this House who would not want to stop that immediately; however, this is the system we have, we can fix it up over time, but until that time we need it to operate as it has done for the last 18 years. The reality is, organisations like Power and Water need licences to discharge waste water. The advice from the Solicitor-General is this could render their licences invalid, another reason this needs to be fixed on urgency. I accept that; it makes sense.
I put forward legislation yesterday after the Environment minister indicated to me a weakness in the Inquiries Act. We moved to fix that legislation, and any good government, any good opposition will support legislation found to be not doing what was intended. That legislation needs to be amended to ensure it does what was intended. That is our advice and the opposition supports it.
However, there will be several questions asked today. One question will be is there anything in this bill which affects someone’s interests in respect to licences to extract water? I am aware of an ongoing issue between landholders and government. I expressed in a briefing this morning that five years is far too long to wait for a decision from government. I appreciate government is attempting to protect water, and I am sure we will talk more in the MPI later today, however, the words the member for Nelson uses in relation to protecting our environment are ‘the precautionary principle’. Perhaps we sometimes go a little too far.
That is the question I will be putting to the minister: is there anything in this bill that in any way affects someone’s interest in respect to licences to extract water? This amendment occurs at a time when pressure has been brought on government in a court case - I cannot talk about that - where in the minds of these people pressure is brought to bear on government, an amendment is then put through on urgency and they are worried; they think this amendment will affect their business, their livelihood and perhaps the outcome of the court case.
I believe we are talking about two separate pieces of legislation. Licences to extract water are under section 60 of the Water Act. The amendments to the Water Act before the House today have nothing to do with those licence applications, or any other licence for water extraction in the Northern Territory. The amendments today are solely concerned with licences under which waste has been, is being, and will be, discharged into Territory watercourses.
Also, the validation provisions ensure waste discharge licences previously assumed to be valid, are valid. It is very clear, particularly from clause 5 of the bill which inserts a new section 111 saying the only licences validated by section 111 are those purported to be issued under section 74, which is the section under which waste discharge licences have been issued. In no way do the validation provisions of this bill affect any licence to extract water. That is where we have an issue; some people believe there is ambiguity in the legislation. I believe it is clear: 111(1) mentions section 74(1) and does not mention any other act. It is very clear.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Fong Lim has suggested an amendment to remove any ambiguity from this legislation and I look forward to that debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Andrew Tupper, Chair of the EPA. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill to amend the Water Act. We had debate earlier about the reasons for urgency. I am normally cautious about any bill before this parliament which skips the normal processes. From the briefings and arguments I have heard, it is important we make changes to the bill because many people rely on discharging water, such as Power and Water and our mining industry. We need to ensure the laws they operate under are correct and legal. The Solicitor-General indicated that section 74 does not operate in the manner it has been thought to since the act came into force, and during that period successive administrations have implemented section 74 on the understanding it allowed for waste discharge licences to be issued where waste is discharged to a natural water body.
I have been advised the bill seeks to restore the operation of section 74 to allow it to operate in the manner presumed since the act’s passage many years ago, and to validate those existing and past licences.
Unfortunately, in the Northern Territory we have a range of technologies similar to Roman times. We put poo into the harbour. That is what the Romans did. We chlorinate sewage so there is less effect on the environment. Some countries use processes where sewage is not discharged into the environment; it is used as fertiliser, and there are other ways sewage is treated. As long as humans live on this earth sewage will be an issue. Sewage will need to be discharged, and that will have to be licensed in the Northern Territory. We need to consider how to reduce the discharge of any substance, whether mining - we have seen what happened at Mt Todd mine when accidental discharge occurred. We need to be always attempting to do better.
This legislation is very clear. Reading from the advice given, there is no doubt this legislation is dealing with discharge licences. This bill is dealing with discharge licences not extraction licences, and I had two briefings with the minister this morning to ensure there was no misunderstanding.
The member for Fong Lim has brought forward an amendment. I would be careful with this amendment because the member for Fong Lim has been talking to a QC involved in a matter relating to extraction licences. Reading clause 74, it is not needed. Whilst the member for Fong Lim might discuss other issues, reading the clause there is no doubt we are talking about discharge licences. I will read the clause.
Mr Tollner: That is not the …
Mr WOOD: Hang on. You get your chance later. Proposed section 111, the heading is, Validation for Action before Water Amendment Act 2010:
Section 74(1) is discharge licences:
(i) has not ended - the purported licence is a valid waste discharge licence and is subject to the conditions purportedly applying to it immediately before the commencement; or
It is very clear. We also have advice from the Solicitor-General, and anyone reading it would understand this has nothing to do with extractive licences. The second reading shows the intent of this bill. People might say the government is attempting to sneak something in; there is nothing to sneak in because section 74(1) and section 74 come up each time in new section 111. Reading one line you might think that; you must read the whole section. The new section 111 refers to section 74 or section 74(1) which deals with waste discharge.
I do not believe the amendment is necessary. We had two detailed discussions this morning. The member for Brennan was present; he had some questions and concerns. We all had concerns; however, the right people explained this - and I do not believe they had ulterior motives. They say there is an urgent requirement to fix a problem between section 73 and section 74 of the act. Section 74 of the act is being amended to allow those presently invalid discharge licences to become valid.
We can argue over how that happened; who introduced this legislation 17 years ago; however, we have to deal with reality. Anyone reading proposed section 111 as a whole would see no other inference could be put on it. You can see it does not relate to extractive water licences.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill without amendment because it does exactly what it is meant to do: fix up the anomalies in waste discharge. If there are issues about extractive water licences which come under different sections of the act, they can be discussed at another time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to date. I will be moving an amendment to this bill because I have been nervous - I say that quite openly - about the urgency of this bill. It seems a little odd and a little coincidental that several weeks after government receives advice from a very highly-qualified and eminent QC from Sydney in relation to water extraction licences, this comes on urgency. For some reason the Solicitor-General was asked to look into this and found an anomaly which has existed for 17 years, has never given rise to any problems, but we have to act on it now.
I have listened carefully to the debate. I am no legal expert; what people say may well be true. The minister may be up-front, and I am not suggesting the minister is not a decent and honourable man. I have no reason to question the minister’s integrity; however, I become a little wary when I see so much legal advice coming from all quarters, particularly when there has been a raging debate over a long period of time in relation to water allocations in the Northern Territory.
There is a matter of public importance I hope we will get to where I intend to raise the issue of water allocation across the Territory, and how this government has been hampering the development of agricultural industries with irrational green-led decisions. I do not want to raise that during this debate, although the member for Nelson believes I am chasing some platform to do that; it is not the case. I am a little uneasy about the urgency of this bill, and several things lead me to think that. In the minister’s second reading speech he said:
We are talking about discharge - and it is purely for discharge - yet in the minister’s second reading speech he uses the example of licences to extract water. That makes me uneasy and, being aware of community concerns about government actions in relation to extractive water permits, it all sounds a bit dodgy. For that reason, I have spoken to the eminently qualified Queen’s Counsel from New South Wales who has gone through the legislation. He tells me there are some grey areas. He is not overly alarmed; however, he says this legislation can be strengthened and made clear by the introduction of an additional six words which would remove any doubt whatsoever.
I am perturbed that the member for Nelson, having heard these arguments, having being a little confused in some areas, is now so certain he cannot, in conscience, support this amendment. That saddens me because the amendment I propose will not change this act in any way. It will not create confusion; not change the parameters of the act; not inhibit the act or stop government doing what it wants with this legislation.
It will make it clear, beyond doubt, what this is about. If we are told this legislation is about waste water that is what it should be, and people should have no problems agreeing to the insertion of six words. I am not certain when I should move this amendment, whether I do it in the committee stage - if we go to committee stage - or whether I do it now. Maybe I could have an indication as to what people think it most appropriate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice I have received, member for Fong Lim, is the minister, in closing debate, will have the opportunity to indicate to you where it is best to look at this amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: The problem is if the minister indicates the best time to do it is now, I will have already had my turn to speak.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, do I respond to the member for Fong Lim and call on it now instead of going to committee stage? Is that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to take …
Mr TOLLNER: My point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe it is the will of this side to take the matter to committee because we are quite supportive …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am seeking further advice from the Deputy Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, it may be best to do it in committee. It is a bit messy otherwise.
Mr TOLLNER: I will leave it …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could pause, member for Fong Lim, I am going to vacate the Chair and allow Madam Speaker to take the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: I will continue my comments. I will move this amendment in the committee stage. I wanted to raise concerns that this bill can leach into - pardon the pun - water extraction as well as disposal of waste water. These six words will put beyond any doubt that the legislation is about waste water and not water extraction. My advice is the areas are a little grey and there could be some disputed point on this in the future.
Madam Speaker, there is no harm in accepting this amendment. If the minister feels the amendment is detrimental to the legislation I would be keen to hear it. I am not playing politics, minister. I am seeking an answer and clarity, and it would be a shame if we could not discuss such a small, harmless amendment in a rational way.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. In wrapping up last week I spoke about understanding the mood of the Assembly when something comes to this House on urgency. It has only happened on a couple of occasions during my four years in parliament, so I understand the concerns the opposition has raised. I, and this side of the House, do not take bringing matters to this House on urgency lightly. There are the normal means of introducing legislation through parliament as part of our Westminster system, and I understand the concerns, particularly those raised by the member for Fong Lim.
When I introduced it last week, members were given a copy of the Solicitor-General’s letter. This is not unusual; however, in this case it was important we circulated that advice. We had two briefings this morning, both with the shadow opposition spokesman on the Environment, the member for Brennan, and the Independents. I thank those three members, who all spoke on this last week, and also received the advice they needed because I understand their concerns with it coming on urgency.
The member for Brennan said he had some questions, and I believe has been well briefed on this. He answered his own question on urgency. In my second reading speech I detailed why it has to be done on urgency and how we came across this legal loophole. I thank those officers in my department, particularly the legal officers, who picked up the loophole.
I will go over the three reasons why this is urgent. In my second reading speech I said discharge licences already issued to industry are now invalid. Those licences afford legal certainty to licensees and operators, and operators can make decisions based on the legal protection afforded by a licence. The validation of licences provided by the bill can quickly resolve the uncertainty created by the recent advice.
Second, waste discharge licences are a key regulatory tool. The setting of conditions enables risk to be managed and environmental impacts to be reduced. If this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months and, as the member for Brennan said in his contribution today, we are on the verge of the Wet Season. He gave examples of operations which would be under some uncertainty, such as the mining industry and the Power and Water Corporation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I acknowledge these students?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Epenarra School, accompanied by Mr Matthew Walker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, if this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months. If an incident occurs over this period there will be limited legal remedy.
Third, there are currently eight applications for licences under consideration, and new activities requiring a licence often crop up, particularly during the Wet Season.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support of this urgency motion and his questions during the briefing this morning. We have received advice from the Solicitor-General, and I thank the lawyers from my department and also Parliamentary Counsel.
The member for Nelson mentioned other concerns he has. I look forward to the MPI. I have enjoyed and learnt from this debate. We have not talked enough about water and sustainability in this parliament. When we do, it is great. If there is one environmental issue most important to the Northern Territory - whether you are in the desert in Central Australia, the Barkly, or here in saltwater country - it is water. Debates are happening on the east coast around some of the mistakes made along the Murray River and Darling River systems because of a lack of attention to water management. As minister, I do not want the same mistakes. I welcome any debate on water. It is important to the future of the Northern Territory, culturally, socially, economically, and for our environment.
The member for Nelson mentioned the broader concerns of sewage treatment and, particularly, the Larrakeyah outfall. That is a debate for another day; however, this government can stand proud having addressed some of these concerns this year. The member for Daly said the Larrakeyah outfall has been discharging raw sewage into the harbour for about 40 years. That is totally unacceptable. I am proud of this government’s actions to close the Larrakeyah outfall, the work we are doing to extend the Ludmilla outfall and improve how we treat and discharge the waste going through Ludmilla, and the work we are doing in the Leanyer/Sanderson treatment plant - the de-sludging process which happened this Dry - getting world experts from the United Kingdom and New Zealand to help us, guide us, and provide us with the best advice on how we further improve the release of sewage, and treat sewage through the Leanyer/Sanderson treatment plant.
Ultimately, places like Buffalo Creek bear the brunt of it. We see in the health of the harbour report card that the Buffalo Creek site is recording an E. That is not good enough, and I take on board comments from the member for Nelson because it is going to take a long time to improve the report card for Buffalo Creek. I thank my colleagues for paying attention to the needs of Buffalo Creek - we are doing something about it. We will talk about those issues in 2011. Today we have an important and urgent motion.
Turning to the member for Fong Lim’s concerns, I will go to the reasons for his amendment. The members for Brennan, Nelson and Macdonnell, through their briefings, are now clear this amendment has no implications for water extraction licences. It is abundantly clear the bill, which is very specific, indicates validation in respect of licences issued pursuant to section 74(1).
Second, the opposition has throughout this debate indicated its misgivings about bringing this on urgency. It wanted scrutiny; that is understandable. It is part of the Westminster system we operate within. For the member for Fong Lim to bring on this unnecessary amendment at the last moment - an hour before debate - I respect the member for Fong Lim’s contribution and reasons; however, to bring this on within one hour before we discuss this motion is unacceptable. That is another reason why I will not accept or support his amendment.
Third, our legal advice is it is unwise to include this amendment without the scrutiny of Parliamentary Counsel. Also, by specifically mentioning one type of licence, unintended inferences could be made about licences not mentioned in this urgency bill.
Madam Speaker, I have addressed most of the questions from my parliamentary colleagues about this urgency motion, and I understand we are going to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill to read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I move my amendment be accepted. It is to clause 5, proposed section 111(2), after the words ‘purported licence’ we insert: ‘(not being a water extraction licence)’.
I move that amendment because advice I have received suggests there is a grey area in this legislation. We have no issue with this legislation as it applies to waste water; however, there is a concern it can feed over into the area of water extraction licences. One way to remedy that ambiguity is to insert those six small words mentioned. If the Chamber agrees to that, I will be happy, as will many other people.
Present in the gallery is Tina MacFarlane from Mataranka, who has concerns about this which she has raised with members. It is great to see you here, Tina. This committee stuff is probably the most exciting thing parliament is involved with from time to time.
I encourage members to support this amendment to the amendment, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to respond?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, I will. I acknowledge Tina as well, a constituent of mine.
Madam Chair, licences to extract water are covered by section 60 of the Water Act. Issues regarding applications in Mataranka are made pursuant to that provision. They are currently under review pursuant to the provisions under the Water Act, and specifically relate to the refusal to grant a licence for the quantity of water applied for. Amendments to the Water Act before parliament have nothing to do with those licence applications, or with any other licence for water extraction issued in Mataranka or anywhere else in the Northern Territory.
As I said in my closing debate, there are three reasons I will not be accepting the amendment. It is abundantly clear this amendment has no implication for water extraction licences; I have just pointed out which part of the act does. Second, the opposition has indicated throughout this debate its misgivings about bringing it on urgency, as it wanted scrutiny; however, bringing this amendment on an hour before we debate it is unacceptable. Legal advice suggests it is unwise to bring this amendment without the scrutiny of Parliamentary Counsel and to mention one type of licence unintended inferences could be made about licences which are not mentioned.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, my first question in the original debate was: is there anything in this bill which affects someone’s interest in respect of a licence to extract water? I did not hear the answer; you have given it now so it is on the public record. If public opinion is that there is ambiguity, in any future court case – which could be a year down the track – not only is legislation looked at, the speech of a minister is often looked at in reaching a determination on the intent of the legislation. Hearing the minister say those words provides some comfort it will not affect extract licences.
This does not fit with the amendment but I would like to ask the minister if this exercise is the start of a wider review of licence conditions?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Brennan, the amendments on urgency today are solely concerned with licences under which waste has been, is being, and will be discharged into Territory watercourses. The validation provisions ensure the waste discharge licences which were previously assumed to be valid are valid. This is made very clear by clause 5 of the bill which inserts a new section 111.
The only licences validated by new section 111 are the ones purported to be issued under section 74, which is the section under which waste discharge licences have been issued. In no way do the validation provisions of the bill affect any licence to extract water.
Regarding your other point, member for Brennan, as I said last week we came across - and I thank my lawyers - this loophole as part of the overall review of the licensing regime in the Northern Territory. This government is keen to see the licence regime modernised to the 21st century. We made announcements earlier this year, and after the incidents in the port we are reviewing the licensing regime which currently operates. We are reforming the Environmental Assessment Act, which has not been reformed for nearly three decades. We are putting more resources into compliance officers and conducting an audit of ports across the Northern Territory. We have had challenges this year and have responded appropriately. We have introduced legislation doubling penalties for polluters and are putting in extra resources.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, minister. I might be drawing a very long bow now: if the department, under your leadership, is looking at reviewing licence conditions - we all agree there are anomalies and the licence conditions need to be strengthened and we need to protect our environment - can you see problems if we validate licences from today going back to 1992? If you tighten the conditions you may open up a legal challenge to say today, 2 December 2010, my licence was fine; I am doing the right thing, you said so because you validated my licence. We make changes and you may open yourself up to a legal challenge; it was good enough today but not good enough tomorrow.
Ms Scrymgour: You are drawing a long bow!
Mr CHANDLER: Just a question.
Mr HAMPTON: No, I do not, member for Brennan. It is about modernising the licensing regime.
Ms PURICK: There are some clarification points regarding this amendment and what the minister said in his second reading speech. Minister, you commented there were currently 20 discharge licences in place and eight in negotiation. Are those 20 discharge licences for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: They are for a variety of sites, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: How many of the 20 are mine sites?
Madam CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to relocate closer to your advisors?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, in case I need some advice.
Sorry, member for Goyder, are they current waste discharge licence holders?
Ms PURICK: Yes, your speech said currently 20 waste discharge licences are in place. How many of those 20 are for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Six.
Mr PURICK: Thank you, minister. With regard to the eight applications for waste discharge licences, how many are for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Four.
Ms PURICK: Minister, with regard to the six mine site discharge licences, did you advise the mines the licences they had were invalid and you were fixing the problem?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, we received the Solicitor-General’s advice on 28 October and the department wrote to those licence holders after that advice was received.
Ms PURICK: You wrote to the mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Given they have been operating with an illegal discharge licence, did you seek legal opinion that, through the invalidation, you may have left companies exposed to legal action. Did you seek legal opinion in regard to how they had been exposed because you were not doing your job properly?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, this legal loophole has been around since 1992; it crosses the CLP government as well. In relation to your question, options for resolution were analysed over the weeks after receiving the Solicitor-General’s advice on 28 October, in consultation with legal counsel, and options of legislative amendments identified as a preferred option a week or two ago before I took it to Cabinet. That was the process.
Ms PURICK: Minister, of the four applications for discharge of water from a mine site, given the legislation may take some time to be assented to, what advice are you giving mines if they need to discharge between now and the time this is enacted?
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, could you restate your question?
Ms PURICK: Minister, there are four applications pending for water discharge licences from mining companies. There will be a time lapse for this to be legally binding on companies, and a company may need a discharge licence in two weeks. If the act is not legal, what is going to happen to the company if it cannot discharge because it does not have a licence? What advice are you giving companies? Where does that leave them if they need to discharge?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, my advice is it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. In the event of that happening, it is highly unlikely a prosecution would occur. The important thing is this is exactly why we have brought it on urgency. We want to provide certainty to the mining industry, particularly the case you are referring to, and we want to protect the environment. That is why it has come on urgency; to provide certainty. It is taken on a case-by-case basis, but it is highly unlikely a prosecution would occur.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr CHANDLER: Minister, can you explain the legal advice regarding the retrospective aspect of this legislation? Does this act being passed today provide an iron-clad guarantee no action could be brought upon a mining company, or Power and Water which, for years, has been discharging water with an invalid licence? I understand the advice is only recent; however, it has pinpointed that for 18 years this has been happening. Does the retrospective aspect provide an iron-clad guarantee?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Brennan, regarding the work by Parliamentary Counsel, the advice is in writing up this bill the main intent, and the reason we have it on urgency, is so those licences are valid and do what they have done since 1992 - to validate those discharge licences. That is the advice from Parliamentary Counsel and legal people in my department.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Greatorex’s Interstate Study Travel Report, pursuant to paragraph 3.5 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the Chief Minister in this debate. As members would be aware, yesterday the Assembly agreed to a motion to disallow those provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination relating to Assembly members additional salary of office, and to put in place legislation so future salary of office increases are linked to the Northern Territory Public Sector wage increases. There are a range of other entitlements contained in the Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination which remain in place and will come into effect on 1 January 2011. I will briefly mention the key features of the tribunal’s determination.
First, electorate allowances have been increased by 3.1%, based on the Consumer Price Index movements from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. A member’s electorate allowance is calculated by the Remuneration Tribunal to reflect the cost of goods and services required for a member to effectively represent their constituents, and also represent the parliament to their constituents. For this reason, an increase in electorate allowance consistent with the CPI is seen as reasonable to maintain those important services.
Regarding motor vehicle entitlements, the tribunal notes members are entitled to be provided with vehicles available through NT Fleet to NT Public Sector Executive Contract Level 4/5. Some members are provided with four-wheel drive vehicles if the roads and tracks in their electorates are unsuitable for vehicles on the Level 4/5 list. The tribunal indicates it has received requests from other members for four-wheel drive vehicles. However, the tribunal considers the current provisions are adequate for members’ needs, particularly as members who may require a four-wheel drive on an occasional basis are permitted to hire one with the approval of the Clerk of the Assembly. Nevertheless, the tribunal has indicated it will review four-wheel drive vehicle provisions based on members’ requirements at its next annual review.
Still on the topic of motor vehicles, the tribunal has included a provision in its determination that members can be provided with a vehicle above the 4/5 list provided they pay the additional cost of such vehicle to the government. This seems to be a very fair and flexible provision introduced by the tribunal.
In relation to telephones, the tribunal has increased the cap on the value of mobile phones and on data mode usage based on CPI increases.
Travel allowance rates in the tribunal’s determination have generally increased as considered reasonable by the Australian Taxation Office and the tribunal has proposed the accompanying person rate be increased based on CPI.
The tribunal has this year included a provision in its determination to enable members to salary package if they so desire. This new feature means members are able to utilise salary packaging in the same way other members of the community do. It is good to see the tribunal updating the RTD in this way.
The tribunal has also adjusted the laptop computer entitlement this year so members are now entitled to a midrange laptop computer rather than the business or standard type, which will assist members in effectively carrying out their role. I have heard some members in debate alluding to the need for an upgrade and I hope this satisfies their needs.
Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to thank the tribunal for the work it has done in relation to its determination of MLA entitlements. I commend the report and determination to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the Council of Territory Cooperation’s third progress report provides details of the council’s activities from April to September this year. In those six months the council conducted 11 hearings, most being open to the public. The council conducted hearings in Santa Teresa, Alice Springs, Hermannsburg and Darwin. Site visits of SIHIP construction were conducted in Santa Teresa, and the Larapinta and Trucking Yard town camps in Alice Springs. During this period the council spoke to roughly 100 witnesses.
The CTC has an important role in examining government policies in an open and transparent way, and public meetings are an essential part of that. Equally, the CTC is receiving feedback that formal meetings are not always the best way to hear people’s concerns. In addition to the more formal meetings, as the CTC Chair I visited Daly River, or Nauiyu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa and Wadeye to meet traditional owners, inspect SIHIP construction, and talk to Victoria Daly council representatives.
The feedback from the Nauiyu communities I visited was a less formal way of being able to talk about the impact of government policies and was appreciated. There is a need to look at different ways community views can be heard, and I will be inspecting progress on the implementation of SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future.
In a similar way, earlier in November three CTC members visited Maningrida to inspect SIHIP work under way and talk to traditional owners, other community leaders and shire representatives. No formal meetings were held but notes were taken of the key matters discussed which can be included in later CTC deliberations and reports. This third progress report and its recommendations are based on the CTC’s deliberations and the priorities of the then six CTC members. Little of the original content has changed since the withdrawal of the two Country Liberal members. The report is therefore another example of collaborative work of the CTC in scrutinising and monitoring the government’s delivery of SIHIP, local government and A Working Future, in particular.
I turn now to talk about the 15 recommendations made in the report. Nine of the recommendations address ongoing concerns the CTC has with SIHIP’s delivery, houses being handed over to Territory Housing, and the management of public housing in remote communities.
Whilst in Wadeye in August, I revisited a new SIHIP-built house the CTC inspected in February this year. This was a brand new house which we had been assured was steel picket proof and built to last 40 years. The house may have been steel picket proof, but was not able to withstand a kangaroo-jack handle. The CTC is aware there are two designs being used in Wadeye, one a steel frame and one concrete. The damaged house was the steel frame house and will need extensive repairs to the interior walls. The CTC has recommended SIHIP construct houses to have the longest possible useful life and require minimal maintenance.
The CTC has previously recommended SIHIP refurbishments be delivered to the originally promised standards. In response to this, the government said SIHIP refurbishments will be supplemented through its repairs and maintenance program in a programmed way. The CTC has made a recommendation to help understand how the supplementary refurbishment work will occur and is seeking the full details of repairs and maintenance funding provided to shires. However, the real issue of what constitutes a SIHIP refurbishment remains. Evidence from a range of witnesses shows there is a growing reliance on Housing repairs and maintenance funding. Government acknowledges, in its response to a CTC recommendation and in public hearings, that there is insufficient funding to undertake all the refurbishment work which needs to be done.
The CTC believes the high administrative costs associated with alliances means refurbishments cannot be delivered to the full value, with too much of the average $75 000 being taken up with alliance administrative costs. The CTC is recommending the Australian and Northern Territory governments urgently consider transferring SIHIP refurbishment funding from alliances to shires or other local organisations to undertake refurbishments. These smaller organisations have lower administrative costs and seem to be able to undertake more work for less cost. On my trip to Daly River, Peppimenarti and Palumpa, I wondered why local shires could not do that work instead of the alliances.
The CTC has previously raised concerns about funding responsibility and the scope of SIHIP infrastructure work. The government agreed to a recommendation to publish this scope of works for infrastructure with the qualification of having to wait for the scope of works for each community to be finalised. From the information of SIHIP spreadsheets provided to the CTC, infrastructure work is under way in at least one location; therefore, the CTC is seeking that scope of works be published as agreed.
I am still at a loss as to why the infrastructure program in Tennant Creek was not removed from the SIHIP program as was other infrastructure throughout the Territory so that money being used for infrastructure could be used for housing. When the review of SIHIP occurred it was decided to take infrastructure from a different pool of money. However, I understand in Tennant Creek the infrastructure comes out of the regional pool of money. This does not make sense because it means fewer new houses can be built, and we had heard in our meeting in Tennant Creek earlier this year that overcrowding is a major issue in areas where SIHIP is refurbishing houses. As Chair, that is an area I would like to follow-up to see whether that money could be taken out of the bucket all the other communities are taking their infrastructure money from, and use it for the construction of new houses in Tennant Creek.
The CTC heard from some shires that there is an adequate service infrastructure in the new SIHIP subdivisions. The CTC also heard shires have no input to the planning of subdivisions in the shires, yet will be expected to provide the usual local government services to the new housing areas. The CTC has been told SIHIP planning requirements are as if the subdivision was being delivered in Darwin. The CTC is, therefore, recommending better consultation occur with shires on how subdivisions are planned, and wants to know what the planning processes for SIHIP subdivisions are.
I raised this issue at the local government meeting in Alice Springs last week, and asked the councils if they agreed they were not consulted adequately about the planning of subdivisions in their communities. They said, straight out, no! The concern is planning is not necessarily a responsibility of councils but councils will have to maintain roads in the subdivisions. They, at least, should have a say in the standard and design of those roads because when the subdivision is finished government will hand over that responsibility to the local council. They have a concern about that, which is raised in one of our recommendations.
In recent public hearings in Darwin, the CTC has been briefed on Remote Housing NT, the government’s approach to managing public housing in the Territory’s remote communities. This is an emerging issue for the CTC. As SIHIP houses are completed, they are transferred to Territory Housing, which then manages them as public housing.
The CTC heard evidence on the asset and tenancy management systems, and the recruitment of community housing officers to work with tenants on their rights and responsibilities as public housing tenants. This is clearly a pivotal part of establishing viable public housing in remote communities: the houses are maintained, rent is paid, and rental income is reinvested in further improving houses in communities.
During my trip to Wadeye, I was very disappointed to see the damage done to a new house. I was told the damage – this has been substantiated by witnesses to the CTC - was a case of wilful damage. In cases of wilful damage to public housing, the CTC believes the incident needs to be reported to the police. It needs to be part of the tenancy and asset management process, so the head tenants are not put in the impossible situation of having to make statements against family members. The reporting of wilful damage to public housing needs to become standard practice for all public housing in the Territory. This is going to be a major issue for NT Housing. There are two sides to the debate about improving housing conditions in remote communities; one is the physical building of those houses, and the other, which is going to be as big a challenge, is the maintaining of those houses in good condition. That is going to be no easy task.
While the CTC believes it is important to raise these issues, it is also important to acknowledge most people are very proud of their new houses. People are pleased their families are living in better homes and understand the importance of looking after the houses. The CTC has been critical, a number of members of parliament have been critical, of SIHIP. We will continue to monitor what is happening with SIHIP. If we step to one side of that, many people are happy to see new houses being built in their communities. We need to focus on whether this program is doing what it said it would - that is our job.
Many people are grateful for the new houses being built. At times there is much negative publicity - some fair. However, we should balance that with reality. Even if it is slower than we hoped, people are moving into very good houses. Some houses are 6-star efficiency - better than many houses in Darwin.
The CTC is concerned about the difficulty of finding out the cost of the SIHIP work which is part of evaluating the program’s progress. Despite repeated requests and an undertaking by the government to provide details of financial reports, the CTC has only received very basic financial information. It is the CTC’s view that the reports received to date are not the detailed financial reports the government undertook to provide. The Northern Territory Auditor-General has also commented on the lack of appropriate SIHIP performance in monitoring reports. The CTC is recommending that the government honour its commitment to provide detailed financial reports on SIHIP each quarter.
This is a difficult area because we are dealing with the alliance system. It is hard for the CTC to find out whether the projected cost of houses, refurbishments and rebuilds is correct if we cannot get figures. If you have to wait until the end of two, three, four, five years, how do we know there has not been a cost blowout? One of our concerns is government promised it would build houses at a certain cost. If no one can tell us that, how do we know things are happening as they should and the program has not gone off the rails?
The CTC understands the underlying purpose of SIHIP is to improve living conditions in Indigenous communities, and for that reason has previously recommended refurbishments be done to a standard which allows for healthy living. While the government agreed to this recommendation, the CTC has not seen any evidence it is occurring. It is also unclear how people will know if the objective of healthy homes is achieved. Meeting the SIHIP targets of building new houses and upgrading existing houses is only part of the answer. The CTC has therefore recommended the government provide details of how the outcome of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated - we saw this in Santa Teresa. I saw it recently on our trip to Maningrida and also at Palumpa - houses are only being refurbished to a certain level.
There is the issue of money, and it is perhaps possible we take the refurbishments from the alliance partners and give them to more local businesses. It is difficult for me to accept you can hand over a partly fixed house - even if it was given a coat of paint. The house on the front of the NT News at Maningrida was done with the approval of the CTC committee. They were my photographs of graffiti and it was to say you are going to hand over a house with a new kitchen, a new bathroom, but are leaving it in this state. As one writer said, people should have to clean the graffiti. I agree, but in this case we were starting again. We were giving people a refurbished house and you would think that might mean a coat of paint so the house looked reasonable.
The verandahs on those houses were also pitted. We had this problem on Nguiu where the quality of the sand means the floor can be chipped - you have a rough floor instead of a smooth floor - and dirt will get in the cracks and crevices, which does not auger well for healthy living. At Santa Teresa, the verandahs were still red soil. You went from the toilet and shower, through the verandah into the main part of the house, which does not help when you talk about healthy living. That is a concern for the CTC.
I turn now to the CTC findings on issues around local government. One thing concerning CTC members is many people in communities tell us the shire amalgamation has led to a loss of community control and a growing sense that governments are not listening to Indigenous people. There is a growing weariness of community members having to attend endless meetings; I heard that at the Local Government Association meeting. The CTC heard the MacDonnell Shire was negotiating a memorandum of understanding with government to resolve its concerns about the lack of coordination. This seems a good approach and the CTC has recommended government develops agreements with all shires to improve coordination.
The CTC heard from a number of people and organisations about the low level of local employment since local government reform. This is made worse by the use of outside contractors for SIHIP and other large projects. The change to CDEP is also contributing to the level of local employment by the shires. The CTC has anecdotal information on the loss of jobs in local government since reform. It believes it is important to receive data on the current job situation in the shires, and figures prior to local government reforms.
The CTC notes the government’s action to ensure CDEP transition funding was continued to the end of this year. The CTC is concerned no further information has been provided to resolve the longer term funding issues associated with the changes to CDEP. The CTC believes something needs to happen immediately to stop the loss of CDEP which will have a disastrous effect on Indigenous communities. The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government works with the Australian government to enable CDEP to continue. This issue was discussed at the Local Government Association meeting. Bob Beadman also discussed the issue, saying CDEP is not perfect but agrees we need to go forward rather than backward, which is what appears to be happening with the changes to CDEP.
The CTC has spoken to most shires and they consistently say their financial sustainability is the most significant concern. The lack of an appropriate level of funding for roads is perhaps the biggest financial concern for shires, and they are refusing to accept any transfer of additional roads without sufficient funding.
The CTC has previously made recommendations about the funding of local government services, and the government has said it is optimistic about getting additional funding. The CTC has recommended the government provide information on the additional funding it has identified. Again, another issue for local governments is many of the promises made during the reform process have not come to fruition.
I want to speak briefly about issues associated with township leasing as part of the CTC’s finding on the implementation of A Working Future. The CTC has made two recommendations to address the ongoing stalemate on township leasing, with no mainland community signing leases. The CTC agrees with the Northern Territory Coordinator-General: the Territory needs its own statutory leaseholding entity which can drive the township leasing process and negotiate acceptable agreements with traditional owners. The lack of township leases in all but the Tiwi Islands and Groote Eylandt means few of the A Working Future priorities can be met and no government infrastructure can be developed until leases are negotiated.
The CTC heard the first township lease over Nguiu was agreed to because traditional owners want to encourage business development in the town. However, the lease terms negotiated by the Office of Township Leasing have been found by the Commonwealth Bank as holding back business development. The CTC also heard permits are still needed in Nguiu. This does not sound much like a normal town, which is what A Working Future is all about.
The CTC has recommended this township lease not be used as a template for other leases. Township lease terms cannot include the need for permits if the towns are going to be like any other. The issue of leases is an important matter if the growth towns, and other smaller centres which are receiving funding through the SIHIP program, are to continue. One of the concerns raised by the Coordinator-General is many of our five-year intervention leases, on which most of the communities are having work done, will expire in less than two years. If the Territory government does not negotiate, or the Commonwealth does not do something, what is going to happen to the infrastructure when the leases run out? We are running out of time. If you look at the matrix used by the CTC which shows all the work done across the Territory, much of the work is about refurbishing houses, and those houses are all on five-year intervention leases. Those leases are running out. What will happen to those houses if the leases run out? Who will be responsible?
I thank all members of the CTC, including the members for Port Darwin and Katherine, whose participation makes up part of this report. I also thank the members for Arafura, Nhulunbuy and Macdonnell. I could thank the member for Fong Lim, who was on the CTC for a very short time; he was able to attend one meeting in that time.
I thank our committee secretaries, Ms Pat Hancock, secretary until 1 April; Helen Campbell, our present committee secretary; our principal research officer, Ms Jan Whitehead; research officer, Mr Simon Flavel; administrative assistants, Ms Karen Turner up to 31 August this year, Ms Alison Stirrup and Ms Kim Cowcher. They do a tremendous amount of work. I would not be standing here today reading this report without the amount of work they do. They put together our third progress report and I am very appreciative of the hard work they do.
I also place on the record my appreciation of the work Michelle does for me - I would be lost without her. Also Kim, my electorate officer, who wonders whether 2011 could be a year without stress. I do not know whether that is going to happen.
I genuinely hope the Country Liberals will reconsider their departure from the Council of Territory Cooperation. I understand why members left. It is important to understand the reason they left; they felt there should be an ability to question ministers and I can see the point; however, I reiterate the original concept of the CTC was to move it away from political rancour, which sometimes comes with questioning ministers, and go straight to departmental heads or people with direct involvement in government policies. That is what we have been trying to do.
There may be opportunities for ministers to come to CTC meetings. As Chair I have written to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister has not said no; there may be hope. It is a great opportunity for members of the opposition to question departmental heads in a way they would never be able to in a normal Westminster system. I have been in parliament for nearly 10 years and this is the first time I have seen members of the opposition directly question members of Local Government, Power and Water, members of the Police, the Department of Justice and other departmental heads, even Commonwealth departmental employees.
In the argy-bargy of politics the CTC is seen as an agreement between the Chief Minister and me. Well, I say, so what? Should it be condemned because it came out of an agreement? The CTC should be looked on as something unique, something that opens up government; an opportunity for transparency. We have meetings the press and public can attend. We are not stuck with the Estimates Committee; we can question government departments throughout the year.
It gives a unique opportunity to all members of parliament to question the government, and gives us, and the government, the opportunity to understand, in the public arena, what the government is doing, which is important. I have good people on the committee, even though it is down to three. We have the ability to second experts in certain areas to be advisors to the committee.
In the near future we will be questioning people involved in monitoring the child protection report - a good area for CTC to work in. It is a very important area; one which caused much debate in parliament, as it should. The CTC can see if government bodies are being developed to ensure the whole report on child protection is responded to.
Yes, there will be negatives. People can ask what effect we have had on government. Like any other committee, we cannot force government to take up our recommendations. We hope it will. It has agreed to on some occasions, sometimes it has noted them, sometimes it has disagreed.
I remember the case of the fence across the Cobourg Peninsula. The recommendation of the Environment committee was an opportunity lost. As the Treasurer well knows, they did not like that idea. Look at the employment it would have created - one fence, maybe no cane toads. However, we did not go that far. Regardless of the recommendation, the government does not have to accept recommendations of its committees. I hope it does in this case because we make recommendations because we believe the changes will be for the betterment of government policies and the people we are working for, especially SIHIP.
I hope people will take time to read the recommendations. I hope the government will come back with positive announcements regarding the recommendations. I hope we can discover the costs of building houses under SIHIP because, until we do, it will come under scrutiny. The CTC will continue to monitor SIHIP because that is its role.
Madam Speaker, I hope when this comes back for further debate we might have received a response from government to our report and recommendations.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Nelson for his hard work and commitment to the committee.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Lands and Planning, in continuation. I believe you have 13 minutes.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I was discussing the history book of the Country Liberals and saying how our policies are vastly different. In the early 1980s I was very much questioning the shallow policies of the government which were not focused on the whole of the Territory, or the bush. Overnight I have reflected on the late Bob McCarthy, my father, who travelled extensively in the Territory and enjoyed his times out bush. At a camp one night I was on my soapbox lecturing him about the failings of the government - not recognising the bush, not understanding the total picture of the Territory and the opportunities to be had. His advice was: ‘Well, you better do something about it’. It is a proud moment for me to stand in this House and be part of this government with a policy never seen in the Territory before, the A Working Future policy. It is an honour and privilege to stand with my parliamentary colleagues and be part of real history with the A Working Future policy.
In contrast to the Country Liberals, this Labor government understands if the Territory as a whole is to truly take advantage of the opportunities on offer, we must invest in the whole of the Territory. This year, the Territory government is delivering a record $1.8bn infrastructure program to do that. As Minister for Construction, I am proud to say this program includes significant strategic investment to support the development of remote communities and growth towns, and the lives of the Territorians who live there. Budget 2010-11 delivers $980m to infrastructure to support the A Working Future, and the Department of Construction and Infrastructure is working with agencies to deliver projects in the areas of health, education, police, sport and recreation, and housing.
I take this opportunity to commend the staff of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for their part in delivering this record infrastructure program, including new police stations, government employee housing, cyclone shelter upgrades, new children and family centres, upgrades to hospital facilities and health clinics, new school facilities and learning centres.
I shall focus my attention on the Transport portfolio. Transport and infrastructure networks enable communities, particularly those in remote areas, to access what we take for granted in the larger centres. Effective transport and infrastructure networks allow access to health and education services, and opens the doors for employment. They provide opportunities for business growth and access to goods and services. Transport and infrastructure networks facilitate social inclusion, giving individuals and communities access to and connection with other communities. In short, transport and infrastructure networks are an integral part of developing our growth towns into real towns.
As someone who spends a huge amount of time travelling around the Territory, and has lived in remote areas for decades, I fully understand the importance of the Territory’s transport networks to keep people connected. Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $331m roads program; $46m is committed to upgrading roads associated with our Territory growth towns. These projects, including the community, beef and mining roads, are across the Territory: $40m for the Central Arnhem road; $20m for the Umbakumba road; $2m for upgrades to the Sandover Highway; completion of the $6.6m upgrade for the Buntine Highway; $10m for the Moyle floodplain and Tom Turner Crossing at Wadeye.
For some communities, transport links with the rest of the Territory are not primarily by road. Many communities rely on barge transport for the delivery of goods and services, particularly in the Wet Season. Government has committed $6.2m over three years to upgrade facilities at barge landings in five of the Territory’s growth towns: Nguiu, Gapuwiyak, Ramingining, Galiwinku and Maningrida. These upgrades will improve handling facilities at the landings, including better storage of goods so freight can be uploaded at any time of the day or night, and be better protected during the Wet Season.
Across the electorate of Barkly and other remote parts of the Territory, the local airstrip is often a vital link in the chain for the delivery of health services, fresh produce, mail and other goods. The government has committed $7.5m in Budget 2010-11, building on our program of airstrip upgrades. This year, $2.5m has been allocated for upgrades to the Araluen airstrip; $2.5m for Canteen Creek; and $2.5m to upgrade the Utopia airstrip. These works follow upgrades to airstrips in Palumpa, Pigeon Hole, Lajamanu and Minjilang. The government is also offering practical assistance to shire councils to manage airstrips, with $4.5m committed over five years to support the management of airstrips, including Gapuwiyak, Milingimbi and Maningrida.
Public transport is an important service provided in towns, giving options to people who may not be able to afford or have access to private vehicles. Government has committed $3.1m to support passenger bus service trials in the Top End and the Centre over two years. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join with the member for Nhulunbuy in announcing the commencement of the first public bus service to operate in North East Arnhem land. The public bus service trial is also generating employment and training opportunities, and the Yirrkala Business Enterprise is operating this service four times a day, five days a week. I am pleased to note the service costs $5 a trip, vastly more affordable than a taxi which, until recently, was the only option community members had.
The Integrated Regional Transport Strategy is this Labor government understanding one size does not fit all in meeting the needs of the Territory. We understand we must plan for the future transport needs of the growth towns in remote communities in consultation and partnership with the people of these communities. We understand the issues of transport links and networks, whether by air, road, sea, or even rail, cannot be considered in isolation and each community presents its own challenges.
This government is planning for future growth with A Working Future for Territorians in remote areas with a strategic approach to delivering transport services in the bush. We are committed to working in partnership with communities to assess their needs, gaps in services, opinions and priorities for moving forward. We are asking people what they need from transport networks, bringing in freight and services, linking surrounding communities and linking within the community. We are asking people about bus links. We are assessing priorities for further upgrades to remote airstrips. We are assessing barge landings and identifying where future works may be needed. A substantial amount of work has already been done on the project and I look forward to the release of the final strategy in coming months.
The Territory government is responsible for about 22 000 km of more than 36 000 km of roads in the Northern Territory, and about 24% of that Territory road network is sealed. These figures represent significant challenges in transport access and development of the network and, as part of the A Working Future strategy, a baseline survey has been carried out of primary and secondary roads, aerodromes and barge landings. The survey has determined that the cost of sealing access roads, airstrips, barge landings, secondary roads and access roads to the highway within a 50 km radius of the growth towns would be $1.7bn.
This is a financial burden the Territory cannot carry alone, which is why we are continuing to lobby the federal government for funding support to upgrade our transport networks. I acknowledge the support of the Australian government and the increase in funding we have received with a federal Labor government in office. Today the funding has more than doubled to $425m over five years - an investment in the Territory delivered as a result of Labor governments working together.
An important component of building A Working Future, of creating strong towns with the same services and amenities of similar-sized towns around Australia, is the delivery of government services. Unlike many of the similar-sized towns around the country, our 20 growth towns are extremely remote from Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs. As Territorians understand, the delivery of government services into such remote locations presents challenges, including access to housing for government employees moving to live in the community. As the government continues to invest in more teachers, more police, better schools and health facilities in the bush, it is backing that up with an investment in government employee housing. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure currently has 81 dwellings under construction for the government employee housing program in 2010-11. There is an incredible amount of work going on and an incredible amount of work to be done.
Music, art displays, museums, cultural performances and theatre are all integral parts of the community’s lifeblood. The arts represent who we are as a community. They bring us together to share our heritage, culture and passions and, importantly, are a source of jobs and economic opportunity. The Territory is home to some amazing artists across all disciplines. There are about 5000 practising Indigenous artists in the Northern Territory - 5000 jobs which represent opportunities for A Working Future, opportunities for our remote communities.
This government recognises the social and economic benefits and potential of the arts and we have boosted funding by almost $2m since 2004. On a per capita basis we invest $45.31 per person for the arts, more than $12 above the national average. The targeted funding increases delivered since 2008, $250 000 to boost the Indigenous program include: $150 000 for Indigenous music touring circuit; $200 000 for remote, regional and community festivals; and $100 000 for arts projects. There is also a very intrinsic element to investment in the arts - the wellbeing of every Territorian.
It is sad there is a large prison population and we have to work on that; there has been much debate in this House around that. As part of our effort to build A Working Future for Indigenous Territorians, we are acting to reduce the imprisonment and reoffending rate. The government’s new era in Corrections is focused firmly on that goal with a stronger emphasis on education, rehabilitation and training to turn people’s lives around. A good example of that …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members for the extension of time.
I was talking about a new element in the era in Corrections, the $4.6m contract awarded for the construction of the Barkly work camp. The camp will deliver education, job and training programs with links to real jobs in an attempt to break the cycle of reoffending. Recruitment will start next year for additional community probation and parole officers to be stationed across the Territory’s regions, and we are developing partnerships with shire councils, registered training organisations and non-government organisations in remote communities to establish training and job links for offenders. We will invest in 45 additional alcohol and rehabilitation treatment beds in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to help offenders get off the grog, into treatment and back on track. Government does not want to see the same people back in gaol within two years, which is why we are investing in a new era in Corrections to break the cycle of offending and build A Working Future.
Before closing, I will touch on one of the more significant infrastructure projects completed in the last few weeks in the Barkly electorate. Earlier, I discussed the importance of transport and infrastructure networks in developing our growth towns and building A Working Future by connecting these communities to the rest of the Territory.
Anyone who has been to Borroloola in the Wet Season will know the power of the McArthur River - it can swell from a 20 m channel to a raging torrent. In the past, the community has been forced to rely on barges to cross the river in the Wet Season. This Wet Season will be different thanks to the completion of a $7m, 220 m bridge across the McArthur. This bridge exemplifies the importance of transport and infrastructure networks in delivering A Working Future. It will provide safer access for residents and visitors, and keep the community open for goods and services throughout the Wet. Residents of Borroloola will be able to attend school, go to work, attend training, attend the clinic, and it will provide safety for the community; what an incredible piece of infrastructure it is. It was wonderful to visit the construction site and witness the young locals working on it, and some are my ex-students. It is a major piece of infrastructure providing real experience, real training, and the opportunity to take that knowledge to the next construction project under this Labor government.
I am pleased to note Indigenous trainee hours for the contract in Borroloola, initially set at 96 hours, came in at more than 1340 hours. They are valuable hours and what A Working Future is all about. For these trainees and the community, the bridge is a real boost to future job and training opportunities. It will be a lasting testament to the hard work of the trainees and their emerging roles as community leaders. I am looking forward to the official opening in coming weeks, as are my parliamentary colleagues from the Henderson government.
This Labor government has a real commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We are determined that Indigenous Territorians in our remote areas take advantage of and benefit from the many opportunities on offer in the Territory. We have begun the journey; there is much to do. The A Working Future policy provides the framework for delivering on our strong commitment to a better future for Indigenous Territorians.
I have come from Stranger’s Lounge and the kids from Epenarra School. We had the obligatory gaze over beautiful Darwin Harbour and discussed opportunities for everyone. Here is the remarkable difference in political policy. Members of this House should celebrate and learn from it - some celebrating more; others need to engage in the learning side. This policy represents the whole of the Territory. It represents equity and opportunity for everyone and, with opportunity, comes prosperity. With prosperity, people can start to experience better lifestyles, better choices, better health outcomes and better education outcomes. That is what A Working Future is all about. We are taking it to the bush and the growth towns. The kids who visited the fourth and fifth floor are at the heart of the A Working Future policy - seeing developments in infrastructure, the social, economic and cultural elements of their community, and being able to make choices.
I will reflect on the conversation we normally have when gazing out over the harbour, it could be a boat delivering cattle to Indonesia, or a rig tender in the oil and gas industry, or working in an office or shop in Darwin, or working at home in a growth town delivering health, education and the public services. However, it is an opportunity provided by this policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud, to support the minister and commend her for bringing this important statement to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it worries me that governments have various clichs to promote programs, and A Working Future is one. The Commonwealth government has clichs - slogans would be a better word. Those slogans sometimes hide the reality of the task before governments to overcome the difficulties we face, especially in the Northern Territory.
Tonight I raise specific issues. The minister mentioned the kids from Epenarra. I have been past Epenarra, to Canteen Creek and along the road past the Davenport Ranges. I was told at Epenarra Station the road from there to the Barkly Highway was not a public road. I raise this because infrastructure is the key to changing many of these communities.
It might be nice to live in the bush; however, to create industry communities have to have all-year-round access to the outside world. Alpurrurulam is an example. When it rains at Alpurrurulam there is only one way out - air. To promote industry in Alpurrurulam, especially tourism, you need all-year-round access. You have black soil plains all around, and it is difficult to see how that community can develop. Yulara, where the Indigenous Land Corporation has taken over, has all-year-round roads and an airstrip capable of landing jets. That does not mean jets should fly to Epenarra; it means if people believe they can develop these communities the infrastructure needs to be there, and that would be no mean feat for any government. The Central Arnhem Road is another example. What industries could you have at Laynhapuy Homelands? You have the arts –where will you sell that? You can sell it through the web, you can take it to Yirrkala; however, if you wanted to open it up to tourists the basic infrastructure has to go in.
When I was on Litchfield Shire I noticed that when more bitumen roads and power were put in the value of land went up, more people moved into the area, businesses started to grow and mango plantations started to sprout up, because there were better roads to deliver goods.
Infrastructure is the basic foundation if you want growth towns to be growth towns. The issue for me, which has not been debated in parliament, is the future of communities outside the growth towns? If you are not within 50 km of the growth town, what happens? How does Laynhapuy Homelands get new houses? Alpurrurulam is a great example. A community of about 1000 people but, under the SIHIP program, not due for new houses. I have not heard from either the Territory or Commonwealth government about what will happen there. Wadeye has houses; Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Nauiyu have no houses. They are not outstations and not within 50 km of Wadeye - what is their future?
Are we going to concentrate on the growth towns and put aside the realities of other small communities? A real problem which has not been debated or publicised is that people in those communities are unsure of their futures. If the smaller towns cannot grow because government policy is to put effort into the growth towns, you will leave people in a vacuum. That debate has to happen otherwise people will despair that their communities are being left out to dry. People live in those communities with their families, and there are facilities there. Alpurrurulam, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Nauiyu all have health clinics, schools, and police stations. They have the facilities but are not regarded as growth towns. If you are not within 50 km of a growth town, what will happen?
Barkly is a good example. Growth town one, Elliott; second growth town, Borroloola.
Mr McCarthy: Ali Curung.
Mr WOOD: Three. There is much space in between. A distance of 50 km around each one of those communities leaves out Alpurrurulam and Utopia. What will happen to the other communities? Are we going to let them die because they cannot have any more houses? I raise that because the government needs to say, in its A Working Future policy, what it is going to do.
The other fundamental issue, which is also on the Notice Paper, is leases. I raised it during the CTC debate. Leases are a big issue. I did not bring it with me, but I have a very good article from the Central Land Council about the concept of leases. If we do not get the fundamental issue sorted we will have difficulties with growth towns. To lease a road or a block of land is fine; however, if they are annual leases, costing a great deal of money, you will not have a growth town. It will be regressive because someone has to pay that money. There will be less money for the road because of the high lease payment.
I am advised the traditional owners or the land council will say to a local council: ‘We want that road sealed’. They say: ‘We will get some gravel. It is going to cost you $10/m’. They say: ‘It is your road. We cannot afford that. You will have to look after it yourself or you will have to reduce the price’. There are real issues because sealing roads is not cheap. If roads are being sealed for a community and then the community is saying: ‘You will pay this extravagant amount of money for that gravel’, there are many questions about growth towns.
It has to be something which includes all people. I wonder if the government has done enough to sell the concept of growth towns to the people living in communities. Many people do not understand if we have a growth town, which is meant to be a normal town, there will no permits in that town. What does that mean to people who have lived with that system since the town was developed? I am unsure that the ideas being developed are reaching the people on the ground. I refer to those people as the lady under the mango tree; often there is discussion at the top level but not always discussion or understanding at the bottom. Government needs to talk to those people. If growth towns means normal towns and normal towns means leases, people should understand what a lease means. If it means no permits, they have to understand what that means. We have to be frank. If people do not want that will there be a growth town? Some fundamental issues need to be clarified.
Airstrips and barge landings have to be sorted out. At present, barges and airstrips come under the intervention leases. Once those intervention leases go, what happens? The Northern Land Council is telling barge companies they will pay a fee to unload freight of 75c per $100 worth of freight. You would hope the barge landing does not come under the control of the land council, rather the shire as a service to the community. I do not mind a small fee for the use of the barge landing if it is used by the shire to maintain it. If the money is going to an individual’s pocket, the community will have to pay the increased charges the Northern Land Council wants to impose. That will be the same with airstrips. Who owns the airstrips? Is it the council, traditional owners, the Commonwealth government if it is an intervention lease? Who owns the barge landings and what is the future?
There are fundamental issues we need to work out. We need frank discussion with the land councils. The land councils are putting impediments in place which makes them look like they want to be shire councils. We have set up the shire councils to provide infrastructure, basic services and essential services, and there are some impediments. I believe the Office of Township Leasing, which is the mouthpiece for the Tiwi Land Council, says the Tiwi Land Council has to pay $120 000 rent on its facilities. The Tiwi people will pay because that is the only way they will get their money.
Employment is the other thing. I mentioned in a previous debate the great opportunity to use the council as a centre for employment. I support CDEP from the point of view of arguing the Commonwealth government should retain it; however, I do not want to see it replaced with Centrelink type employment. I would rather it replaced with full employment where councils could be the main employment centre and the Commonwealth, instead of putting money into unproductive welfare, top it up and pay people a decent wage.
It must be hard for people when an ATM charges a $10 service fee every time they check their balance. People would not have too much money left if they kept checking their account. The cost of living in communities is high. People should be paid a reasonable wage - not welfare - so they recognise there is a high cost of living in some communities, and councils are in the right spot to change things around.
If the Commonwealth government could make some changes to policy and restrict welfare to those who need it, if it could supply funds for people to work, the work ethic would return. If you add opportunity to improve literacy and numeracy people can move up the scale and be seen as a mentor for younger people. Bob Beadman, and others, has mentioned if you see your father unemployed all his life and your grandfather live off welfare, why should anyone want an education or work? As the minister talked about a new era in Corrections, we need a new era in work. That is in the hands of the Commonwealth but we are dealing with the arty farty people who do not understand the reality on the ground.
We need to put infrastructure in place and fix leases. We then need jobs - people can be petrol station attendants because more people are coming into the community needing fuel. A small caf might open which will grow as more tourists visit the community. Someone might be a hairdresser; someone might start a lawn mowing business; and someone might open a car wash business. If councils have the money to pay people to work, because they will not get it on the dole, the work ethic will be there, and once we see that - it will be a long haul; we have had 30 years of welfare - we will achieve change.
You cannot look at things in isolation, you need employment, infrastructure, good houses and you need education. Some fundamental things must change - employment, infrastructure and leases all have to change.
We have spoken about a new era in Corrections. I reinforce my view that visitors are part of the new era in Corrections. I hope the minister has looked at options to allow visiting hours in a structured day during the week. A structured day is important. I would prefer a structured day where people had to go to work. There needs to be discipline in prisons, and if people do not want to do that then some of the extras prisoners receive such as watching television or playing pool should not be provided. A prison is not a holiday camp. We hope to rehabilitate and train people, and we believe they should earn their keep. I hope it is not a case of being too difficult. I hope we can have a system where unless you are sick, infirm or old you will have to work - whether it is cleaning, mowing the lawn, or going outside, which a number of people do.
I often use the example of the West Central Therapeutic Community in Ohio, where everyone worked. All day prisoners attended programs; the day was strictly run. It is a different process because prisoners are helping themselves; they monitor and encourage themselves to do better and change their lives. Minister, I hope one day you could visit the Marysville community in Ohio. It is not for everyone; however, with 20% recidivism it is not a bad system. If we are looking at reducing recidivism and giving people an opportunity, that is an option we should look at.
Madam Speaker, there is much to discuss in A Working Future. The Council of Territory Cooperation will be looking at it as well. I reiterate that there are fundamental building blocks if we want to change things. Employment, infrastructure, and sorting out the leases are some of the main things, along with what will happen to people who live outside growth towns. One house has been built at Nauiyu since 2002. It is a beautiful community and it looks after the houses. It has a long record of building good houses, and now, because it is not a growth town, it does not have more houses built. The question I ask government is: what do those people do as the kids grow up and have their own families?
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report for 2010-11.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, the 2010-11 Mid-Year Report provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook. There have been a number of significant changes in the Territory’s budget projection since the May 2010 budget, including: the effect of the 2009-10 outcome on the 2010-11 and future years as a result of the carry forward of Commonwealth funded programs; non-policy revenue reductions, notably GST revenue due to a lower pool available for distribution; lower stamp duties due to a moderating housing market; lower mining royalties as a result of the high Australian dollar; important new policy directions, particularly the response to the Growing them strong, together report; and funding for the new era in Corrections. These combined changes result in higher cash deficits than previously anticipated.
Overall, the report’s key fiscal outcomes show: change in the operating surplus over the forward estimates with deficits in the outer years; cash deficit of $425m in 2010-11, an increase of $150m since budget time, reducing to $205m by 2013-14; fiscal balance projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle, but trending toward improvement; and higher ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue due to increased cash deficits and higher superannuation liabilities.
The mid-year report also includes an update on the Territory’s economic outlook. Economic growth in the Territory is forecast to strengthen to 3.6% in 2010-11, as expected at budget time. This is a result of strong growth in LNG, alumina and manganese exports, driven by increasing demand from Asia, particularly China, as their economies continue to outperform those in Europe and North America. Increased demand for the Territory’s commodities is expected to continue to support mining production and exploration growth in coming years.
State Final Demand in the Territory is cyclical and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. State Final Demand is forecast to increase by 1.6% in 2010-11, 1.3 percentage points more than forecast in the May 2010-11 budget. The upward revision reflects substantial data revisions by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for previous years, the inclusion of the US$1.1bn Kitan oil field development, and upward revisions to forecast growth in household consumption expenditure.
Record levels of infrastructure spending by the Territory and Commonwealth governments is forecast to almost entirely offset the continuing decline in private sector investment in 2010-11. This clearly demonstrates the value of the Henderson government’s record $1.8bn infrastructure program.
Property markets are expected to be subdued during 2010-11, reflecting the impact of increasing interest rates moderating population growth, and the increasing supply of residential land and housing, thanks to the Labor government’s accelerated land release strategy. While the annual growth in the Territory’s residential population was forecast to increase by 2.1% in the May 2010 budget, the forecast has been revised down to 1.4% due to lower levels of nett overseas migration and declining interstate migration. Lower levels of nett overseas migration reflect changes in national migration policies, which have made obtaining working visas more difficult for overseas residents. Lower nett interstate migration than originally forecast reflects a stronger than expected recovery in the national economy, which makes retaining and attracting labour to the Territory more difficult. Forecast employment growth of 2.5% and growth of the Darwin inflation rate of 3.1% remain unchanged from the 2010-11 Budget.
Returning to the fiscal outlook, the most significant effect on the 2010-11 Budget in forward years is the non-policy revenue reductions. These revenue reductions are largely due to the flow-on effect of the global financial crisis, which is affecting consumption and investment in the national economy and flowing through to the Territory’s major revenue sources. The most significant of these is the effect on the Territory’s GST revenue. In the Commonwealth 2010 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the GST pool estimates were revised down from the May 2010 budget, returning them to the 2009-10 Budget levels. Combined with an overpayment of $27m in 2009-10 that will be repaid through lower payments in 2010-11, this has resulted in a $63m reduction in 2010-11, with $36m flowing through to forward years.
In 2010-11, GST revenue is now $241m lower than that predicted before the GST. The moderating Territory housing market from the high levels experienced in recent times has resulted in a decrease in stamp duties on residential conveyances of $28m in 2010-11. Growth is still expected in future years, albeit from the lower 2010 base.
Mining royalty estimates for 2010-11 have been reduced by $41m due to the strength of the Australian dollar and miners estimates of profitability. However, estimates for all forward years remain unchanged.
On the expenditure side, the Henderson government has provided substantial ongoing funding to respond to two significant reforms. The first and most significant reform relates to the response to the Growing them strong, together report, which includes a substantial package of $130m over five years to enhance child protection services in both the government and non-government sectors of the Northern Territory. In addition, the government has committed ongoing funding of $43m over three years for the new era in Corrections, which includes a significant expansion in the alternative incarceration, to increase rehabilitation and education programs, and reduce recidivism in the Northern Territory.
When taken together, the effect of these revenue expenditure changes result in an increased cash deficit in 2010-11 by $157m to $425m, with deficit projected over the forward estimates. However, when timing differences are excluded and the improved 2009-10 outcome is taken into account, the result is a largely unchanged position across 2009-10 and 2010-11.
On an accrual basis similar to the cash outcome, the fiscal balance is also projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle. The nett operating balance, which excludes capital spending, is also predicted to be in a deficit position from 2012-13. Nett debt is expected to decrease from that projected at budget time to $1.231bn in 2010-11 before increasing over the forward estimates. The improvement in 2010-11 is mainly due to the flow-on effect of the improved 2009-10 outcome, while the increase over the forward estimates is due to the high projected increased cash deficits. Nett debt as a percentage to revenue is estimated to be higher than predicted in May 2010; increasing to 48% by 2013-14. However, it is still projected to be below the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities are also expected to increase over the forward estimates period from that projected in the original 2010-11 budget, to $5511m by 2013-14. This is largely as a result of the increase in the nett debt position and an increase in the Territory’s superannuation liability following actuarial revisions associated with improved mortality rates and lower benefit payments. When measured as a percentage to revenue, it is expected the ratio will increase in all forward years to 123% in 2013-14. While the ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue are projected to increase, both are still lower than the 2001-02 levels due to the government delivering eight consecutive cash surpluses.
In conclusion, the 2010-11 mid-year report highlights that the Territory’s economic outlook remains positive. The fiscal outlook has worsened due to non-policy revenue changes and the need to respond to critical areas of service delivery across government. Despite these challenging times, the Henderson government intends to continue its adherence to fiscal responsibility. In the short term, this will result in the budget going into deficit while we wait for private sector investment to return to pre-GFC levels. As evidenced by the eight consecutive surpluses and the budget improvement measures introduced as part of the 2010-11 budget, the Henderson government remains committed to its objectives and fiscal targets while continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the 2010-11 mid-year report to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the report and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform and update members on an important milestone in the Northern Territory’s history.
1 January 2011 marks 100 years of being a territory. On 1 January 1911, the Northern Territory was surrendered by South Australia and became a territory of the Commonwealth. The journey began in 1902 when the South Australian government decided the Northern Territory was a nuisance. From 1788, the Territory had been part of the colony of New South Wales and in 1863 was annexed to South Australia. South Australia considered the Territory a burden due to distance and high temperatures which made the passage of people, stock and goods very difficult and costly. In 1902, South Australia began negotiations with the Commonwealth to surrender the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth. It was not until about 1908 that the Commonwealth and South Australia formulated terms of agreement for the transfer of the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister at the time, Alfred Deakin, had a long-term federalist vision of an Australian nation which included a Northern Territory under Commonwealth control in the national interests of social and economic development and defence.
So, on 1 January 1911, the Northern Territory was surrendered by South Australia and accepted by the Commonwealth. This is an extraordinary part of history and an extraordinary time for young Australians, young Territorians particularly, to understand our history, good and bad. There are things in our past that, as a Territory, we are not pleased with. There are good things we are incredibly proud of. 2011 will provide us with the opportunity to reflect on the Territory’s history and think about where we are going. We can look at a more harmonious and fair future in our status as Australians. For this reason, 2011 will be a significant year to raise the profile of Statehood and I am sure all members of the Legislative Assembly will encourage Territorians to become involved in events throughout 2011.
It is an important time for people in the Northern Territory to define who we are as a people - Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, Greek, Italian, Chinese and Asian - all together; all the different cultural values that have made the Northern Territory home with the first Australians. As Minister for Statehood, I have been travelling across the Northern Territory talking to different groups saying: ‘Look at your local area. What is your history?’ I am asking all organisations to think about what they can do at the community level to display their history over the last 100 years.
I have spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association, rodeo committees, police associations, women’s groups, local government shire councils, municipalities, all sorts of groups and individuals, to start thinking about who we are as a people of the Northern Territory. Last month I spoke to a group of community library officers from across the Northern Territory about how we can mark this milestone together. I want to work with the libraries because this is about our history. We want to encourage every section of the Northern Territory community to think about what 100 years means for us. Whether it is the fishing community, our growth towns, anyone, everyone and everywhere, the Henderson government wants us to think about where we have come and where we wish to go together as the people of the Northern Territory.
I am asking people of the Northern Territory to advise Legislative Assembly representatives what they think would be significant in recognising 100 years of the Northern Territory. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I have said to women’s groups that next year is also 100 years for women; let us look at the future for women across the Northern Territory. Let us see where we have come. On 8 March we celebrate International Women’s Day. I have called for nominations for a tribute to Northern Territory women who have contributed to our history and current day status as extraordinary women, as extraordinary leaders, and how we can celebrate their achievements and look at our young women coming through who can learn from those examples.
Similarly, I would like our young people to be part of looking at the future. They are our future and the reason behind our vision for the future. Their future, whether it is through a school essay, art work, or even a time capsule in every school across the Northern Territory, I would like them to consider where we have come and where are we going to become the seventh state in the federation. What vision does our youth have for the next 25 to 50 years? What do we want to be? Who are we? We are walking together as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Many other cultures have made the Northern Territory home. It is vital these events are developed in collaboration with Territorians living across our regions. The involvement of our shires is crucial. In addition, historians and academics have indicated their interest in organising a series of history forums to mark the Northern Territory centenary in 2011.
As Minister for Statehood, I would like to see a think tank, a series of lectures reflecting on our past and looking at our future under the title ‘A Working Future in the Seventh State in the Federation’. What will we look like; what vision do we have for the people of the Northern Territory? The Henderson government is pursuing partnerships with a range of local and national organisations to raise awareness of our history and, importantly, our constitutional inequalities: national groups like the Long Walk Foundation, which I have had conversations with; and sporting events like the AFL and Dreamtime at the G.
The centenary of the Territory is an opportunity for the Northern Territory to elevate its profile at the national level in discussions around becoming the seventh state in the federation. I have been inviting local and national organisations and businesses to join us on this journey and help take our history to the rest of the nation. Different groups will be marking this milestone in different ways, and there will be a range of events at different places at different times. However, our emphasis is not on the government or the parliament organising everything. This has to be about the people of the Northern Territory choosing to put on events within their own committees, corporations, families, and communities to reflect on our past and our future.
We have had discussions with musicians - people who can be part of the artistic scene that makes up the Northern Territory - and artists across the Northern Territory, be it in artwork or theatre, about our identity and culture as a people of the Northern Territory in the 21st century, who we are, where we are going to become the seventh state in the federation.
For us, as a government, we see Territory Day as a very big celebration. We are currently finalising significant ways we can mark the centenary milestone. We will be looking to make further announcements early in the new year about centenary events. I also anticipate, during the first sittings of parliament in February 2011, further discussion about the Northern Territory centenary and how Territorians can get involved in marking this milestone.
I call on all members of the Assembly to take part in an encouraging and productive way. This is about walking together and, as I have said in this House on many occasions, the leadership within this parliament in a bipartisan manner shows, as an example to the people of the Northern Territory, we need to do this together - to walk together, to grow together, to have constitutional equality with our fellow Australians. I look forward to people considering how we can ensure a strong future for all Territorians, young and old, on the basis of guaranteed constitutional rights.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement by the minister and acknowledge the work she has done in her term as the Minister for Statehood.
There is no doubt the Northern Territory has had a chequered history when it comes to constitutional development. It was almost as if no one wanted us at any point of time; the only time they wanted us was when we were halfway interesting - like the child no one really likes until inheriting grandpa’s fortune. Everyone then wants to love the child and be their best friend. That is a little like the Northern Territory. We are out of sight out of mind to the rest of the country, which is sad.
Successive governments have worked hard, as has industry and others, to get the Northern Territory on the map as a legitimate player in Australia’s history and development. No doubt we will continue to work hard with our southern counterparts because everyone loves to come to the Territory for a holiday and enjoy hunting, fishing, shooting, and all the things that go without saying. However, no one takes the time to understand what the Northern Territory is all about when it comes to our economy, development, challenges or our future.
Whilst with the Minerals Council I was involved in the Statehood Convention as a representative of that group, and am fully conversant with the issues which surrounded the convention and subsequent referendum. Things turned out the way they did not because of the people at the convention; it just played out that way. That was unfortunate because it probably put us back 10 or 20 years in moving forward, achieving equality and fairness, and being treated as a state.
In recent times there has been a long path in pushing the cause of statehood. Steve Hatton was Chief Minister at that time and there were displays at agricultural shows - very good displays which took the message to the people. The late Dr Alistair Heatley was on the show circuit talking to people regarding constitutional development - what statehood meant to everyday Territorians. It was good and promoted the statehood agenda. People had many questions; they still do. Things were quiet after that time, and in the last few years it has come to the forefront.
Leading up to the Statehood Steering Committee being commissioned five years ago, of which I was a member – I always wanted to be a member of it because my personal interest in achieving statehood is strong. We have been treated very shabbily by the Commonwealth over many decades, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years. I recall the Commonwealth 32 square mile acquisition act, which covered my parents’ property at the 30 Mile, where, with the stroke of a pen, the Commonwealth took 32 square miles of land for the development of Darwin. With the grant of statehood the Commonwealth decided it did not want that side of the highway and it would develop Palmerston. However, there was much pain and angst for many families who lost their properties. Yes, they were compensated; however, they did not receive appropriate compensation. People are still around today who were involved with that acquisition - Ironstone Nursery - Helmut and Joy Schimmel and their families, the McNamee family, my parents, and the late Albert Albany was another person tied up in the Commonwealth acquisition act. That was a tough time for many people in that area, and with the stroke of a pen the Commonwealth did what it wanted, as it has done on other occasions.
The Statehood Steering Committee has done a huge amount of work. It has had issues, challenges and conflicts. However, the focus has always been to move forward, and it has moved forward, albeit a little slowly in some people’s mind. The committee’s work has come to an end. A huge amount of work will be pooled in different formats and styles for use in the convention period, which will happen towards the latter part of next year.
There is no doubt there will be very serious issues as we move toward statehood. I have said that both inside and outside the Chamber. The biggest issue we will have to work through is the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. My view is it has to be patriated to the Northern Territory government, but how, in what style and with what concessions has to be determined. My view is you cannot have a large parcel of Northern Territory land controlled by the Commonwealth when you become a state. A state controls everything within its borders and land management is a state government’s right. That will be a complicated and complex negotiation. We know that; we have to work through it.
There is also the issue of uranium mining. The Commonwealth government controls that at the moment. With the grant of statehood, the opposition’s view is management and control should be vested with the Northern Territory government. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands is an area we administer - the Commonwealth controls the area, owns the area, receives benefits from it, the Territory does all the regulation and hard work. Whether we get the benefits we should is to be debated.
Some of our biggest challenges to the convention and our negotiations with the Commonwealth are our federal counterparts on all sides of parliament. From our side of the House the challenge is dealing with the Liberals and the Nationals. There is also the Labor party, the Greens and some Independents, depending on the composition of the federal parliament as we move forward. The minister and I have met with federal people and will meet with others in the future. I found those meetings useful and worthwhile, if not enlightening, as to what they think about the Northern Territory. Some were disappointing. Part of our challenge is educating them that this will not take away their right of being important in the Commonwealth running of business.
We are moving towards the convention and will set up a group of people to work towards it. Information will be available early next week. Appropriate people will be able to take us to the next chapter. During the last convention and referendum, the referendum being one step in a long staircase was never explained to people. Even friends of mine, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, voted no at the referendum. They did not like the way it was handled. I explained it was one step in a long staircase, but that was not the way they voted. We have to explain to those people that the referendum and constitution is one step in a long staircase before we are granted statehood. That is the biggest challenge going into, and coming out of, the convention.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the challenges. Statehood will come and we have to ensure it comes sooner rather than later. I would like to see us gain statehood in my lifetime because if we do not get it right this time we will never become a state. Our biggest challenge is working together as a government. We will not agree on all issues because of our political and ideological differences. Somehow we have to find the middle ground to convince the Commonwealth we should be a state. We need to become a state for the benefit of Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Port Darwin for the rest of the evening. It is signed by the two Whips.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Statehood for bringing on this statement. It is quite symbolic, in its own small way, that on the last day of sittings for the 2010 calendar year the last real item of debate brought on by government is a statement acknowledging 100 years of being a territory and updating us on our path to statehood. It is important to acknowledge the centenary of the Northern Territory.
As my colleague, the Minister for Statehood, has said, 2011 is an important year in the Territory’s history. It marks our 100th anniversary as an entity, the Northern Territory, and, most importantly, it marks the beginning of another journey towards eventual and complete statehood.
Factors such as our people, geography and history have melded over the last 100 years to shape this unique and beautiful place we all call home. It has given us the diversity we celebrate today, and our diversity is not something we acknowledge and celebrate in the Northern Territory, it is something we embrace. Our diversity is embraced in all its forms, and is what makes it such a wonderful and special place. I am proud to say over the last 100 years the Territory has in many ways been a pioneer in the multicultural Australia we take for granted today. That is understandable given our high Indigenous population, our proximity to Asia and our isolation. We are unique in our population mix, and it is fair to say over the years Territorians have demonstrated a unique capacity to put aside or simply ignore ethnic and social difference.
We could speculate on what caused that sense of harmony. Perhaps it was our isolation; perhaps it was an accident in history. It was probably more the fact we were isolated; we had to get on; we had to work together because there was no one else to help us, which has created the sense of inclusion in the Northern Territory. Everyone is welcome here and we all work together. In fact, in the 1900s, Darwin was described as China Town because the majority of non-Indigenous residents were of Chinese heritage. Back in the 1870s, the Chinese community outnumbered the European population in the Territory by 10 to one.
One of Australia’s greatest authors, Xavier Herbert, saw Darwin as more Asian than European. In many ways it still is. There were not only Chinese. Filipinos have had a presence in the Territory since the late 1800s. Even before the postwar immigration boom, people from countries such as Greece were making their mark on the Territory. The Haritos family came to Darwin in the days of the old Vestey’s Meatworks at Bullocky Point. The family saw an opportunity and began producing salt for the meatworks. It is from this starting point that the waves of postwar migration from Europe and Asia created our modern-day cosmopolitan lifestyle. Some of the largest communities which developed and brought strength to the broader community include Filipino, Greek, Italian, Chinese, Thai, Indian, Timorese, and many more. Today, the Territory also has a rapidly growing African and Nepalese community.
During the last 100 years, the Territory’s social and economic development has been immense. This government continues to make record commitments to infrastructure and job creation. I also acknowledge the role of the CLP government immediately following self-government for its efforts in developing vital infrastructure assets.
Today, the Territory is a different place than in 1911 when its outer limits were around Fannie Bay Gaol. In those times it was a full day trip to get to the beach area at Nightcliff and back. Alice Springs did not exist, forming later around the Telegraph Station in the late 1920s. Throughout the decades that followed, the Territory has grown to the point where Darwin today is on its way to becoming the capital of Northern Australia. That is my vision, and one I presented to our Prime Minister in Canberra several weeks ago: the future economic growth for all Australia lies in the north and Darwin should be seen as the capital of Northern Australia.
Alice Springs is one of the gems of the Australian outback, supported by Tennant Creek with its mining boom; Katherine, Australia’s most important air defence hub and also home to the significant pastoral industry; Nhulunbuy, our bauxite centre; Palmerston, one of the fastest growing cities in Australia and a great place for families; as well as the 20 new growth towns dotted around remote parts of the Territory with 150 communities alongside 300 outstations. That really is an amazing multi-cultural mix.
Our Indigenous community, which goes back some 40 000 years, has created so much of what is intrinsically special about our community in the depth of Indigenous language and culture shared by everyone. The vision to invest and grow new towns and communities around the Northern Territory and bring those communities out of isolation into the reality they are growing towns with growing communities is part of the movement to statehood.
If we look forward to why we should be recognised as a state, we can look at the contribution the Northern Territory makes to the national economy. Our economic growth is predicted at 4.8% in 2010-11, the second highest in the nation. Access also predicts the Territory to have the strongest jobs growth in the country over the next five years along with the lowest unemployment - all this growth contributes to our nation. That is why our nation should look at accepting the Northern Territory as the seventh state in the federation and give us access and equality to the same extent other Australians take for granted.
It would be remiss of me, as a Labor Chief Minister, not to mention the role of the Labor Party in the development of the Territory. I am not dismissing the role of the CLP, however, the Labor Party has been part of the Territory for the last 100 years. The first decade of our life as a Territory responsible solely to Canberra was a tumultuous one, and the Labor movement was then at the very core of the significant and political progress and change which occurred over that 100 years. It was the Labor movement that began a campaign for proper parliamentary recognition of the Territory.
Labor heroes such as Harold Nelson led the charge against the dominance of decision-making by Canberra. He and many others were gaoled for their role in street protests and demonstrations that led to the eventual ousting of Administrator Gilruth. It is interesting to note when the leading men were gaoled, the cause was taken up by women who defied authorities and held picnics outside the gaol and fed their men through the bars to protest at the actions of the authorities from down south. The atmosphere, both inside and outside the gaol, was one big party, much to the consternation of police at the time.
It was 1922 before representation was achieved, and that was taken up by Harold Nelson for many years. Later, after a short break, his son, Jock Nelson, represented us in the federal parliament until 1966. Had Arthur Caldwell won that very close 1961 election, there is no doubt Jock would have been our first minister in the federal parliament.
So, 1911 was not just a matter of change of ownership, it was a symbolic start on our journey through greater and greater constitutional maturity. In the 100 years since that time, I am proud to say the Labor Party has played a leading role in bringing about our constitutional development. It was with the backing of a strong Labor push in Canberra under the Chifley government, that the Territory was granted limited representation in the form of an appointed Legislative Council.
Later in the 1960s, people like Dick Ward, Curley Nixon, Don Bonson, Leo Castillion, Jim Gallagher, and John Waters led more and more protests and action on granting the Territory self-government. It is true to say, because of the close relationship between Gough Whitlam and Dick Ward, the Territory was granted its first fully-elected Legislative Council in 1974, and the legislative framework was put in place to pass greater responsibility to the Territory.
To his credit, Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser completed the job, and we became a self-governing Territory on 1 July 1978, a day we now celebrate with fireworks, and always will whilst I am Chief Minister. I will not be the Chief Minister who bans fireworks as part of our self-government celebrations. It was, perhaps, a great irony that whilst he granted the Territory the capacity to have its first fully-elected Legislative Council, then Prime Minister Whitlam proved so unpopular in the Territory the only non-conservative representative elected to the Council was Dawn Lawrie, mother of our Deputy Chief Minister - and she was an Independent.
I acknowledge that the Country Liberal Party, in the years since self-government, has taken a strong focus on contributing to the Territory becoming a state. It has done its part in moving the issue forward. I thank the Country Liberal Party for its bipartisan work with government and the Independents in moving towards statehood. This is more than us as political parties. We all learnt the lesson of the failed referendum; unless this movement towards statehood is led by the people of the Northern Territory with a real desire and passion to become a state, any hint of political interference or politicians attempting to hijack the agenda for a profile is going to see statehood on the back burner.
I thank the Country Liberal Party members and people who have been working on the steering committee, and on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It has been genuinely bipartisan and I am confident that will continue into the future. We want that too because statehood is important.
Many people ask what the fuss is all about and if anything is really going to change. For many people, when they wake up the next morning and we become a state, nothing material will change. What will change forever is Territorians will have the same constitutional rights and obligations as every other Australian, and that is the right, decent and fair thing to do by the Commonwealth parliament.
I acknowledge, without repeating all the issues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned around the constitutional conventions, and as we move forward, there will be issues that test us when trying to reach a unified position on certain things. However, with good will and real clarity of focus on what we want to achieve, we can put aside political ideologies, find a common ground and move forward with a constitution to put to a referendum which we can take to Canberra with a resounding vote of yes for a new state in the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for bringing this on tonight. It is going to be an exciting 2011. The minister has been working hard on what will be fun community events and opportunities for people to reflect on the last 100 years - the good and the bad over that time. It is going to be a fun year with good events, and we will move toward another step at the end of 2011.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is good to be talking about the future on the last day of the parliament in 2010.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is not very often I speak in debate. I do so tonight in my role as Chair of the Standing Committee of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and also the Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is with great pleasure I speak to this motion concerning the 100th year of the Northern Territory coming under the control and administration of the Commonwealth government under Australia’s constitutional arrangements, and I thank the Minister for Statehood for bringing this statement to this House this evening.
I also take the opportunity to update the Assembly on some of the activities planned by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs next year, as the people of the Northern Territory continue the quest for our constitutional equality with all Australians. One hundred years is a long time, but history tells us the people must want to take any steps towards reform. Of the 44 attempts to amend the Australian Constitution in more than 100 years, there have been only eight occasions where the majority of electors in the majority of states have agreed with proposals brought forward. This is instructive but should not deter our discussion of our own governance and ways to do things better.
As indicated, I will shortly update the Assembly on the program which the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will undertake next year to progress this discussion, but first I would like to reflect briefly on the 100 years. Looking more closely at the decision of South Australia to surrender the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth, it is instructive to not only examine the legislation which permitted surrender and acceptance, but to also consider some of the immediate consequences for residents in the Northern Territory of South Australia as it became the Northern Territory of Australia.
A legal opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney-General dated 10 August 1911 to the Minister for Home Affairs said:
This advice is an extraordinary revelation from our perspective today. We take it for granted we are all equal Australians, but are we? The people of the Northern Territory who were eligible to be electors one year earlier as part of South Australia were, by virtue of the ability of any state to surrender territory to the Commonwealth under section 111 of the Constitution, not only disenfranchised, but indeed considered for the purpose of the Constitution and representation in the Australian parliament, to not be people of the Commonwealth.
As the Territory now has representation by virtue of acts of the Commonwealth parliament, we are of the Commonwealth for the purposes of section 24 of the Constitution. To remind members what section 24 is about, it states:
The section continues with one more detail on proportion and quotas to determine the representation from each state which, of course, continues to exclude Territorians. Therefore, while we are all Australians, to this day we remain unequal Australians for constitutional purposes by virtue of residing in the Northern Territory.
We continue to ask: can we rest assured that because of an act of the Commonwealth parliament our electoral fortunes at the Commonwealth level will be protected? State residents have a constitutional guarantee to representation and voting at Commonwealth elections. As long as we remain a territory we remain subject to continuing second-class constitutional status. Reading the memoranda from the Australian Electoral Commission to the branches in South Australia in late 1910, it is fascinating to see them working furiously to remove people residing within the Northern Territory from the electoral roll for the division of Gray in time for a national referendum to be held in 1911.
I have some copies of documents from the National Archives of Australia. The first one is a memorandum to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the state of South Australia from the Chief Electoral Officer. It says:
The response from the Commonwealth Electoral Office of the State of South Australia, dated 4 April 1911 says:
I seek leave to table those documents.
Leave granted.
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. They did not want to permit ineligible voters to remain on the roll and have a say at referendum.
The records in the National Archives show a series of telegrams and letters between the main office in Melbourne and the Adelaide office and communications with the returning officers in the Northern Territory to get these people off the roll quick smart. Not all Territorians took this sitting down as a letter from Joe Bradshaw Esq of Bradshaw’s Run in Victoria River demonstrates. The letter dated 9 November 1910 was written to the then Minister for Home Affairs, King O’Malley and is also found in the National Archives. It reads as follows:
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no record of the minister’s response; however, a fairly swift acknowledgement was despatched and dated in Melbourne on 24 November 1910. In essence, the reply is not required because history tells us Mr Bradshaw was a man ahead of his time.
Our first member of the House of Representatives had observer status only upon arrival at the Commonwealth parliament sitting in Melbourne in 1922, after a hard-won fight to allow representation in any form. It was not until 1968 that the member for the Northern Territory was able to speak and vote in debates as other members had since 1901.
A council to assist the Administrator was not established until 1947, and the President of the Council was not democratically elected until Harry Chan in 1965. Two senators were not achieved until 1975, and our second member of the House of Representatives did not arrive in Canberra until the seat of Solomon, which was first won by the current member for Fong Lim in 2001.
It is amazing to think that people were, as a matter of constitutional law, removed from the Australian electoral rolls and that the right to a Commonwealth vote within the Northern Territory disappeared 100 years ago. This is one of the many aspects of what we should be marking next year as we consider our constitutional future. As has been mentioned, the Northern Territory came under the administration of the Commonwealth on 1 January 1911, after just 10 years of being part of the state of South Australia. Negotiations to jettison the Northern Territory commenced between South Australia and the Commonwealth almost immediately after Federation.
It is instructive to read some of the documentation considering the deal to bring about this event. The provisions of the agreement are set out in Part 3 of the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1910. An exchange of correspondence between the Premier of South Australia and the Prime Minister in late 1907 demonstrates concern about who was liable to pay for the overland telegraph from Adelaide to Darwin. This was settled and it is reflected in the legislation where section 14 outlines the obligations of the Commonwealth in regard to South Australian debt.
Also of recent contemporary interest is the obligation on the Commonwealth to construct a transcontinental railway from Port Darwin to the South Australian border. We all know how long that took. It was a lesson in perseverance and statehood is another lesson in perseverance. If we continue to work together we can build the Territory as we built the railway and, if the people want, we can build statehood. As the seeds have been sown for nearly 100 years, the next step has been coming for over 30 years and it is time to move forward again.
In 1974 an elected Legislative Assembly with 19 members was established and the Northern Territory self-government act of 1978 gave us our 25 members of this Assembly, as we are known today. This Assembly received a report in 1999 which acknowledged the mistakes made during the last concerted statehood campaign in the late 1990s. Taking note of those errors, in 2004 this Assembly agreed to establish an advisory committee to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which met in Alice Springs as the Statehood Steering Committee for the first time in early 2005. Next week, the Statehood Steering Committee will conclude its work at its 27th and final meeting and early next year the standing committee will be in a position to table the standing committee’s final report and recommendations towards the next part of the program.
The Statehood Steering Committee has, this year, conducted 50 public forums in a campaign called NT 2011 Towards State 7. This year the first part of a two-year program was held to consult on the matters people wish to have considered. Next year a constitutional convention will be conducted where all the matters will be considered in detail. Next year’s program will commence with the standing committee making a symbolic, but important, courtesy visit to Canberra to meet with Commonwealth parliamentarians. These meetings are planned to inform government, opposition and independent members and senators of their key roles in determining the terms and conditions of Northern Territory statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution. To assist this, each Commonwealth parliamentarian will receive a copy of an information paper to be published by the Statehood Steering Committee on 1 January 2011. The Statehood Steering Committee has been working on this information paper during the course of this year and it will be a resource for Northern Territory and Commonwealth politicians to consider the matters which must be resolved to achieve statehood.
At the 26th meeting of the Statehood Steering Committee, held on 28 July 2010, the standing committee and the steering committee mutually agreed to dissolve the Statehood Steering Committee on Monday, 6 December 2010. However, the momentum commenced by the Statehood Steering Committee will continue with a new and smaller advisory committee designed solely to assist in the delivery of a democratically convened constitutional convention late next year. The Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee will be formed in the coming weeks and will meet as soon as practicable as the new advisory committee to the standing committee.
I thank each of the members of the Statehood Steering Committee since its inception in 2005; the two previous chairs, the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and the former member for Barkly, Elliot McAdam; the current Minister for Statehood, the member for Arnhem, who has brought forward this statement; and the former co-chair, Sue Bradley AM, and our current co-chair, Ms Fran Kilgariff. All of these people and the members of the Statehood Steering Committee have put in a huge effort over many years and I offer my thanks to them for their hard work over such a long time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, more details will be announced about next year in due course. I hope members will join me in supporting an inclusive process and will agree it is an exciting time to be a Territorian because if we do this right, we will be doing it for our children and generations to come. One hundred years is a long time to be an adolescent. Surely it is time for us to move into adulthood.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, having been born interstate and not having grown up in the Northern Territory, I feel for Northern Territorians who have had to grow up without this constitutional protection. I guess it was something I took for granted growing up in Queensland. I feel for my own children, growing up in an environment without this constitutional protection. As the Chief Minister put it today, perhaps people will not know what the real difference is, however, maybe it is something we take for granted when we have it, and it is only in the absence of it that we realise what we are missing.
The member for Port Darwin highlighted today the anomalies which go along with the Northern Territory achieving statehood. While it is a noble aspiration and it is something we should try to achieve and not let up until we do achieve it, practically, how are we going to achieve it? We will face enormous difficulties in the practicalities. As the member for Port Darwin pointed out, how can our representation in the national parliament and our own parliament be achieved with such a small population? If we do achieve statehood anytime soon, with say 200 000 or 250 000 people, we may have some 40 federal politicians and another half a dozen to a dozen Territory politicians. That is a high level of representation and is perhaps a bit of overkill. How we work through those issues is unclear.
I have some healthy cynicism about that and our potential to achieve that. Why would Canberra want to make a rod for its back? It already has six rods for its back. I wish we could go back to the time of Federation when the Territory could become part of what we know today as the Federation, have our own constitution, and could have set down our own rights back then.
How we can do that at this point of time, when the states are the bane of the existence of a centralist government? The centralist federal government likes the power it has and is constantly trying to gain more and more power from the states. We have seen that recently with a lot of tax grabs, depriving the states of some of their revenue. I wonder how we are going to do that. I have this healthy cynicism. It is a noble aspiration and I hope it comes true for all of us as Territorians at some point. But I do not know if Canberra is going to make a rod for its own back as it already has six.
There is a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. It probably will go down as one of the most defining documents of all time when people look at it in 100 or 200 years time and think back to those people who created it and the foresight they had. It is one of the most defining documents at present. If people look back on it in 100 years time they will say it was created with such foresight. The fundamental flaw in it is that the states are vested with all the power but the Commonwealth has all the money. I guess that is something they did not quite address when writing the Constitution. As I said, ever since Federation, we have seen the federal government try to wrest more and more control and power from the states.
It is something we should all strive for and hope to achieve. However, I have some healthy cynicism about how we can practically go about that, particularly about the issue of representation and the number of elected members and senators which will be required. Some say we are already over-represented in the Northern Territory and we could end up with something like 100 politicians for 200 000 people.
You cannot have a state without a functioning health system. You cannot have statehood and you cannot achieve statehood without a functioning child protection system, a functioning education system, a functioning law and order system, the ability to win the war on the alcohol issues plaguing the Territory, and infrastructure and housing. If we are going to achieve this, we need to step up to the plate and deal with these issues in a mature manner.
We have had three interventions in the last three years: the original intervention, the intervention into child abuse in the Northern Territory; SIHIP; and Montara. It does not auger well for a mature jurisdiction to be advocating statehood. It almost brings into question self-government.
I spoke yesterday at length about the system with health. Let us go back to the state’s role; the Commonwealth basically controls the purse strings but the states have all the power and responsibilities. One of the core functions of a state, or the Territory, is health. It is a fundamental role to deliver health services throughout the state or, in this case, the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, we did not see great inroads in this area under the Martin Labor government nor are we seeing them under the Henderson Labor government. It is evident when you consider that the Chief Minister so willingly signed up to the national health reform, relinquishing more of our GST to the federal government and some control of our hospitals and health system. The health system is not in some fundamental crisis, we do not need fundamental health reform. I have said on a number of occasions that we need hospital boards with clout which can make decisions on behalf of the community. That is how you deliver effective and efficient health services in a state and in the Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, this so-called health reform which this government so willingly signed up to, as did a handful of other states, is not a result of the system. I believe the system works. To me it is a result of failed administrations over decades. We are at this point because the system has been allowed to be over bureaucratised, if there is such a word - top heavy with fat cats might be a better way to explain it - and poorly managed, and we are seeing that in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. If we have any chance of demonstrating to the Commonwealth, and the rest of the country, which has to sanction our push for statehood in a referendum, then we have to demonstrate we are able to provide an efficient and effective health system because that will be, as it is now, one of our core fundamental roles.
We are not doing that. We continually have the worst hospital waiting lists in the country. I know we have an enormous utilisation of our hospitals for our population. In Royal Darwin Hospital alone we see 200 000 through the place. If you couple Tennant Creek and Alice Springs together there are about 150 000 people utilising those hospitals for a combined population of 35 000 tops. The minister is right when he says these places are very, very busy and we are a victim of our circumstances when it comes to providing effective and efficient health service delivery in our hospitals because we are under enormous pressure. But it does not auger well for a push to become a state when the minister throws his hands in the air and says: ‘It is all too hard. I do not have enough nurses and doctors and there are too many people utilising the hospitals. Please, can someone help us?’ We have to get a grip on these issues. Health is the fundamental role of a state, and indeed it is for us as a territory. We will not be able to put our hand up and ask the Commonwealth government to help us once we are a state. We would be a laughing stock. It will be: you wanted this, now you cannot do it.
It is the same with education and law and order. These are the roles of state governments and unfortunately this Territory government is not, in my mind and I believe in the opposition’s mind, doing enough to convince me that we are in a mature position to be able to advocate seriously for statehood. I firmly believe we should be aspiring to this; it is a noble aspiration. I hope we achieve it because if we can it means we have ticked many of those boxes - we have a handle on our health system, we have achieved effective and efficient health service delivery throughout the Northern Territory, people are being seen on time in our hospitals and not waiting for extraordinary lengths of time for serious cases such as categories one, two and three. Unfortunately, not enough people are being seen - well below what is expected and that is not good enough. You cannot expect to have all the trappings, prestige and protections of statehood if you cannot manage your internal affairs.
The same applies to education. We have to start ticking the boxes and we have to start getting people achieving in our classrooms.
Law and order and health are two areas I see on a daily basis which are out of control in Central Australia. This government is not winning the battle with law and order issues. It is not winning the war on drunks. It is not winning the battle on issues with infrastructure and housing. These are issues which are squarely in the purview of the state and territory governments and if we are ever to achieve such a noble thing as statehood we will have to be able to tick those boxes. Unfortunately, I do not see this government being able to achieve that in any great period of time. It has had 10 years. It is all very well to: ‘In 10 years we have recruited another 100 or so doctors’. Well good, you should have recruited more doctors just as you should have recruited more nurses. It is your job to do that. It is no good patting yourself on the back and saying: ‘I did a good job because I just did my job today’. Doing your job is what is required and if you are recruiting more doctors that is good, but that is your job.
We are not seeing real inroads. The Health minister says: ‘I do not have enough nurses and doctors. There are too many people coming through the hospital’. In the same breath, he says: ‘But, hang on, we have recruited an extra 100 doctors’. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. The Territory government cannot have its cake and eat it too. You have had 10 years to make some serious inroads. Unfortunately, in many of these respects, which go straight to the heart of statehood, we are going backwards. We are not in a strong position to convince the broader Territory community, or Australians as a whole, who have to sign off on this deal if we are to become a state.
The Territory has had three interventions in three years. The Territory has been brought into great shame over many of those interventions - the intervention into child protection which was the national response and SIHIP, which I know has not resonated in many media circles in the leafy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne but, nevertheless, it is out there and is a reality. So we are not going a long way to convince the community of the Territory and the broader community of Australia that we are in a strong position to advocate statehood and can someone please walk in with the bill to grant it to us. I believe we are a long way off, unfortunately.
In many respects, statehood has been set back quite a number of years as a result of many of the failures of the Henderson Labor government. It sounds political, and I know it is, but to me it is a reality. All you have to do is take a walk down the streets in my community of Alice Springs and you will see plenty of evidence that this government is not ticking the boxes. If you looked at yourselves and asked if you were making inroads into issues such as health, housing, and law and order, the answer would definitely be no.
The member for Goyder raised a very important point about the Land Rights Act. I think, bold as it is, there is a lot of merit in patriating the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory. It is very difficult to grow an economy when you only have access to 50% of the land.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, honourable members. Bold as it is, it would be a step in the right direction. How we go about achieving that I leave to those who are more qualified. It seems that when there is no access to 50% of the Territory’s land, we, as a Territory, and potentially a state, are required to provide services such as hospitals, schools, police stations, communities and businesses on that land. It is impossible to do and is counterproductive.
It is a very good point and I support it, in principle. I do not know how something like that could be accepted in the broader community or practically implemented. It may be something which is an ongoing debate but is something we definitely have to look at if we are serious about becoming a state. If we have a grip on our health, law and order, education, infrastructure and housing systems, we then have to look at how we free up some of the land while respecting the rights and cultural values of the traditional owners. You are going to have to strike a balance which will be no mean feat to achieve.
Uranium is another issue the member for Goyder raised. We need to have full control of our mining, and we need to ensure that not only are we able to approve or disapprove mining ventures in the Northern Territory, but also uranium mining ventures. We also need to ensure we get our fair share of the royalties generated from uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I do not believe the minerals belong to all Australians; I believe they belong to us as a state and should provide an income base for the states.
We have a long way to go with this. It is - and I will say it again - an aspirational and noble venture. It is a road we should be on, and we should be on it together. How it is going to roll out - to me it seems like a minefield of anomalies when you look at some of the situations the Northern Territory has found itself in through poor management and governance and as a victim of circumstance: left out of the initial Federation and, now, 100 years on, trying to negotiate what those states did 100 years ago in a different time and place. It is going to be very difficult.
I congratulate everyone on the Statehood Steering Committee. You have your work cut out for you. You are obviously very committed to it, minister, as are all on the committee. I do not know everyone’s names, but congratulations. It is a long road to statehood - with the emphasis on ‘long’. I try not to be too much of a cynic and I hope we, as a Territory, achieve it. I grew up in a state and I feel for those of us who have grown up here without the protections of a state. I include my son and my new child coming along in March in that basket as well.
While I am here, it would not be the statehood thing to do if I did not wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. That is what people who aspire to statehood do. They like to be polite and wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Thank you to the Assembly staff; the Clerk; the Deputy Clerk; my parliamentary colleagues; my family - my wife, Elara, son, Harvey, and the baby bump; my electorate officer, Karen, and her husband, Dennis, who have been a tremendous support; and the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office.
To all Territorians, have a wonderful Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year. I look forward to getting back in 2011, notwithstanding a couple of weeks’ break, which will be nice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement. I have flagged my concerns and some of my reservations. I am sure we will disagree on many of those, minister, nevertheless, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak to this statement but I want to do something slightly different while I speak tonight, and no, I am not doing a strip show, I am only taking the jacket off. I am sorry to Ms McCarthy, I am sure she anticipated more, but I am doing you a favour by keeping my shirt on.
Ms McCarthy: Thank you, John.
Mr ELFERINK: A book titled The Northern Territory As It Is, A Narrative of the South Australian Parliamentary Party’s Trip and Full Descriptions of the Northern Territory, its Settlements and Industries, by William J Sowden, came into my possession not so long ago. This book was published in 1882 and it speaks of a wild frontier country. Without reading the whole introduction, there are sections in the introduction worth reading, and I will also speak about other parts of the book.
The book goes on to describe in detail the Northern Territory in 1882. The author is an artist, a craftsman of the English language, but nevertheless takes you to the ridiculous, the sublime, and makes an account of the country in which we reside today. In his account, he writes essentially that which could have been written last week by a spin doctor on the fifth floor. I quote page 95 of this edition:
Isn’t it funny? I was listening carefully to the Chief Minister, and whilst the language is slightly different, the sentiment today remains precisely the same. The agony which possesses me to stand on my feet and speak in this motion today is that those people who lived in this far flung corner of the world, the White Elephant, as it was so derisively known in South Australia, had more political rights than we have today. That resonates with me.
Indeed, at the time these words were crafted, the colony to which Mr Sowden refers was actually the self-governing parliamentary colony, a country almost in its own right. There was no Canberra, there was no federation. The federation was still 19 years away, and consequently, the political rights which were enjoyed by the residents of Palmerston in 1882 - when I say Palmerston I mean Darwin now of course - were stronger and more profound than the rights we enjoy in this place today. We have things like electricity now, aeroplanes and motor vehicles. What we do not have is the same rights. If there is ever a conscious argument for statehood, surely it can be found in the pages of this book and the accounts given herein.
For anyone who enjoys the English language it is worth taking your time to read this. It has a description of a world which, in so many ways, is familiar and in so many ways is not. He refers repeatedly to sea lawyers on the trip from Adelaide to Darwin; there was no overland route at that time which was useable, they sailed up the east coast. It is only after the third time you come across this expression that you know he is referring to sharks. Apparently, not much has changed in the world.
The Darwin he describes is rough and ready and is derisive, but in an affectionate way. I quote:
Clearly a man of humour and fun but also a man who, in places, writes a stark history of the place where we live He talks about Aboriginal people, and please be aware this is in the context of the 1800s and I am quoting a man who wrote at that time, but there was sympathy in his observations:
The suggestion is, of course, that they are killed. That paints a very ugly picture of the Northern Territory at that time but he also goes on to paint a beautiful picture in so many other ways.
It is a rough, beautiful country which he believed is nothing like the white elephant for which it is so derisively known. Ultimately, in spite of his best efforts with his pen, and I hope in spite of the best efforts of the minister of the day, the decision and the determination was taken 11 years after the Federation of this country, to cast this Territory, with all of the political rights it had, into the political wilderness. The consequence of casting this Territory into the political wilderness is that we went from enjoying full political liberty to being nothing more than the extension of a government department run from Canberra - a blow so significant that we have not to this day recovered politically.
That is what this debate is about. I seek the political rights which were available to Territorians in 1882 but I will never get them because of the nature of our Federation. That is what this debate is for, in my consciousness. That is what this is all about. I am aware that the Federal Court, through its aggressive erosion of states rights and by the exclusion of concepts such as the reserve powers of the states, has been challenging the legitimacy of the states, particularly, in more recent years. Where they were once almost free governing entities in the same nature of nation states they are being quickly reduced by the erosive capacity of an ever intrusive Commonwealth to mere debating societies, as observed in the High Court in the not so distant past.
It, nevertheless, remains an aspiration of mine to be a political equal of my Australian cousins. We are not that. Whilst the states are eroding their power, and statehood will mean less and less if this course continues, I still think it a worthy aspiration to pursue. Consequently, I throw my weight, my heart, my mind, my soul into the pursuit of this outcome and hope that by the time we become the seventh state of this fine nation, this federation of states, that statehood will still mean something.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
The CLERK: Pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 40 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to the petitioners.
Response
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim.
Madam Speaker
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members present for their support. Water in the Northern Territory and water across Australia is an incredibly important issue. Water sustains life and for that reason we should take the matter of the provision of water very seriously.
I am concerned that this government has been caught up in its alliance with the Greens, both nationally and in the Territory, to the point where the non-provision of water is harming the Territory. In particular, it is harming the growth of our agricultural industries. Two thirds of Australia’s rainfall falls on one third of Australia: the top part of Australia. But the way we are treated by this government you would swear we were in a dry, arid part of the country because people are finding it very difficult to access water.
We had a debate earlier today about water discharge licences and sitting in the gallery was a lady called Tina MacFarlane, whom I mentioned when I was speaking on that bill. The MacFarlanes own a property just outside of Mataranka called Stylo Station which is 9500 ha. They want to develop that property into a dual cattle grazing and irrigated crop property. In 1992 they had the full support of government to do that but, over the years, encouragement has died to the point where it has been replaced by a wall of obfuscation and bureaucratic indifference - a rather appalling situation.
I speak of the MacFarlanes as a case in point. I do not suggest they have a different circumstance than anyone else on the land trying to access water, but their case is interesting because as long ago as May 2005 the MacFarlanes submitted a water licence application to the department. Given the abundance of water in the underlying Tindall aquifer, it should have been granted years ago. However, it was not until August this year that the controller, for no good reason, saw fit to reject their application. Extraordinarily enough, the controller had a big regard for the volume of water which was being extracted from the aquifer when no valid licence allowing such extraction has ever been issued. When I say no valid licence, a licence is not valid unless it complies with the Water Act. To obtain a valid licence a party must meet certain requirements under the act; namely, the publication of notices calling for public comment, provision of correct forms and water management plans, and notification of that decision. None of those things have happened, yet water is being extracted from that aquifer - some 4000 ML or more - but the controller says she took that into account.
I noticed a story in the NT News on 29 November about the MacFarlanes. The story was titled ‘David takes on Goliath for water’. It was written by a journalist, Paul Toohey, who I think we all know in this place. In that story, it said the Controller of Water Resources, Ms Leeder, said:
That is one of the reasons why she has rejected their application.
It is interesting to listen to government and people when they talk about water because they say they do not want to make the same mistakes in the Northern Territory that they have made down south - in particular, in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have seen the worst drought in 100 years and the impact water allocation can have on Australia’s economy. Of course, we do not want to see the same mistakes here that have been made in the Murray-Darling Basin.
For the information of the House I will explain a little about the Murray-Darling Basin. I dug up a thing called Water and the Murray-Darling Basin - A Statistical Profile, 2000-01 to 2005-06 produced by the National Water Initiative. In 2004-05, the industries, including agriculture, and households in the Murray-Darling Basin used 52% of Australia’s total water consumption. Along the Murray-Darling Basin there are some two million people who feed off that water supply. There are 61 000 farms, accounting for 39% of all farms in Australia. The water flow in the Murray-Darling Basin is about 23 000 gigalitres.
As I said, almost half of Australia’s farms are on the Murray-Darling Basin, and that is 23 000 gigalitres - remember that number because in the Roper River there are 14 000 gigalitres, over half of what is in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is just in the Roper River alone, and there certainly are not 61 000 - if you are to say about half of what is on the Murray-Darling Basin - 30 000 farms on the Roper River.
To imagine there could be 30 000 farms on the Roper River is ridiculous because to grow something you need three things. I know many people in this Chamber have done science. The member for Barkly has probably taught science at school and he could tell you what it takes to grow something; you need sun, soil, and water. We have plenty of sunlight in the Northern Territory and plenty of water but we do not have a great deal of arable soils. So our problems with farming in the Northern Territory with are not with water; they are with finding arable land, places to grow things.
When you have a look at what goes on here and the amount of water we use - I will give you a bit of an idea. The Northern Territory government hydrologist is Mr Tickell. He wrote a paper, Groundwater in the Daly Basin, in January 2009. He estimates there are 350 million megalitres of water in the Daly Basin. The volume added each year as recharge has recently been estimated to be in the order of one million megalitres of water. That is a lot of water in anyone’s language, so the obstinance and the bureaucratic indifference and obfuscation by the department in granting water licences is ridiculous.
In relation to the MacFarlanes, I have heard people say: ‘It will affect the Mataranka thermal springs if they start pumping from that aquifer’. What nonsense. This is one farm of 9500 ha. Of that 9500 ha, less than one-fifth is proposed for farming. The MacFarlanes have spent a considerable amount of money. They intend to use the latest irrigation technology. They spent a lot of money employing consultants and the like, and through the assistance of those consultants they developed land and water management plans which will implement industry best practices and bio-security measures through stringent controls on the movement of people, equipment and machinery to prevent the introduction or increase of pests and diseases. Their proposed development is consistent with the existing land use objectives of the area.
Farms in that area, if we could encourage others to grow, would provide employment opportunities, would mean additional cash flows to the local area and the attraction of supplies of machinery and equipment into the region. There can be no doubt that agricultural development in the Northern Territory of the kind the MacFarlane’s are proposing is very much in the interests of the Northern Territory. The obstructive approach adopted by the department should be deplored.
Of course the department is merely the puppet of the minister and is doing the minister’s bidding. It seems to me that the department is breaching its own law when it is issuing water licences in contravention of the act. For the controller to issue licences to people in organisations who do not advertise they want a licence and do not comply with the requirements of the act is plain wrong. There is a range of other reasons we go on with. But as I say, the department is doing the bidding of the minister and the question is: why is the minister being so difficult with families like the MacFarlanes?
I am not just talking about the Mataranka region. There are farms in Katherine which want water. There is a big fight going on with the Peanut Company of Australia which has been given a very limited water licence. There are problems all along the Douglas Daly area with people who want water licences. There is a complete ignorance and indifference to the Ord River Stage 2 project. These all present great agricultural opportunities for the Northern Territory but for some reason or other this government seems to be anti-farming, anti growing things.
I know the reason; it is because the Labor Party is in bed with the Greens. At a national level it is in coalition with the Greens. The Greens are now in government running Australia. That should be a concern for every thinking person in the Northern Territory because to shut down this sort of stuff is absolute nonsense.
I looked at a newspaper article from the NT News a couple of days ago titled ‘Call to Restrict Our Water Use’ by David Wood. In that article we have our good friend Dr Stuart Blanch from the Northern Territory Environment Centre – well, he is a good friend too, I quite like Stuart Blanch at times. But other times some of the things he comes out with are quite nutty, like in this article. We are living in Darwin; you walk out the door and it is pouring with rain, and he says:
Goodness me, you have to wonder - we live in a part of the country which gets two-thirds of Australia’s rainfall. For six months of the year it is pouring rain, and we have a bloke saying we must have permanent water restrictions. These are the sort of people this government, and Labor around the country, is in bed with and has done a deal with. We are starting to see what this means in Australia. First, we have a bunch of guys over the other side who want to restrict fishing …
Dr Burns: Oh, go away.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, it has never been denied, minister.
Dr Burns: You are the only ones who want to have permits.
Mr TOLLNER: It has never been denied. You want to restrict fishing.
Dr Burns: No, we love fishing.
Mr TOLLNER: You want to introduce boat registration - everything you can do to restrict fishing. I wait for the day when someone over the other side starts talking about gay marriage because that is another one of those little things you have in your agreement with the Greens. All of these things are starting to manifest themselves in parliaments around Australia. I do not care one way or the other about gay marriage, and I have to be totally honest with you, I am not a particularly good fisherman either. I know the member for Johnston loves nothing more than getting out in the dinghy and wetting a line and I do not mind it myself at times when you are catching fish, but I have never been a great fisherman. Hampering the rights of fishers probably will not affect me personally. However, when you start trying to mess around with the food security of this country by trying to stop things like agricultural development, in those very few places where we have arable land, that is completely wrong.
Whether it is Centrefarm in Central Australia, the Ord River Stage 2, the Douglas Daly region, Katherine, Mataranka or whether it is watering your garden in Darwin, people in the Northern Territory have a right to a clear and understandable policy in relation to water access. It is wrong that someone should apply for a licence in 2005 and not be given an answer until late this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what this government is doing in relation to water and our agricultural industries is deplorable.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome today’s MPI because I agree, somewhat, with my learned colleague to my left, the member for Fong Lim, in that water in the Northern Territory needs to be treated a little differently to how it is treated in other states.
We have seen reference after reference today to the Murray-Darling Basin and it would be nearly impossible to repeat that scenario in the Northern Territory. I know this government says its ultimate goal is to protect the Northern Territory from ever getting as bad as the Murray-Darling Basin, but the reality is, as the member for Fong Lim pointed out, the amount of land in the Northern Territory which is usable for crops and other product sources is not the same as in the Murray area. When you look at the water flows each year which flow out to the sea and are used for other purposes, we would be scratching the surface if we ever thought we were going to damage it through the overuse of approving a few licences in some of the areas which are suitable for irrigation.
The problem I see in many areas is that this government and I believe, to some extent, the Greens, see most of our primary producers as some kind of environmental criminals. In my understanding and experience these people would have to be some of the best environmental people you could come across because they need to sustain development and sustain their properties. They do all they can to ensure erosion and land clearing is kept to a minimum. They know the virtues of adequate wind breaks and keeping grasses and other areas which are not farmed together to stop erosion. Why are these people criticised for trying to develop the Territory, and criticised by the green movement and this government, when they have a bigger vested interest in their land than any of us because it sustains them and provides their income? They will do all they can to protect their land and ensure it is viable for many years to come.
I take great offence at many property owners being put into that box: that they must be environmental vandals because they want to clear a little land and make it valuable to produce food. Water and food are the two things we need to sustain life. Unlike some of the more arid areas of Australia, in the north, particularly where we are now, water is one thing which is pretty much assured each year. Yes, in the 25 to 27 years I have been here, we have had some drier than normal Wet Seasons. Wet Seasons come and Wet Seasons go. Every year, we have a great deal of rain. In arid areas of Australia, particularly in South Australia, they are trialling - and very successful trials - putting water back into the ground. I appreciate that is not going to work in the Northern Territory. It is no good filling an aquifer which is going to fill every year anyway. That kind of technology is not really suitable. Perhaps it is a good technology to trial in Central Australia.
In the Northern Territory we have to learn to capture water better. With a growing Darwin - and this government says it promotes growth – the day will come when we will need a new dam; we will need more than one dam.
Do not get me wrong, I am all for better management of our water resources. We can do better with the amount of water the average person uses every day in the Northern Territory. It astounds me how much water we use. What I have never been able to find out is whether our daily water usage includes just what the average Joe uses in their home every day, or does it include some of the areas in the members for Nelson and Goyder’s areas which include the horticultural industry. If it does, that does not provide an accurate picture of our water use.
Every day, when you drive around Darwin, particularly in the Wet Season, you will still see sprinkler systems operating. The councils in both Darwin and Palmerston have problems with sprinkler systems which come on in the middle of the Wet Season. There is no need for that; they can be adjusted, they can be fixed to stop that happening. There are things we can do to stop watering our roads, particularly in the Wet Season. There is no need for that unless there is some kind of technology which is building new roads from water. The reality is there are always things we can do. I do not like dripping taps at home. You put a new washer in if you can. There are practical things people can do every day to reduce their water usage. The bigger picture for Darwin is we are a growing society. If this government is true to its word that it supports growth, it is going to have to get its management of water right.
There is a well-known term - and I used it in an earlier debate today - the precautionary principle. It is well-known in the environmental world. This principle is taken to the extreme with water management in the Northern Territory with what we have as an asset under the ground and what we could capture each year with what comes from the heavens. Unlike some radical people who think we waste too much water, the truth is, as far as the planet goes, we do not waste water at all. It is not as though it can pour itself off to the moon, or Pluto, or Saturn. What fresh water we have on this planet is what we have. If water is going down the drain it is recycled. Whether it ends up in our rivers or our oceans, through evaporation it turns back into rainfall and is recycled.
As I pointed out, I do not like a dripping tap either, that kind of wasted water is always going to be something we can do a little more about, but we are in a confined world, so there is really no such thing as wasted water. What we use will come back. With that in mind, it is how we manage the water we can get hold of. In the Northern Territory, particularly in the northern areas where we have massive rainfalls every year, we should be coming up with programs which can assist not only local growth, but perhaps support our neighbours down south.
I question the relationship between the Greens in this country and Labor, because I have seen time and time again how Labor has let the Greens down. It has let them down, but they cannot go as far as supporting a conservative government. It is a very strange dichotomy. They know they get let down time and time again, whether it is the nuclear debate which is about to spark up again, nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, or any number of things where a Labor government has not fulfilled promises it made to the Greens.
We see our green movement here at odds, time and time again, with the Labor movement, and yet when it comes to an election - a chance to change and send a message to the Labor Party that it has to do better, if you want my vote, you are going to have do better – it does not change sides. The Greens continue to push their votes toward Labor and I wonder what you have to do to demonstrate that the Country Liberals in 2010 are not the previous CLP government; no offence to the previous CLP government, but that was a different era. We talk about the new era today, well, we are here with you.
Times have changed. The average person does not expect we should be ruining our environment. The average person does not expect whatever government is in charge, whether it is a conservative government or a Labor government, that we are going to intentionally harm our environment. They expect us to be charged with the responsibility to ensure we get it right.
Modern developments go out of their way to get it right. There are too many issues if things go wrong; that is where we need a very strong government with tight regulation to ensure it is done right. Not a flick and tick machine, but proper, strong regulation backed up by the resources to ensure we get it right. The mining industry, for instance, and the offshore oil and gas industry do not want to muck it up but they need guidance, and they cannot be seen to think the government of the day is a pushover. I think that is what happens in the Northern Territory. They think this government is a pushover. If you put the right controls in place, they will not see the government as a pushover and will perhaps lift their game even more.
I have spoken to many people in industry in recent times who have said they cannot afford to get it wrong today. We have the government regulations in place. We have the green movements, governments and oppositions, the media, the general public and, in most cases, we have shareholders who we are responsible for. Mistakes cost money. They do not want to make mistakes. They want to get it right, but they need to have strenuous regulations in place to ensure they do get it right.
I am not suggesting we need to over-govern in every area of industry and business. In fact, I agree that we need a smaller government not a bigger government. But we should be stronger in areas that matter, like our environment, and we should be putting in place everything we possibly can. I do not know what you need to do to build the kind of trust with the green movement that you can finally suggest that this Labor mob has not stacked up. Time and time again we keep supporting them. We keep supporting Labor governments and yet they do not do any better, in some respects than the way conservative governments were looking in the past.
How does someone change someone else’s perception? I think it comes down to integrity. What we do each day - the little things and the big things. It will only be a matter of time until the green movement in this country is going to have to shift its alliances because Labor governments are full of promises. They do many things right - I do not want to be that critical. I know governments of all persuasions do many good things in this country and around the world - however, time and time again, when we are talking about the environmental movement, it appears it continues to support Labor governments and sees conservative governments as a big risk. Perhaps that is because of past relationships. Maybe there is a level of mistrust, but how does one build trust? How does one reach out, put an olive branch out and say you have changed. People think leopards do not change their spots - all of those great analogies - but the truth is this is a different era, as the minister often says.
These are modern times and we know what the general public expects of a government in regard to our environment. We know what industry expects. We know how important our environment is and that is the focus a conservative government in the Northern Territory will have: to protect our environment.
When we talk about integrity - I was reading the latest Viewpoint magazine and Jim Wallace wrote an article about integrity. I will take an excerpt from it because it is about how one can change by the things they do. Jim Wallace is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. He left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000, after a 32-year career, which included a command in the SAS Regiment Special Forces and the Army’s mechanised brigade. In this article which is called ‘A Call to Courage and Integrity in Public Office’, under the heading ‘What is Integrity’ he says:
He goes on to say:
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the basic message is that you have to make a start somewhere in developing good habits. I believe this side of the House, the conservative side, should it take government in the future, will send a clear message to the green movement in the Northern Territory that it is serious when it comes to our environment. We are serious when it comes to managing our resources, water being just one of them. But, they must be managed in a way that ensures sustainability and growth in the future.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this matter of public importance and his motion to propose for discussion the failure of government to adequately ensure the provision of water to the Northern Territory’s agriculture industry. We do not support that matter.
It is not appropriate for me to publicly comment on an individual licence application, therefore, I will not do so. The member for Fong Lim raised some issues in relation to the MacFarlanes on Stylo Station. As a local member, I have discussed this issue with the people concerned at length, as well as some of my predecessors in the portfolio. The matter is now subject to a review. I have convened a panel under the Water Act to consider the review and, therefore, it is not appropriate for me to comment while the matter is being considered and reviewed.
The contributions from the two members on the other side were very interesting. It seems the member for Brennan wants to have it both ways. During debates this year on the environment he and his colleague, the member for Fong Lim, have attacked green groups. They have made some outlandish comments about green groups. We know they do not really like them. I think they were called economic terrorists by the member for Fong Lim. Then the member for Brennan says: ‘We have changed our spots. We do not have the spots anymore’. Yet, he is quite clear that his approach to the environment, and water in particular, is to build dams and build a pipeline so those down south can share the valuable water resources we have in the Top End.
I just point to their plan, and the plan of the Leader of the Opposition, about dams. This is on their website. We know they want to dam the Elizabeth River, it is clearly identified there, as well as the other six dams they have identified in their land use structure. So, if the member for Brennan were to be the environment minister, it would be dams and pipelines. That is his approach to dealing with the most valuable commodity we have, the natural resource of water.
It is important to point out that we are part of COAG, the Council of Australian Governments. That is a very important body of all state and territory governments. The Chief Minister attends meetings to represent the Northern Territory. There are many important issues which they discuss and one of them is water. The National Water Initiative was agreed to by COAG in 2004. We had a Coalition government in Canberra in 2004 so this National Water Initiative was driven by a Coalition government and agreed to by other state and territory governments.
This is the national blueprint for water reform. Very much a part of that blueprint is a number of commitments under the National Water Initiative. We signed up to those commitments, as part of COAG, under the Coalition government in 2004. For the purpose of Hansard and members, I will go through those commitments which were reached by COAG in 2004 under a Coalition government: to prepare water plans with provisions for the environment; to deal with over-allocated or stressed water systems; a commitment to introduce registers of water rights and standards for water accounting; a commitment to expand the trade in water; a commitment to improve pricing for water storage and delivery; and a commitment to meet and manage urban demands.
There was much debate about this government not supporting the agriculture industry. That is part of the member for Fong Lim’s MPI. However, in line with the National Water Initiatives agreed to by COAG, the Henderson Labor government is undertaking strong water planning because we are approaching the limits of sustainability. This government will not let Territory rural industry suffer the same problems as down south; and it is not just the Murray River system which is suffering. That is why we are undertaking water planning across six regions, with more to come. These are good things for industry. They provide certainty and mean water will not run out. It is good for the environment as rivers get the water they need.
Water allocation plans are developed specifically for each water resource to ensure sustainability of the resource; protect the environment; and provide greater security for water-dependent developments such as agriculture, industry and public water supply. Water allocation plans are developed with the best science available and in full consultation with the community. As part of developing the best science, my department has projects under way to improve knowledge of groundwater. These projects include: the Darwin rural area; the Daly region; the Great Artesian Basin mound springs; and the groundwater systems of Central Australia.
Other work is being conducted to improve knowledge and establish monitoring networks of the minor aquifers of the Darwin and Katherine rural areas. Better understanding of the systems provides greater confidence in predicting water resources allocations through the planning process. This, in turn, provides industry and its financiers with a much greater ability to assess the viability of current and future developments - very important. When combined with land and soil information, this also allows areas of potential new development to be identified. This, for example, is the case for the area south of Wadeye where a moderately extensive, good yielding aquifer has been identified under land which has soils of agricultural significance. A process for developing a water allocation plan for that area is proposed to commence in 2012.
My department has also developed an initial draft report outlining suitable areas for agricultural development within a 50 km radius of the nominated 20 Territory growth towns under the A Working Future initiative. Further work is being undertaken to produce a series of maps which identify suitable water and soil detail in different areas of the Northern Territory. We are also undertaking water planning because we want agricultural developments to be sustainable. While we understand people will act to protect their interests, we are acting to protect everyone’s interests, including future generations.
Under this government, there are three water plans completed: the Katherine/Tindal, Alice Springs and Ti Tree, which has been substantially reviewed. There are also six water planning processes currently under way, or about to commence in the Northern Territory, including Mataranka/Tindal, Western Davenports, Oolloo Dolostone, the NT portion of the Great Artesian Basin, Howard East, and the Tiwi Islands. An informal process has commenced for the Berry Springs area.
An important part of our planning process is that we do it with the community through water advisory committees. For example, the water advisory committee for the Howard East aquifer will meet for the first time in mid-December. I am pleased to let the House know that the member for Nelson, a great local member who has a very strong interest in this, is part of the water advisory committee. He is well respected and I look forward to his contribution to that committee.
We are also undertaking planning in ways consistent with our national obligations. As I said, it is very important to recognise that, being part of COAG and the national blueprint which was signed in 2004.
Nothing better represents why we need to get it right than the Daly River region. The Henderson Labor government made the hard decisions to slow things down while we get the science right: state-of-the-art water modelling of house, surface and groundwater connects; more monitoring along the river; and more research around the implications of removing trees on the aquifer.
The land clearing moratorium has now been lifted. Careful resumption of land clearing is being allowed under the guidance of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and we have started the water allocation process, also under the guidance of DRMAC. The Daly is a special case which shows how our approach is required. River flows are sustained in the Dry Season by spring flows from groundwater, so when we do our water planning we need to recognise that if we allow the groundwater to be pumped too hard it will have an effect on the river.
The member for Fong Lim acknowledged the member for Johnston. I know he has enjoyed some fishing on the Daly. It is a river which is enjoyed by fishers. It also has cultural value to Indigenous people and is used for agriculture as well.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will stand here any day and say we have it right with the Daly. We have it right now and for future generations. I will finish with a quote which I came across in my electorate at the school at Pigeon Hole: ‘We did not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrowed it from our children’.
Discussion concluded.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank a few people. In the short time I have been a member of parliament I have had the honour of being assisted by many people throughout this building and, indeed, throughout my electorate.
I started work on 11 October 2010, and had the honour of being greeted by Mrs Dee Davies, my Electorate Officer. She was the Electorate Officer for Jodeen Carney for many years, and I feel overwhelmed and honoured that Dee decided to remain with me. She is a consummate professional, highly knowledgeable, and works with the greatest integrity.
Later that morning, I was honoured with the presence of the Clerk, who came to see me in my office. He spent what felt like a few hours going through the details of my new job and trying to explain some of the processes, which quickly overwhelmed me. I greatly appreciate you doing that, Mr Clerk. I also appreciate the assistance I have been given by your staff.
I thank Vicki Long and her team; also the staff of Hansard. I had a wonderful orientation with Helen Allmich, who was thoroughly entertaining as well as informative. The security staff have unlocked the door to my office numerous times and helped me find my card, which I managed to lose once; I really appreciate your help. Also the Building Services, the ladies who empty my bin and make sure my office is in order. I see that as a true luxury, normally having to run around after other people in my life; it is very nice to be looked after and cared for in that way.
I have also been overwhelmed with the help given by Di Sinclair from the library, who gave me a great orientation and has been very helpful in directing me to the right part of the library and website to get information.
My new colleagues in opposition - it is has been a great honour to get to know you all. It has been an interesting time to join this team, in more ways than one. Terry Mills and his staff upstairs have been extremely helpful, not only over the last eight weeks but also during the campaign they gave me lots of advice; in particular, Alison Penfold has given me much advice, guidance and mentoring over the last few months. She has been a great friend and highly professional in her job.
The people of Araluen and Alice Springs, what can I say? I have the greatest respect for the town in which I have lived for many years now. The Alice Springs people are an extraordinary group of resilient, tough and tolerant people. I look forward to serving you as the member for Araluen. I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join with other members of parliament in wishing everyone a very …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … Happy Christmas, and bonhomie to the member opposite who continues to complain while I am doing my Christmas adjournment.
Sanderson Middle School is a great school in my electorate and has had two successful Under the Stars nights this year. One was a movie night; the other featured a comedian, Sean Choolburra. These nights were organised by the teachers but most of the organisation on both nights was by Mrs Davidson. I sponsored both nights through support, and I congratulate Mrs Davidson on those nights. I also sponsored the What’s Hot section of the Sanderson Middle School Yearbook. It was great that yearbook produced.
Clontarf students and coordinators were sent to a variety of sporting events through my sponsorship. They were able to meet the players at receptions and then go to the games. I had a great deal of feedback from that. I sponsored the Sanderson Middle School Teacher Talent Show again this year, with KYD Evolution dance group winning the students’ best talent; Arthur and Marina, second place; and Ebony and Jessica third. The winning teacher was Mr Andrea, aka Lady Gugu, his version of Lady Gaga. This was organised by Pauline Chova, who is great with her PCG group.
Upgrades around the school happened during the June to July holidays thanks to funding from the government. We also saw our refugee students start in Term 3. They have settled into the school well, and it goes to show that asylum seeker kids can be welcomed into a school community.
There were successful sport and swimming days and a great Harmony Day event. I congratulate the Principal, Jodie Green, on doing a great job. It is a fantastic middle school in the northern suburbs.
Merry Christmas to Karama Primary School as well. Marg Fenbury is the fantastic Principal, and she has a great team of teachers. They also had great sports and swimming days. A multipurpose room is under construction through the BER funding. There have been some fantastic NT School Sports gala days held throughout the year with several children from Karama taking part in Northern Territory sides.
The teachers at the school honoured with awards through the Dare to Lead School Award were Mrs McQueen with a NITA Award, and Ms Neil who was nominated for the Early Career Teacher of the Year Award. There was a fantastic Harmony Day event at that school as well. A very Merry Christmas to that fantastic school community.
Work has started on the new library and caretaker’s accommodation at Manunda Terrace Primary School. I donated a new fish tank with all accessories to the school and a voucher to Room 6 when they had a sad episode when someone smashed their old fish tank. I am told it now has six new fish and is a very happy class of students. They also had a great Harmony Day event. They had a very successful auction this year which was organised by the school council, and they have also done very well at the NT School Sports Gala days with several students being chosen in NT rep sides. They have had successful sport and swimming days, and I thank Sally Winch, who is there as Acting Principal, for her leadership. She is a great principal.
Malak Primary is going from strength to strength, and a Merry Christmas to that school community. They won third prize for the Parliament House Art Competition this year. They had a fantastic Harmony Day event and sports day. We have seen a fantastic upgrade to the front office, the staff room and a new room for community use, thanks to BER funding. There is a new Principal, Peter Swan, who has come from Jabiru, and has seen quite an impressive school at Malak. They had a fantastic Harmony Day event. I sponsor many events there, through sausage sizzles and the like, raising money for the school through the school council and it is great to see their good work through the Sports Gala Day as well.
Holy Family School, a twinkle in my eye, my youngest son is in Transition there. I missed his school concert due to sittings this week, but I did see him on video. He played a very good reindeer in Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer. Holy Family won first prize and the People’s Choice Award this year in the Parliament House Art Competition. They won $1200 through that, which is fantastic.
The Harmony Day event at the school was great, the sports day was so much fun, and their Principal, Marg Guit, has shown me through the fantastic new multipurpose building they have at the school, which also houses the library. They have a learning centre, and the computer labs are amazing, thanks to the federal government’s BER funding. We are very proud of the school community. I also thank Father Luis from Holy Family Parish, who, I know, nurtures the students at Holy Family School very well. The Rainbow Staff and the Early Learning Centre do a great job with the three and four year-old children. I can vouch for how fantastic that program is as my young son went through that program in the last few years.
O’Loughlin College is going from strength to strength. They have a fantastic Principal, Lester Lemke. He is an inspirational principal and he nurtures the entire student cohort. They have a middle school as well as the senior school. They had a fantastic Creative Arts Festival recently, a great sports and swimming carnival, and they have completed the upgrades to their science facilities.
I am very excited tonight because, for the first time in my life, one of my children is actually getting an end of year award. My daughter, Jhenne, is getting an end of year award at O’Loughlin College. I do not feel too bad about missing that presentation because she is in Germany, so she is not there to get the award anyway. I lost my opportunity to get up on stage and get the award on her behalf. My daughter, Bronte, is performing at the O’Loughlin College Presentation Night tonight, and I am missing that; however, I am sure she will repeat the performance at home on request.
Marrara Christian School has come into my electorate, and it is a great school community. It is a school community which can build a new home in three days; the Chief Minister saw the open inspection of the house the other day. They are doing a great job with the student cohort. That school is a credit to our community.
Malak Community Arts does a fantastic job nurturing the community, and I happily sponsor their Malak Community Newsletter.
I am also sponsoring a variety of children throughout my electorate in Northern Territory sporting sides. This year alone, I have given about 72 literacy awards to children across schools in my electorate who each receive a certificate and a $25 Casuarina voucher. I love sponsoring students who go away on educational trips, and I was a key sponsor of the Marrara Christian School trip to India this year.
I have been helping out the Milkwood Steiner School in my electorate as well, through printing their newsletter. I went to a great opening at that school this year.
I wish all these school communities a very Merry and Happy Christmas. The principals, teachers, front office staff, teacher assistants and parents who work hard on the school councils are really the heart of our communities. I love the variety of schools I have in my electorate, and they all enhance our community.
With regard to other things happening: we have a revamp of our shopping centre under way and we are a little displaced at the moment. We are shopping at Northlakes, Hibiscus or Casuarina, and are all looking forward to the New Year when we see the shopping centre redevelopment winding up.
I thank Dancing with the Stars for a great event again this year, which I put some sponsorship towards. I am patron of Nightcliff Football Club and I know we have a home game this Sunday which I am will try to go to. I sponsor night basketball in my electorate, and I thank the groups who organise the night basketball.
Kerry Wetherall, my Electorate Officer, said that I was to say she was awesome, and if there was an award big enough for all the things Kerry should be nominated for, I would be the first to nominate her and sponsor the award. She is just too awesome. Juda Jive to you, Kerry. She now owes me something.
I could not get through the year without the great team I work with - the Chief Minister and all my colleagues. We are a great team; I enjoy their company and they inspire me, each and every one of them. I thank all the staff in my office. They do a tireless amount of work ensuring I am paying attention to everything that is happening across my portfolio areas, meeting with all my key stakeholders, staying in touch with the community and, most importantly, listening to what people have to say and what actions, ambitions, and aspirations they have for government. So, thank you to all my staff. I will not mention them all by name, but there is no one in my team who is not putting in a tremendous amount of work and effort, and I value every single one of them.
Thank you to the Assembly staff for all your support throughout the year. Thank you to Hansard for putting up with our tireless, and at times I am sure, very boring debates, but at other times, very fiery debates. The Table Office does a great job, particularly supporting ministers with the legislation and helping us through that process.
I could not get by in a year without the tremendous support of Kerry, Dee, Giovanna and Lisa – Lisa, in particular, who keeps the home fire burning for me as my nanny, and takes care of my kids while I work the enormous hours I work, and travel the amount I do. My three children are awesome. I say that wholeheartedly - Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. Sometimes, when you have a workaholic, single parent, it is probably a bit tough going, but my kids love me enormously; I love them enormously, and they keep saying they are proud of me, so I guess that makes it all worthwhile.
My mum, Dawn, is an inspiration; she is a Territory icon. We underestimate what she has done for this great Territory through the decades, and she is still helping Territorians. She is helping people with disabilities in the work she does at the Darwin Community Legal Service and, as I am fond of saying, she has a 100% record of success against our government. That is a great thing, indeed. There are self-opening doors at the convention centre now that were not there before. She went there, recognised the doors did not meet disability standards, and there are now self-opening doors. I quietly refer to them as the Dawn doors. She continues to be an advocate for change, and it is great she is advocating for people with a disability. I know they value the work she is doing on a daily basis to help them. And she helps me out; she fills the gaps when I need someone to go to things like the presentation night tonight. She is there cheering my daughter on.
To my sister, Dianne, and her partner, Terry: I thank both of you very much for the tremendous support you give me throughout the year. I could not get through a year without them; they are great people. It is great to have Defence personnel in your family - Navy and Army. They argue about which is the best, of course, but they both agree they are against the RAAF. I am hoping my son looks towards the RAAF just to stir them both up. It is an insight into the life of Defence in the Territory; an insight I value tremendously.
I have dear friends who are associated with 7RAR who are going to Adelaide, and I will miss them. 7RAR guys and their families have been great members of our Darwin community. I wish them all the best, and I wish them a Merry Christmas. They are relocating over the Christmas period. With the loss of 7RAR, we will gain more troops in 25RAR. There is always, as Defence says, a nett balance out there.
To my brother, John, and his family in Abu Dhabi, they are there advocating for Emirates business class flights into the Territory, almost single-handedly. At every function they are pushing that. They keep saying there is a chance of Emirates paying attention, and I certainly hope they do. The Territory is an exciting place, we are certainly the place of opportunity, and the amount of business travel that is coming our way as a result of the major projects, is quite exciting.
To all members of the parliament, I wish you all a safe and Merry Christmas. To all of the staff of the Assembly, a very safe and Merry Christmas.
I feel privileged to be the member for Karama. As I am fond of saying, I live in the best place in the Territory. The people in Karama and Malak are great; they are hard-working, they are the great Aussie battlers. We are the most multicultural and diverse community in the Northern Territory, based on the ABS data. We are a wonderful mix of urban Indigenous and remote Indigenous all coming together, and we live in harmony. I know some people would like to paint a different picture, but we certainly live in harmony. So, thank you members and Merry Christmas.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you are a champion bloke. I do not care what anyone says about you. Thank you for the call; I will be brief.
I, too, would like to pass on my best wishes for Christmas and the festive period, particularly to my electorate officer, Helen Bateman, and her husband. Helen has always been a pillar of strength for me and supports me very well and has done for a long period of time going back to my previous life as the member for Solomon. She has been supported in the office by Pearl Ogden and Iain Forrest; both of them do a tremendous job and, like all of us in this place, we would not survive without our Electorate Officers and the people who support them.
I particularly thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, Ian and the team. You do us proud and I really appreciate your help. Also, the Hansard crew, I would be remiss not to thank Hansard. I know at times I do not speak the best, but you read Hansard and they do make sense of some things I say. In particular, I know upstairs listening to me right now is a former staffer of mine, Julianne Quinn. I particularly wish her a Merry Christmas whilst she is typing away on the computer.
There is a range of people in the electorate I should thank. Over recent months, I have been very fortunate to come into contact with a group called the Save Eaton Group; I hope they have a Merry Christmas. I know next week they are running a rally at the Ludmilla Primary School in order to shine a light on the concerns the community has in relation to the proposed demolition or removal of the houses on RAAF Base Darwin. That group has been set up to oppose that and, in some way, try to save that whole suburb.
The Ludmilla Primary School is a wonderful school, great people there, and Merry Christmas to all there.
It would be also remiss of me not to thank the Country Liberal Party. Most of us here, apart from the little bald chap on my left, have a party to thank for being in this place. I think we all agree, no matter what side of politics we are on, it is wonderful to have a party support group. I think I speak for everyone here, even the Independents: it is wonderful to have people who take an interest in public policy irrespective of their point of view. It is one of the things that makes Australia great, the fact that we love a good stoush, we love a good argument, and we can only hope that the best argument wins; I believe in most cases in this country it does. In many ways we owe that to people who belong to political parties, and people who support the people who want to get into parliamentary or public life. So, thank you very much to the people in the Country Liberals team.
To all my colleagues in this place, thank you very much for your support in the last year. You have been great, and it has been fantastic to share this year with you.
To the political opponents, I have to tell you that I do love the banter in this place. I know at times it can seem a little bit personal; please don’t take it that way. It is a battle of ideas and, ultimately, that is what it is all about. As someone said the other day, my new best friend, the little bloke here on my left, the Labor member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Oh, go away! The Independent member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … the Independent member for Nelson sometimes comes into this place and deplores the fact that there is so much politics, but the reality of it is …
Mr Wood: No, party politics - not politics.
Mr TOLLNER: The fact of the matter is, politics is a good thing. Politics is about the battle of ideas, and it is incumbent on all of us to come in here and argue as hard, loud and raucously as possible for those things we truly believe in. It would be a much worse place we lived in if we did not come in here and do exactly that.
Sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by not defending our actions in this place. After being six years in the House of Representatives, I think we could raise the level of debate a few octaves in this place. I know at times Madam Speaker, and some of the people listening on radio, do not agree with that but the reality is that that is good for democracy and we should never be ashamed of it. We should get out there and tell those people exactly what we are about and why we are doing that, because it is so important.
One of the great programs I became involved with in the Howard government was the Democracy in Schools program, where the parliament of Australia actively promoted civics in schools and an understanding of what politics is all about. The reality is it is through loud and principled debate that we have such a great democracy and we should never be ashamed of it.
Merry Christmas to my good mate, the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: Merry Christmas, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: You are the biggest let down of my life, you picked the wrong horse.
To everyone here, thank you very much. It has been a wonderful year, and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, for the wonderful gift he has given me this year - the member for Fong Lim on my right. The way he is going I think I am going to have him there for the next 12 months as well.
A little more seriously, I thank everyone in parliament, especially all the members of parliament for the work they have done during the year, whether you are opposition or government or cross benches. I remind people there are two Independents in this House, so we understand the importance of being Independent, member for Fong Lim.
I know there is a lot of argy-bargy here. I do not quite agree with my colleague on the right that everything has to be raucous and loud; sometimes empty vessels make the most sound. Sometimes you can get your argument across in a more …
Mr Tollner: Less passionate way?
Mr WOOD: No. You can be passionate, you can be logical, and you can still win the argument. As you say, member for Fong Lim, this is an important part of our democracy and we should respect it, and teach other people to respect it. Sometimes I feel that our behaviour in this parliament, and our behaviour towards the Speaker, is not the sort of behaviour we should be promoting. Regardless of the vigour with which we debate, we should honour the traditions of this House, and one of those is the rulings of the Speaker.
I thank all the staff. They do a lot of work sitting in those chairs in front of us, and out the back, listening to what some people may call dribble and others of us may think it is well thought out debate. They sit through the sittings in parliament and when parliament is finished they have other work to do.
I thank Hansard. I have said a number of times I do not know how they handle some of my speeches, but they manage to put them together in the form of a sentence with subject, verb and predicate. They manage to do that.
I also thank the cleaners and the security people; they are the people we sometimes forget. I sometimes give them a fright if I am working late in my office and they wander in to pick up the rubbish and they do not realise someone is there. They are all very nice people.
I thank my electorate. First, I am going to thank all the people who work in the schools in my electorate. I have three schools in my electorate and five schools on the boundary I share with the member for Goyder, and I like to regard all those schools as my own. I have Howard Springs Primary School; Good Shepherd Lutheran School, which is a very fast growing school in the rural area; Girraween Primary School; Humpty Doo Primary School, one of the biggest primary schools in the Territory; St Francis of Assisi; Taminmin College, the biggest high school in the Northern Territory; Bees Creek Primary School; and Litchfield Christian School.
I regard the schools as an essential part of our community. Years ago, it would be the church and the hall and that sort of thing. Tomorrow I will be going to the dance assembly at Girraween Primary School, and many of the community come to those occasions. The schools tend to be the community centres. I thank the people who make them that way: the teachers, and we have some wonderful teachers; the students, the school staff, the cleaners, and the administration staff. Many of those staff must find it hard when all the teachers go on holidays, and who is left at the school? Just the administration staff. I thank the parents and the school councillors - the school councillors do a heck of a lot of work for no money, and they keep those schools going. It is a job people do not pay enough attention to.
I thank all the sporting clubs in the rural area. There are so many rural sporting clubs I cannot go through them all tonight. I think I am involved in all of them. The only one I do not get involved in as much as I used to is the golf club. Where possible, I get around to every sporting event, and there are plenty of those in the rural area.
There are many volunteer fire brigades in the rural area and I thank them, especially this year, when we had a major fire. Our local Howard Springs Fire Brigade was one of the key groups helping to put out that fire. They were assisted by Bees Creek, Virginia, Humpty Doo, also the Palmerston Fire Brigade, and many of the Bush Fire Council fire brigades. They do a terrific amount of hard work, they protect our community, and they do it for nothing. I thank them; they are a fantastic group of people.
I thank groups of people like the Howard Springs Parks Advisory Committee. People have volunteered to be on that committee and we hope they will be able to bring the Howard Springs Nature Park up to a standard we can be proud of, which will attract visitors again and make it a park like it used to be where the community can come and enjoy themselves.
I am now a member of the Howard Springs Water Advisory Committee, and there is a group of people on that who are also volunteers. I thank those people for giving up their time for an important task. They are people who have volunteered to give their time in helping the community and helping make our rural area a better place; that is why it is so nice to live in the rural area. I know other members have the same thing in their own electorates, but that is why it is so nice to live in my area.
I thank the Old Timers. I have not been there as much this year. They always have bingo on Wednesdays and I try to go there to play for my five cents a card, and I enjoy it. I enjoy the social side of it where we have a cup of tea, or the last Wednesday of every month they have a barbecue. They are a great group of people and are really important in our society. There are plenty of other people I could thank. Unfortunately, the Council of Territory Corporation has taken a bit out of my life this year.
Before I thank my staff, I thank all the people in my electorate. I love the Nelson electorate, and I think I live in the best part. I know everyone else says that too, but I live on five acres and I am 10 minutes from the Palmerston shopping centre, five minutes from the Coolalinga shopping centre, and there is a new shopping centre going up next year. I can go back and sit on five acres and not even know there is a lot of traffic around there or there is a suburb over there in Palmerston. They are the things I enjoy.
I thank my wife, Imelda. She puts up with a lot in the sense that she never sees me. There are many times when I am in parliament we actually hardly have a word because, by the time I get home, she is asleep; and, by the time I get up, she is still asleep. I know underneath it all, she is a great supporter. I was just thinking tonight of the time when I had to give a speech here about where I should move in relation to supporting one side or the other. My family came here - grandchildren and all. They normally would not take much interest in politics at all, but they knew when the chips were down and they came and supported me. I thank my wife, Imelda, very much; my daughters: Angela, who is in Canberra; Caroline; Joanne; my grandkids, Jason, James, Wilhelmina and William; as well as Keith, my son-in-law.
I thank my electorate office staff, Kim. Kim is a wonderful person and keeps things going in my electorate office. In fact, she has to keep a train set running at the present time, because I have a couple trains running around the Christmas tree in the front of my office. Occasionally, the trains come off the track and I have to ring up and find how things are going. I call my office Little Myers.
As you know, Dawn was my Electorate Officer up to a couple of months ago when she passed away. We still miss her very much. To Sandy, who cleans, to Robyn, Michelle, the person who has allowed me to continue through thick and thin in this job - I thank her very much from the bottom of my heart. Without them, I would not be here today. I also thank one other person who comes into my office, Joy Beck. She is a volunteer tax help lady, and she does a fantastic amount of work for people.
A couple of people who passed away this year who were good friends of mine: Mike Doyle and Pam Crellin. I miss them very much.
My thoughts are with all people in the Nelson electorate; with all the members of parliament here today; with all the people in the Assembly. I hope you all have a Happy Christmas and a safe New Year. Perhaps a motto we should think about: Christmas is about peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I give thanks to a heap of people who have helped me and our government through 2010. It has certainly been a year of challenges in the Northern Territory but, in many ways, it has been a great year. We faced some challenges, but we also achieved a heck of a lot. None of that is possible without all of these people.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thank you for your hard work this year. We are a great team; we are a united team; we enjoy each other’s company; we work hard and we work well together. You are a great, committed, and passionate bunch of people with great ideas for the Territory, and it is a privilege to work with each and every one of you.
We have a progressive policy vision and reform package which is transforming the Northern Territory into a better place. It is an exciting time to be in Northern Territory politics. We can all look back on this year and, in the main, be very proud of our achievements. It has been a significant year with its challenges but, overall, the Territory is certainly moving in the right direction. I hope all my colleagues have a safe, restful and happy festive season; you have certainly earned it. More importantly, your families have earned it as well; they are going to be looking forward to having you back for a little while.
To all my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you and your families a safe and happy festive season. To all the Assembly staff – Mr McNeill and all your staff – thank you for your hard work. It cannot be easy listening to us day and night; much of the time it is not the greatest level of debate in the world. Thank you for putting up with us all.
We should not forget all the other staff in Parliament House - our security team, our cleaners, our drivers, the staff in Speaker’s Corner, and all the Hansard staff. This is a tremendous workplace, and you all play your part. I thank you very much and wish you all a Merry Christmas.
To the CEOs of my department, Mike Burgess, and Police Commissioner, John McRoberts, two very dedicated people who work extremely hard. I thank you both for your advice and your support throughout the year. It is a pleasure and a privilege to work with you.
To our hard-working public servants across the Northern Territory, all 17 000-odd of you, I thank each and every one of you for the hard work you do. Quite often, sometimes even in this parliament, our public service takes a pretty unwarranted caning. But the Territory is moving in the right direction, in the large part due to the great work of our public service in implementing government policy. Sometimes there is criticism, and quite often it is very much justified, but we are all learning and implementing recommendations from reports as they come along the way. So, to all of our public servants, thank you for your great work on behalf of all Territorians.
In particular at this time of the year, I thank all the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, our doctors, nurses and health workers, and all the people who work in our hospitals over Christmas and New Year, and people who work in Corrections. Most of these people give up time with their families over the Christmas and New Year period that would interrupt their duties. I thank you for your continued dedication, and your families for being so understanding.
To my ministerial staff in my office, I am not going to name you, you know who you are. Thank you for all your hard work this year. They are a wonderful bunch of people to work with. We work really hard and we put in long hours, but we also manage to have a fair bit of fun as well. It is a happy workplace. It is an amazing bunch of people I work with on a day-to-day basis. We have achieved much this year. To each and every one of you, you have all played a part in that. I look forward to working with you all again in 2011. Enjoy the break.
Thank you to the Casuarina Branch of the Labor Party, a fantastic bunch of people. I appreciate the support given to me by members of the branch. I know my colleagues, the members for Johnston and Casuarina, echo that sentiment. We are only here because of the party and the people who work for us. My thanks to each and every one of you; you are an amazing bunch of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to the people in the Wanguri electorate - we all claim to have the best electorate and I claim to live and work in the best electorate; they are an amazing bunch of people. There is nothing I enjoy more than getting home and putting on the shorts and t-shirt, getting up and down the street and across to Hibiscus, and being part of the local community. You are a wonderful bunch of people, and I look forward to continuing to represent you next year. I really enjoy the time in the electorate office, the time knocking on doors, and the time going to the school communities. Representing your electorate is a great part of political life and I absolutely love it.
As Chief Minister, I would love to be able to spend more time in my electorate, but whilst I am not there, my electorate officer, Jenny, does a great job keeping everything under control and making sure my constituents are looked after. Jenny came to work with me after my former electorate officer, Morgan, moved to Townsville to be with her family, and Jenny is doing an amazing job. She is a lovely person and we have a lot of fun together. Thank you, Jenny, for all your support this year. I hope you have a happy and relaxing festive season.
Of course, I could not do this job without the love and support of my family: my wife Stacey, my boys Alasdair and Liam, and my daughter, Isobel, the rock of my life. They put up with so much, particularly at this time of night, quarter past nine on Thursday night, I should be home with the kids, but here we are still at work. You are beautiful people, and I am really looking forward to spending time with you over Christmas.
Finally, if there is anyone listening to this or watching it on the Internet - I cannot believe anyone is, but if you are, Merry Christmas to you, and a Merry Christmas to all Territorians. I hope everyone has a safe Happy New Year. Drive safely on our roads. It is going to be fantastic next year – 2011.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk of the Palmerston Middle School presentation ceremony which the member for Brennan and I went to today. As some might have noticed, we popped into Question Time four minutes late. Unfortunately, the presentations ran a little bit over time. I would particularly like to mention the community awards winners, because our young people from our schools are those who become part of our community, now and into the future.
The first award is the Australia Day Council Student Citizen Award. Today it was presented by Katrina Fong Lim, Executive Director, Australia Day Council, to a young lady, Christine Gardiner.
The Rotary Community Service Award, presented by Mr Paul Asprey on behalf of Rotary Darwin North - an association I have had involvement with for about seven years now - was to Madeline Thomas. The Palmerston City Mayoral Citizenship Award was sponsored by the Palmerston City Mayor, Robert Macleod, and presented by Mr Chin, representing the Deputy Mayor, to Teaghan DaRocha.
The Year 7 Leadership Awards, sponsored by me as the member for Drysdale, for the aspiring young leaders in Year 7 - the two winners were Darrian Whitehurst and DJ O’Shea. Congratulations to both those winners of the Year 7 Leadership Awards. The Year 8 Leadership Awards were presented by the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler, to Kinji Munkara-Murray and Kaleb Matthews. Congratulations to the Year 8 Leadership Award winners.
The Year 9 Leadership Awards were presented by the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler, and sponsored by the member for Blain and Leader of the Opposition, Mr Terry Mills, to Luci Susanto and Joshua Gibson. Well done to those winners of the community awards. They are going to be great citizens, and it is fantastic to see those people rewarded for what they have achieved this year.
Palmerston High School will go through a massive change next year with alterations to the middle schools and upper schools, and with the Rosebery School coming on board. We talked to teachers extensively today and they are looking forward to it. They are also considering that next year, as teachers, they go back to the beginning - the member for Barkly will remember this. Every year you grow and develop students and you see the fruits at the end of that year. The next year you start again with a new variety and you grow those people to become new citizens and new people. I presume that is very rewarding. Well done to those teachers.
They have a new challenge. Over the last four-odd years the Palmerston High School has evolved through different phases, and I see this as a long-term change. They will be able to embrace and enjoy a little more space than they have had in the last couple of years. They will have fewer children but more facilities for those children to enjoy because of those who have moved to Rosebery. We knock each other from left to right on this floor, but when children are involved it is fantastic to see the opportunities for them to expand, float with their wings, and really enjoy themselves.
This is the last sitting for the year. I wish everyone, as I did earlier this week, the best and merriest of Christmases. Enjoy your family, because they are the special part we get to enjoy. We do not spend a great deal of time with them. To my daughter, Jasmine, living in New Zealand, Merry Christmas, darling. Her mother and I, although we are separated, have a special little present for her as next year she is going to do some more school camps. So, we have a special present which will enable her to do that better, and she is really excited by it. She is a smart little cookie - some would say a lot smarter than her father - but she is a lovely young lady who recently turned 10 years old. I wish her the best Christmas.
Those on both sides of the Chamber, enjoy yourselves with your families. To my electorate of Drysdale, thank you for your support this year. It has not been the easiest year for me personally, with family issues, but thank you very much for what is also possibly not the best year for you guys. Let us hope 2011 is a fantastic year for all
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I adjourn on a wonderful parliamentary year, the year of 2010. What a year it has been. A year of planning, designing, developing and delivering in the portfolios of Lands and Planning, Construction and Infrastructure, Transport, Correctional Services, and Arts and Museums.
I begin by thanking my Labor Caucus colleagues for being a professional team of elected community members united in ideology and ambition for delivering positive outcomes for the Territory. Not only are they an incredible team, they are a very interesting team. When I think about it, it is not just because we are government; it is because of the incredible diversity of people not only in ages, experiences, and backgrounds, but people who represent the real culture of the Territory. I know I am biased, but they inspire me, and it is a fabulous team to work with. I have worked with some good teams in my time, but this is a robust team, a challenging team, and a team that digs in and delivers.
To my Cabinet colleagues, I thank you for your guidance, mentoring and inspiration in my role as a minister in the Northern Territory government - which is the highest level of operation you can get in government. It is truly inspiring to be a member of such a team and a very privileged position in terms of the elite decision-making that goes on as a member of that team.
To the Chief Minister: well done, boss. I have had some good bosses in my time, and you certainly make that cut. You carry an incredible load on your shoulders in the Northern Territory, and you lead by example.
To the government advisory staff known as ‘the fifth floor’, thank you guys, once again, another year of inspirational work with you. You represent the Territory in all walks of life and ages; you are an exciting bunch, and I thank you. Have a good Christmas, have a great New Year, and I look forward to working with you again in 2011.
To the department staff, the Department of Lands and Planning, including the Transport mob, whom I have been with the longest; to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, a new department, but a very much emerging department; to the Department of Justice, and to Corrections and Community Corrections; to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, thank you to all those wonderful people. I have endeavoured to do my best to get around to meet as many as possible. The CEOs have been great to work with; the high-level opportunity to work with great people, and I really enjoy the work we do together; the level of democracy we have, the level of frankness, the level of robust debate and, of course, the level of delivery.
To Madam Speaker; to Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Nhulunbuy; to Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura; and to Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Fannie Bay - thank you very much. I was reminded recently by the Parliamentary Education team that none of this would happen without two things: one is the mace; and the other is the Speaker. You guys do an incredible job - the long hours, the dedication and the adjudication which sometimes is very challenging, but thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, as the leader of that very special team, thank you. Have a wonderful Christmas with your family, and a very peaceful and restful New Year. We look forward to seeing you back in the Chair in 2011.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff; another year of learning for me - what an incredible bunch of people you are. I learned a lot when I saw you take this show on the road last year to Alice Springs, and I believe the planning is under way to take it on the road again. You do an incredible job and you represent Territorians who are a part of the real democratic processes and a real part of keeping all the political aspects on track.
A special mention of the Department of the Chief Minister’s staff. The drivers - Garry, Bill, John, Ben, George, Gowan and Rocky. I really enjoy your company, guys. You are very much a great indicator of the community. I really appreciate the discussions we have when you drive me around, take me to functions, drop me off, pick me up, and take me to the airport. I get to throw ideas out, and you give good comment on it. You are great guys, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your families.
To the parliamentary office staff, that is my family at work. In our office there is a very clear shared vision that you are most welcome to come, but you can only leave if you gain a promotion. It is great to celebrate all the further professional achievements of people who have been in that wonderful office in Suite 1 on the fifth floor of Parliament House. Karlee Dalton has gone to bigger and better things, including starting a family. Best wishes to you and Rob and that new baby coming. Paula Timson, DLO for DCI; Susan Williams, DLO for DCI; Janette Howard, DLO for Corrections; Leigh Jenner - what can we say about you, Leigh? Gone on to bigger and better things, a Ministerial Assistant, now a manager in the public sector – a great young woman. Good work, Leigh, I look forward to catching up soon. Carly Waite came and looked after us as an Acting Ministerial Assistant; Tarsh Parmenter, an Acting Ministerial Assistant who looked after us; and Bethaney Maley, Ministerial Advisor for Corrections and Media who went off to start a family. The last time I saw Bethaney she was doing very well with her new family.
The current staff in 2010: Rebecca McAlear, Personal Assistant. Haven’t we seen some development in that kid this year? She is a really high-class Territory kid who makes me laugh; and she certainly inspires us. Well done, Rebecca. Natalie Dinsdale is new in the office. Welcome, Natalie, and we look forward to working with you – a Ministerial Assistant who jumped in, part of the family, big smile every day, and enjoying the work. Rebecca Cass is a lady with a lot of class and a lot of experience - Ministerial Advisor for Corrections. I thought we would lose her; I reckoned she would be drafted back into the nerve centre, but she stuck it out with us and we are certainly happy that she did. Great experience, great inspiration.
One of the old troopers on the floor, Wolf Loenneker, is Ministerial Advisor for Lands and Planning and the Darwin Port Corporation - what a trooper, what a wealth of knowledge. Not only do we work Wolf to the bone, but so does everyone else in government. He is one very popular person in our team. Alan James is on board as a Ministerial Advisor for the Arts and Museums - what a talented guy. He is well connected, and gives me great advice - Darwin born and bred, knows the place back to front, and is certainly a very creative character. Penny Lyons, DLO for DCI, is new and is enjoying her work; I can see the personal development happening there. She is definitely here for a good reason. Stuart Knowles is a DLO for Transport. What an Aussie, what a beauty! I really like Stuart. He is like a son, and he teaches me so much and can never do enough for you. He is not frightened of taking on anything
Edwin Edlund, Media Advisor - thank you Edwin, once again. You look after me so well, and I am looking forward to continuing to work with you. The young father of them all, Brett Brogan, Senior Advisor. Thank you, Brett. It is about time you had a kid; you and your wife should start your family soon. You certainly look after that team of people up there, Brett, and I appreciate it, mate. It has been a huge year and you have inspired me and taken me on a journey of my life.
Nancy Cowan is the Barkly electorate officer. Thank you, Nancy. What a wonderful opportunity; you walked in the door and I walked out the back door and said: ‘Just hold the fort, Nancy’. You have done an incredible job, and I look forward to more of it.
To the Barkly Sub-Branch of the Australian Labor Party, to all our new members, welcome to the journey - this is politics. To the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, thank you for sharing me with the rest of the Territory. There are some great opportunities coming our way.
To the McCarthy family, Dawn, my wife, the political animal of the Northern Territory; to Robert, Abbi and Reece in Cobar; to Thomas and Maria; to Joey in Canberra; to Jan and Cecilia; to Judy and Tim, and Hannah, Ella and Daniel - you guys are incredible. You are all Territorians. The most recent recruit is Dr Lynne McCarthy. You all keep me sane; you are great indicators of good policy - I throw it out there, you throw it back. You are true McCarthys.
Everyone here, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and what a year it has been!
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a really hard act to follow - the passion, I love it. That is one thing I love about the Labor Party.
I acknowledge my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. We have had a fantastic year. As the Chief Minister said, it is great to be part of a strong and united team kicking goals for the Northern Territory. I particularly acknowledge my bush colleagues. We all put up with the same issues in many ways; we share many issues in our electorates. We know how hard it is, particularly my bush colleagues in Cabinet, to maintain a level of service that our constituents deserve and ask from us. To my Caucus colleagues, I thank you all for your support and your advice in 2010; particularly the Chief Minister - he is a fantastic leader. I thank him for the Community Cabinet we had at Yuendumu this year, and also for coming to Lajamanu and Kalkarindji this year to talk about our government’s vision of A Working Future.
To my staff on the fifth floor - I know the opposition is critical of the fifth floor, because they do such a fantastic job. To my staff: Kieran Phillips, my Senior Advisor, is a fantastic asset to this government. He has guided me in many ways since I have been a minister for the last two-and-a-half years, and it is great to have Kieran on my side and providing fantastic advice.
To Martin, to Sheau-quim, and to Kenny Vowles, who is well-known to many people. Kenny is a fantastic person to be around, he is such fun. He is well-known and well loved by everyone no matter where he goes in the Territory, whether it is Alice Springs or around Darwin. Kenny, thank you for your support this year, particularly with Sport and Recreation. I know the Strike cricket team are really disappointed that you are not going to be coaching them next year at the Australian Country Cricket Championships.
Andrew Buick deserves a special mention. We know the challenges we have had this year with the environment, and I believe Andrew Buick is the best advisor on the fifth floor. There might be some disagreement there, but the advice, the experience in his briefings with opposition members or parliamentary colleagues on my side of the House, he has it all. Andrew, I know we have had a big day today, I thank you, and I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas. Spend plenty of time with them because you have had a fantastic year.
To Vanessa, and to my new PA, Condillo, welcome aboard, I look forward to working with you both in 2011. Being a minister based in Alice Springs the ministerial staff fly between Darwin and Alice Springs on many occasions and Vanessa is always on my back about the ministerials. I certainly appreciate it and I need that pushing along the way.
To those who have left my ministerial staff this year: Sue Shearer, Kirk Whelan and James Hook, all were very valuable staff members, and I appreciated the efforts you put in during your time working for me. Jade Carroll has had a baby this year, and I am looking forward to her coming back next year. I do not know if there is something about my office, it must be something in the air up there because many of the female staff members who work in my office somehow fall pregnant. So Condillo and Sheau-quim, I hope it does not happen to you! I have a great team and they have provided much support to me this year. I thank you very much, and wish you and your families a very Merry Christmas.
To other staff in Parliament House, particularly to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, and the staff in the Chamber who, during the sitting days are certainly on the ball, thank you very much for your support and advice. To Madam Speaker, the staff in Hansard, and to the Legislative Assembly staff, not only during sittings, but in my electorate office, I thank you for your advice, your support, and your service.
To the security staff in Parliament House, to the cleaners, thank you very much for your services this year. To the drivers: Garry, George, John, Bill, Ben and Gowan, thank you for your services as well.
Turning to my portfolios, to the public service, thank them sincerely for their work efforts this year. The department of the Environment has had enormous challenges this year, and I particularly thank Jim Grant, my CEO, for his advice and work over the past 12 months.
A special mention should go to the Aquatic Health team, Julia Fortune and the staff who have done fantastic work under enormous pressure, particularly in regard to the beach closures we have had this year. To the Aquatic Health team, thank you very much for that work.
The croc team, Tommy Nichols and his crew, work under enormous pressure and do a fantastic job. They deserve a special mention.
To Steve Rossingh and the team at the Sports House, Sport and Recreation, thank you for the fantastic job you do. There have been many highlights in Sport and Rec: Des Abbott and Joel Carroll winning gold at the Commonwealth Games is a fantastic achievement for two young Territory lads, cousins, who are living a dream and playing on the world stage. Jake Tunny was crowned world champion this year at the BMX World Championships in Germany, and for a 12-year-old he is looking at bigger and brighter things. Our superfish, Tammy Afuhaamango, won five gold, one bronze, set two personal world records and three relay records at the Down Syndrome International Swimming Championships in Taiwan. Well done, Tammy. The NT Cricket team, Strike Team, won the Australian Country Championships earlier this year, a fantastic effort. Our ten-pin bowlers with a disability brought home an amazing 53 medals, including 15 gold, at the Australian Disability Championships in Perth.
To Tony Frawley and the AFLNT staff, thank you very much for your efforts. Andrew Ramsey at NT Cricket has done an excellent job; and thank you to Paul Elliott who takes very strong control of football in Central Australia. He has done a fantastic job there, particularly in making the African population of Alice Springs feel welcome through soccer.
Grant Hammon, as Sports NT President, we have worked closely with this year, particularly with the Hidden Valley, and events like the V8s and the award winning Superbike Championships.
The biggest highlight for me in sport was Collingwood winning the Grand Final. Sorry, Chief Minister, maybe next year.
Turning to my electorate, I sincerely thank the people of Stuart. I have the largest electorate in the Northern Territory; I keep telling people it is the size of Germany. It is a diverse and very large electorate. I pay special thanks to the schools. I probably do not have time to go through all of those schools but I acknowledge Kayla Williker, from Manyallaluk School, who won the Christmas card competition I ran this year through the Stuart electorate office. Congratulations to her, and all the kids at Manyallaluk. I hope to be there in a couple of weeks.
The schools are the hearts of our communities. Thanks to all the principals, teachers and staff, and a special thank you to all the teacher assistants, the local Indigenous workers who keep our language and culture strong and, importantly, pass it on to the kids. They are invaluable to those teachers and to the staff at those schools.
Thanks to my electorate officers. As my colleague, the member for Barkly, said, being a bush member in Cabinet is a tough gig; it is not often we can get out in our electorates as much as we would like, and we rely on our electorate officers. So to Vicky Trindle in the Alice Springs office, and Gavin, and the girls, thank you for your support and your work; enjoy a good Christmas break with the family. To Jo Nichol in Katherine, to Sam and Dylan, thank you very much for your support as well. I know you do a fantastic job in the Katherine part of my electorate.
Finally to my family, to Rebecca and the boys, Josh, Curtly and Jamie - for a bloke coming from the Gap in Alice Springs I am really living my dream. I treasure every day I am in this House. It is a special thing to be a member of parliament in the Northern Territory, but it would not be possible without the support of Rebecca and my three sons, whom I love dearly. They have had their highlights for the year and I am sure there will be bigger things happening next year. My father Robert, my sisters, Pauline and Vanya, and my brother, Vaughan, thank you very much for being there. Finally, to my Aunty Daisy, who has cancer and is in hospital in Alice Springs, I wish you all the very best, and I will see you next week.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to my constituents in Arnhem. When I think of the incredible men and women who make up the many communities of Arnhem, it is a privilege to represent them in this House, not only as the member for Arnhem, but also in Cabinet as a minister of the Northern Territory government.
To the people of Millingimbi, have a safe and Merry Christmas. There are so many families who have worked closely with me and supported me through the year, knowing I have to travel across the Northern Territory. To the people of Ramo, in particular the school students; to Corrie who has retired from the school in Ramingining, thank you for your support and the work you have done in a passionate and dedicated way for the students of Ramingining over the years. You have worked in many places across the Northern Territory and been an inspiration to so many, myself included, when I first met you whilst a student in Alice Springs. It will be good to go to Ramingining tomorrow to celebrate with the students, especially those who will be graduating.
Across to Groote Eylandt, a sincere thank you to the Anindilyakwa Land Council; it is wonderful working with you. What you are doing on Groote Eylandt is inspirational. To Walter Amagula, Tony Wurramarrba, Joas Lalara, and Thomas Amagula and the other team members on the Anindilyakwa Land Council, well done for inspiring the people of Groote Eylandt through the many complexities you deal with, and in paving the way for the regional partnership program on Groote with SIHIP, and the incredible work being done in Umbakumba, Angurugu and on Bickerton. Well done, and I appreciate the support and mentoring from the women’s council we have set up on Groote Eylandt with support from the ALC.
To the many people in Alyangula who have been incredibly supportive through some very difficult issues this year - 2011 will be a much better year. To the workers at GEMCO, challenges there for sure; again, I can see the progress on Groote Eylandt is only occurring because of the continued effort of every single person on the island to ensure you find a common goal and a way forward. That inspires me, not only as your member of parliament, but as a minister in the Northern Territory government. I look at the many reforms I have carriage of across the Northern Territory trying to inspire other Aboriginal communities to do the best they can and learn from examples such as Groote in employment, progress of the land council, the vision in tourism with Dugong Beach Resort, the housing and employment occurring for local Indigenous people and the push for Indigenous people to have a choice, to be able to live where they wish with an income made available through jobs such as those at GEMCO.
Last week we opened facilities at the school at Numbulwar - an inspiring place. I congratulate the staff, the police unit, Craig and Rebecca, who I was talking to last week about the need for a safe house at Numbulwar. It is going to be a priority for me in the New Year. The safety of women and children across the Northern Territory is an area I am passionate about. I am pleased to see the combined efforts of the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments have ensured families in remote regions are feeling safer knowing there is a solid police presence, something which has been difficult in the past. I thank the people of Numbulwar for their work for the Roper Gulf Shire. I see what is occurring in Numbulwar and in Ngukurr under your leadership and guidance. The challenges will continue. Members of the Roper Gulf Shire who represent those communities are passionate in wanting to find a way forward, and ensuring these growth towns have a solid future for generations to come.
I thank the families at Ngukurr. Ngukurr is leading the way in the Future Forums, and the Yugul Mangi Council wants to establish and determine its future. It has been an inspiration in the region - especially since the opening of the Ngukurr oval - knowing they have grabbed the opportunity with both hands and recognising there will always be challenges. I admire the strength of the people of the Ngukurr region. With the Wet Season coming, we have some physical challenges when we see the Roper and Wilton Rivers rise. As the local member, I will be watching that closely to ensure we do not have any problems with food access in the region. I am determined to improve road transport in that area and, hopefully, one day to have a fantastic bridge for the Roper and Wilton Rivers to allow year-round traffic in and out of Katherine.
To the people of Bulman, I am thinking of you all. Thank you for your support. We have seen solid improvement in the Bulman area. I am always encouraged by the determination of the people to do things better, and to create a solid future for the young people coming through. Tourism has been a bright light for many families in regard to their homelands and outstations. I am very conscious government will focus on the Central Arnhem Road knowing Bulman is in the centre - between Nhulunbuy and Katherine - and recognise there are solid opportunities for the people of Bulman in growth to that region. I look forward to working through those challenges and opportunities in 2011, and wish everyone at Bulman and Weemol a very happy and safe Christmas.
We will be watching the Wilton River. It is good to know there has been improvements to road access at Mainoru. There are challenges in the Wet Season. It does not matter how many bridges you build, sometimes they still go under.
I say a very personal thank you to my staff in the ministerial office - to John Tobin who works with me at Local Government, to Andrew Blakey who travels with me as we work on tourism across the Northern Territory, and aviation in particular. My drive to ensure solid aviation access into and out of the Northern Territory has left many people a little exhausted. I appreciate the hard work of my staff.
To Tanya and Eddy, you are absolutely amazing. People come into my ministerial office and see you there warmly welcoming, organising my diary, reminding me of what is important - ensuring I have family time. Thank you so much to the both of you; it is wonderful to work with you. To Ursula, who has come on board as my media PR, you are fantastic. It is wonderful to work with you and see the way you look at things and the way things should be done. It is great to know you can have a solid conversation with staff and be guided in a direction which is the best representation for the people of the Northern Territory.
To Lucy, you are a terrific girl and it is wonderful to have you on board. I know you have had a tough time this past month. I admire your courage and persistence in wanting to pursue things in the areas of women’s policy and statehood. Next year is going to be terrific - 100 years for the Northern Territory, and I look forward to working with Lucy in that area.
To Peter, you keep the team together. I am forever travelling and someone has to keep the gang together, and I thank you so much. You are a fantastic right hand man and I sincerely wish you and your family all the best over Christmas. To Charles in my electorate, we have been working together five-and-a-half years and I thank you for that. To you and your family, have a happy and safe Christmas, and I hope we can have more road trips before it gets too wet. It is great to hit the roads into Arnhem and hang out with you and your gang as we check out how people are going on the outstations and communities across Arnhem Land.
I pay tribute to my agency under the leadership of Ken Davies. Ken, it is fantastic working with you. We have enormous challenges in front of us. We are the agency with the biggest reforms across the Northern Territory in regional economic development, the A Working Future policy and SIHIP, which I know you share under the leadership of my colleague, Chris Burns. We have Futures Forums next year, which I believe will be a significant step forward for our 20 growth towns, and also the outstation policy. Ken, to you and the team in Local Government, in the office of Indigenous Policy and in Regional Development, I sincerely wish all my staff, through Ken, a very happy and safe Christmas. Thank you for your tireless efforts with these incredible reforms we have carriage of across the Northern Territory. I am excited about 2011, and I know we will see these reforms through in a way which benefits the people of the Northern Territory.
To the Office of Women’s Policy, Janette Galton, under your leadership next year is going to be terrific - 100 years for the celebration of women. I look forward to that and the many new plans we have in that area.
To the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority staff, it was wonderful to open the new premises in Mitchell Street yesterday. To the team in Alice Springs and the Darwin office, thank you for the work you do under the leadership of Ben Scambary.
I also say a very, very big thank you to my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. Without a doubt, it is a very tough job being a minister in the Northern Territory government. We believe in the reforms and policies we bring to this House. It is exciting, as Minister for Statehood, to know in 2011 that we have some terrific opportunities not only in the Northern Territory but on the national stage, to look at who we are as people of the Northern Territory, where are we going, and how we define ourselves as people of the Northern Territory in becoming the seventh state in the federation.
Listening to colleagues in this House, there are challenges - life is like that. The important thing about challenges, or any problems and issues we face, whether in our own life or as a collective, as a team, as a government or as a parliament, is we learn to work it out together and, in the words of the member for Goyder, find the common ground which brings us together as people of the Northern Territory.
I thank the Statehood Steering Committee team. I pay tribute to the Deputy Clerk, Michael Tatham, for his incredible work over the years with the committee, and now as Deputy Clerk. I also say thanks to Madam Speaker and Fran Kilgariff for the work they have done on the committee, and will continue to do into 2011.
To my Caucus colleagues, thank you for your terrific support and the encouragement you give every step of the way. We all have our ups and downs; however, as a team we have learned how to bring out the best in each other, support each other when things are tough, and recognise we are walking this road together leading the Northern Territory. I commend the Chief Minister and, in the words of the member for Barkly, we have a fantastic leader in Paul Henderson. He has been through an incredible amount in this term of government. Next year will be a wonderful year for everyone.
On a personal front, I thank my family. It is tough on families; they are there, rock solid. To my people in the Borroloola and Gulf region, always the smiles, always the phone calls of support and assistance, and the patience and understanding, knowing they rarely see me. Having to travel across the Territory, interstate and overseas, as exciting as it may sound, is incredibly exhausting and I am looking forward to having time off in January. Until then the work goes on; the show goes on.
To the team in the Labor Party, to the Labor faithful across the Northern Territory, for your belief in us as a team, thank you; a very safe and happy Christmas to each and every one of you and your families.
To staff on the fifth floor, a happy and safe Christmas to you all. To members of the Legislative Assembly, to the staff, to you guys in the Table Office, to Gaddy, Annette and Steve, the Clerk, Ian, thank you so much for the work you do and for putting up with the long hours and long speeches in the House. Thank you, wishing you all a very happy and safe Christmas.
To the Hansard team, we cannot do it without you. Thank you for the work you do. Thank you for your persistence in ensuring names are spelled right. It is a job we know is so important; perhaps you do not get the recognition you deserve. I sincerely wish each and every one of you a very safe and happy Christmas.
To the staff in Parliament House, security, the cleaners, Speakers Corner caf and, of course, our wonderful drivers, thank you so much. When I get off a plane and know you are there after travelling for so long it is great to see your smiles and to know what has been happening in Darwin in my absence. I wish each and every one of you a very happy and safe Christmas.
To all members of the House, a very happy and safe time with your families. It is an incredible place and it is humbling to be a member of parliament. People often ask me if I still enjoy what I do. I say: ‘I love what I do, warts and all’, because it is an incredible honour to be a member of parliament and stand in the Northern Territory Assembly representing the people of Arnhem Land in whatever capacity. Any member in this House, being a representative of your constituents should make you very thankful.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will echo many words which have been spoken in this Chamber tonight. I agree with the previous member that it is an honour to represent the people of an electorate, irrespective of which side of politics you represent. It is a privilege to come here to benefit the people you represent. I am sure that, even with the argy-bargy which happens in this Chamber, all people are here for the very best of reasons and we all fight for the benefit of our constituents.
On that note, I sincerely thank the people of Sanderson who had the confidence to put me in this House to represent their interests. I sincerely hope this year I have worked hard, both in the parliament and the electorate, to meet their expectations.
I thank our schools, in particular Jodie Green and her team at Sanderson Middle School; Sue Fisher and her team at Wulagi Primary School; the team at Wagaman Primary School led by Michele Cody; and Kerry at Anula Primary School who has recently joined the team. There is a great team at that school doing a fabulous job. Given that the youth of our community make up 18% of our population and 100% of our future, it is imperative those people receive all the support they can get. I would like to recognise their efforts. You cannot pay someone enough to be a teacher in our schools. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, having been a teacher yourself you understand what I am talking about.
To the school councils who keep the engines running, a sincere thank you for the job you do. It is one of those thankless jobs behind the scenes. Rest assured that people in the community know who you are. Those who cannot be there to do the job appreciate those who give up their time to do it. To the people in the shopping centres in my electorate who have supported fundraising for schools and community groups, for your ongoing support in relation to gifts for raffles, financial support for school sports days and things, a sincere thank you.
Thank you to the Legislative Assembly staff and, in particular, the Clerk who over many years has done a fabulous job, assisted ably by a number of well qualified staff, in particular Vicky Long; Mary-Anne Almond, who is always there to support us; Corinna Murray, who finds fabulous ways to get you to and from places; Deirdra Fitzgerald, for her advice on Human Resources; the Hansard staff, who provide quick turnaround on requests for rush jobs; and to the IT staff who keep our computers running - they do a fabulous job. It is challenging these days, because nothing is ever quick enough.
To my electorate officer, Renee Bandes, who joined us recently and has had an incredible learning curve, thank you very much. Renee is a young lady dedicated to her tasks and to learning and gaining more knowledge from wherever she can to do her job better. I wish her and George a very merry and happy Christmas and a great holiday.
To the temporary staff who look after us and help through the year, a great thank you. I particularly mention a volunteer staff member who sits outside my office virtually on a daily basis selling raffle tickets and raising money for all sorts of worthy causes, John Moyle. Many people know John. Thousands of people go through Northlakes Shopping Centre each week, and John is well known to people who frequent the shopping centre. What many people might not know is he is about 30 days short of 92. He is still sprightly, still raising money. He always has a good word to say, a smile, a spring in his step, and is as sharp as a tack. John, on behalf of me, my family, the branch, and the Sanderson electorate, thank you for what you do. I am sure your family is proud of you because you are still giving to the community after years in Apex and other things; giving so much to your community. Thanks very much. Next Anzac Day I am taking John to Gallipoli to realise a lifelong dream to attend the Anzac Day service. I look forward to doing that with you, John.
The North Darwin branch of the Country Liberals is a fantastic branch. They support me; they have for years. I cannot thank them enough for what they do in the community, and for the opportunity given to me in preselection and, of course, the ongoing support on a daily and monthly basis.
To my daughter Kristy and my sons, Adam and Damien, I cannot express how proud I am of you and the support you give me. Although I spend many hours working now, that love and support is ongoing and I cannot thank you enough and tell you how proud I am of the people you are. This brings me to my rock, my greatest fan and supporter, my partner, Linda Fazldeen. Without her I doubt I would be standing here. I thank you, Linda, for your ongoing love and support and the commitment you have, not only to me, but to us and our family.
I wanted to thank people individually, however, there is another matter I would like to speak briefly about and that is the unfortunate passing of a great Territorian, a great Australian, Neil Conway, a highly decorated World War II bomber pilot who spent many years in the Territory. He is probably one of the oldest Territorians, having lived here for years.
I have some notes I picked up today. He passed away on Tuesday, and I wanted to use this last opportunity for the year to recognise his contribution, not only to his country, but to the Northern Territory. This was written by Neil in 2007. I place it on the public record for his children, his grandchildren and future generations to understand the commitment this man made to his country. It says:
That was written on 6 June 2007. There are a few additional notes which I will quickly go through.
Neil was one of the last surviving World War II veterans in the Northern Territory, and one of the longest residents. In many ways, his passing has marked the end of an era.
In 2005, Neil was awarded the French Legion of Honour. He is believed to be the only Territorian recipient of this medal. He has a 1939-49 Star; a France and Germany Star; the Defence Medal; the War Medal 1939-45; the Australian Service Medal 1939-45; and the Returned from Active Service Badge. He relinquished his pilot’s licence in 1989, with a total of approximately 4200 flying hours over 47 years. He was an active community member, and member of many associations, including the Darwin RSL Sub-Branch Incorporated since 1949, including two years as Treasurer. He is an honorary member of the RAAF Officer’s Mess Darwin, and a member of the Australia America Association.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. The aircraft Neil flew was called the Euphemistic. Its official call sign was U for Uncle. The amazing thing about this man is he flew 40 missions over Germany and Europe in horrific conditions, and had the same crew on mission 1 as on mission 40 - he did not lose one person. It was through the unorthodox methods Neil told me about - I am sure the statute of limitations has expired, especially now Neil has passed - I can now say he used to fly home in some of the most unorthodox ways. He would fly home at 300 feet when the others were at 17 000 feet, and said it is the only way he survived 40 missions with the same crew. He did not follow the path home and found himself flying over the D-Day invasion at about 300 feet and in serious trouble. He came home flying at treetop level, and flew over an airfield in France occupied by Germans at the time. The lights were on, everyone was home having a great time, not expecting bombers to be there. It was lit up full of German fighters and he simply said to the crew: ‘Do you think we should have a go at this?’ They all said yes. They had a full load of ammunition, banked it over, did a couple of circles and single-handedly destroyed an entire airfield with countless squadrons of fighters. He did not own up to it because he would have been in serious trouble. No one knew who did it. It was not until years after the war he confessed to a few of his flying colleagues that it was him.
There are numerous stories about this fantastic Australian who gave so much for his country. He kept these seven people alive and, 26 years ago, had a 40-year reunion. They were all still alive to tell the tale - one of the very few crews. The sad thing about the aircraft Euphemistic is two missions after Neil handed it over to a new crew it was shot down and the entire crew lost their lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I salute a great Australian.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Building Act Amendment Bill - Draft
Building Act Amendment Bill - Draft
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, I table a draft bill titled the Building Act Amendment Bill. Members are aware government announced in July it would move to introduce consumer protection through home warranty insurance following the collapse of several builders. Today I am tabling a draft bill to amend the Building Act, and an explanation of that draft bill to allow wider consultation with industry and the community on this significant matter before a bill is presented to the Legislative Assembly.
The draft bill and yet to be drafted regulations contain a package consisting of home warranty insurance, named residential building insurance, progress payments, consumer guarantees and dispute resolution. Much of the detail will be in the regulations which will be subject to consultation with industry. Comment on this bill and the related documentation is invited from the community and industry. When the bill is formally presented to parliament I expect to table draft regulations so the full picture can be visualised.
Consultation was undertaken with industry and the community on the components of the package through a discussion paper in 2009. The building industry representative group managed the consultation, and has provided a report which supports the package. While there has been ongoing consultation with the building industry representative group on the detail of the package, the opportunity is now given to the community and the wider industry to have input.
Members may recall in 2004 amendments were made to the Building Act for the registration of residential builders, home warranty insurance and other changes to the regulation of buildings. In 2006, the registration of builders commenced. Home warranty insurance was deferred to allow industry to manage the other changes, and in recognition of concern being expressed by consumers, industry, and governments with the national insurance product. This concern culminated with a Senate committee inquiry in 2008, which generally endorsed mandatory, last resort home warranty insurance. However, the committee recommended a change of name to better reflect its function and a dispute resolution process to give consumers a way forward when the builder is still operating.
A major criticism of home warranty insurance is it is last resort rather than first resort. A statutory dispute resolution process bridges the gap. Insurance claims can only be made when the builder becomes insolvent, has disappeared, or died. The Senate committee recommended that loss of registration be added to the trigger for claims. The draft bill, as tabled, addresses the Senate committee’s recommendations.
During 2009 and the first half of 2010, national private insurers withdrew from the home warranty insurance market to the extent there were only two insurers left. In response, governments in New South Wales and Victoria have fully underwritten the product through their statutory insurance authorities. Western Australia and South Australia have underwritten, to some degree, the two remaining insurers to ensure policies are available. Queensland always had a government underwritten scheme. The Australian Capital Territory continues with private insurers, and Tasmania made home warranty insurance voluntary in 2008 and few, if any, take out a policy.
In recent years, several building companies have collapsed, adversely affecting consumers, subcontractors and suppliers. These failures erode confidence in the residential building industry. Given the events since 2004 regarding home warranty insurance the existing yet to be commenced provisions in the Building Act needed to be repealed and replaced by provisions in the act and regulations which cover not only insurance but also the regulation of progress payments, consumer guarantees and a statutory dispute resolution process.
Members will appreciate this matter is complex, and the body of law and test cases which have accumulated interstate over decades is substantial. While we have the benefit of this background, care needs to be taken to ensure the balance is found between legislation which covers the most common scenarios on one hand, and a scheme that is relatively easy to manage and understand on the other. The balancing being sought needs to be appropriate for the Northern Territory: affordable, efficient and effective. The balance also needs to ensure residential building insurance does not unduly encourage consumers and builders to be less diligent before, during, and after contracts. Personal responsibility and mutual obligations need to be in the foreground with regulation as a backdrop.
The consumer package consists of four components. These are covered in a proposed new Part 5A. I will now comment on these components in the same order they appear in the bill.
The first is the regulation of progress payments. This requirement for a contract builds on the existing regulations and is essential for residential building insurance to function properly, and for the risk to be managed. Existing regulations require contracts that cover progress payments but do not specify the quantum, except the deposit which is to be no more than 5%. Those that suffered most from the collapse of builders had made, sometimes under pressure, progress payments well ahead of the works completed. As a minimum, the regulations will state a builder cannot request payment for more than the value of the work completed, similar to what exists in South Australia. An option is the provisions in Victoria, where the percentages of each stage are set by regulation with the ability to vary for non-standard buildings.
The second component is consumer guarantees which provide a statutory backdrop for consumers and builders in resolving disputes or processing claims under residential building insurance. Consumer guarantees will specify such matters as the use of new materials unless specifically stated otherwise in the contract, work to be in accordance with the building permit, and work to be in a workmanlike manner. They will be complemented by practice guidelines that will quantify the tolerance range of acceptable work. The guarantees provide the measures of what is acceptable practice when resolving residential building insurance claims and other building disputes. The guarantees will run for the same prescribed period as for non-compliance under residential building insurance. The new provisions are not to replace any other rights a consumer has to make claim under the reasonable life of a product and other general consumer laws.
The third component is residential building insurance itself. This name better reflects its function, as it does not use the word ‘warranty’ that is in home warranty insurance. It also aligns with the term ‘residential building’ used for building permits and builders’ registration. Residential building insurance is to be mandatory and last resort. The triggers for claims are proposed to be insolvency or bankruptcy, disappearance or death, and loss of registration. In these circumstances, the insurer would honour a claim and seek to recover the costs from the assets of the failed builder. Given the national scene of the withdrawal of private insurers and the corresponding reactions of state governments, and the relatively small scale of the housing market in the Northern Territory, government intends to underwrite the scheme. This will give certainty that an affordable product will always be available.
As in the case of the existing home building certification fund, the Territory Insurance Office is proposed to be the fund manager for residential building insurance on behalf of government. TIO may enter into commercial arrangements with national insurers and other brokers as part of that delivery. The details of the cover and the premiums will be subject to the proposed consultation, actuarial advice currently being sought, and the level of risk the government accepts. The bill allows private insurers to enter the market. While such action would be welcomed by government it seems unlikely to happen, at least in the short term.
Residential building insurance will consist of two components – non-completion and non-compliance. The cover is only for additional costs directly related to changing from the original builder, and the claims will be capped. National norms are 20% of the contract price up to a defined maximum. Non-completion covers the construction stage and is designed to meet the additional costs if another builder needs to be engaged to complete the building works. Only prescribed work in relation to houses will be subject to claims. Claims will be subject to caps.
The cover is designed to protect the consumer against the failure to finish a building. Therefore, governments, owner-builders, and developers will not be required to take out the non-completion cover. Non-compliance cover relates to structural and non-structural defects which become evident during the prescribed times I have already mentioned in relation to consumer guarantees. Again, claims will be capped. Prescribed work in houses and low rise flats will be subject to claims.
Developers and owner-builders will be required to take out this cover at the time a building permit is issued so, in the event of sale and any of the circumstances that could trigger a claim, future owners are protected during a non-compliance period.
Government will not be required to take out non-compliance cover as, by definition, governments continue to exist and self-insure. The non-compliance component will replace the existing Home Building Certification Fund established in 1993 with the introduction of private certification. This fund is managed by the Territory Insurance Office on behalf of government. While its purpose was to underpin the certification process, in practice, it has underpinned the building process, giving unlimited cover for 10 years for non-compliance with the building code.
The Home Building Certification Fund is first resort and is unable to recover funds from a building practitioner, including a builder; hence the government takes all the risk. It is clearly a product overtaken by events and needs to be wound up. It will have liabilities for 10 years after the policy is issued. Renovations and domestic sheds are covered by the Home Building Certification Fund but will not be covered by residential building insurance. To function effectively, residential building insurance requires contracts with regulated progress payments and registered builders who are subject to financial assessment. Currently, renovations may be done without a mandatory contract and by a person who is not registered.
As mentioned, government carries all the risk related to Home Building Certification Fund policies without the ability to recover costs and, as such, is clearly unsustainable. Consumers not covered by residential building insurance and the related provisions in the bill will continue to have recourse through general consumer and contract legislation and established processes and, ultimately, through the courts.
Builders will be required to obtain an eligibility certificate which will determine limits for their turnover based on their financial and business capacity. It is proposed the eligibility requirements will be as generous as possible and most existing builders will qualify, even those not very active in the market. In such cases, the turnover threshold may be only one house at a time.
The fourth and last component is a statutory residential dispute resolution process. The process will have the power to make a binding determination, otherwise known as a rectification order, which may be appealed.
Regulations will prescribe the circumstances that need to apply for a formal application. A residential statutory dispute resolution process effectively makes last resort insurance equivalent to first resort.
The provisions establish the statutory position of Commissioner of Residential Building Disputes. If no other appointment is made by the minister, the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs holds the position.
As with any dispute, every encouragement will be given for the consumer and the builder to resolve their differences themselves by providing information on obligations and industry practice.
In regard to the full package, transitional arrangements are necessary for consumers and builders who have just entered into contracts or are part way through construction when the proposed consumer package commences. The draft bill describes the proposed arrangements. Prior to the commencement date, an existing registered builder will be able to apply to TIO for eligibility under transitional arrangements. As an interim step, to reduce the risks to consumers, it is proposed to make a regulation under the current Building Act which makes it an offence for a builder to request a progress payment for more than the value of building works carried out, similar to the provisions in South Australia.
Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned those who suffered most when their builder failed had made payments beyond the value of the work which had been done. I invite comment on the draft bill from honourable members, industry and the community by 28 February 2011, and encourage you to get involved in the forthcoming consultation on the development of the regulations.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 10 am in Parliament House or at such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker, pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 143)
(Serial 143)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Information Act seeks to protect the privacy of individuals concerning personal information which is held by government agencies and related bodies. The protections are set out in the Information Act, particularly in sections 65 to 67 and in the Information Privacy Principles, also known as IPPs, contained in Schedule 2 to the act.
The Information Act sets out the circumstances in which personal information can be made available. This bill deals with some practical problems concerning the operation of the Information Act. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the circumstances in which NT government agencies may share information among themselves and with others for the purposes of research or statistics by repealing section 71 and amending sections 81, 86 and IPP 2 of the Information Act in relation to the sharing of information.
The amendment arises as a result of NT Treasury advising that the Information Act has limited the effectiveness of past Australian Censuses, and in its present form is likely to also hinder planning for the 2011 census. The Information Act limits the information which can be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics by NT agencies, resulting in undercounting for the census.
The Department of Justice, in consultation with NT Treasury, the Department of Health and Families, and the Office of the Information Commissioner has identified minor amendments to the Information Act to alleviate these problems. Where there is an inconsistency with the IPPs protecting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information and sensitive information, section 81(2) of the Information Act allows the Information Commissioner to grant an authorisation, if justified as being in the public interest, and where the benefit to the person collecting, using, or disclosing the information outweighs any interference with privacy.
There is no obvious reason for the commissioner having to be satisfied on both matters. If an activity inconsistent with IPPs 1, 2 or 10 is in the public interest, it ought to be sufficient that the commissioner is satisfied the public interest, to a substantial degree, outweighs the interference with the privacy of others. Similarly, it should also be sufficient that the benefit to persons outweighs the interference with the privacy of others. The amendment to section 81(2) introduces an alternative between public interest and benefit to persons by replacing the word ‘and’ with ‘or’.
The interpretation of section 71 is problematic in that it is not clear whether the function of compiling statistics or conducting research has to be central to the operations of the agency. Accordingly, section 71 is replaced with an amendment to IPP 2 which is based on IPP 2(1)(c) of the Victorian Information Privacy Act 2000. This new exception to IPP 2 is to enable the use or disclosure if it is necessary for research, or for the compilation or analysis of statistics if it is in the public interest, and a number of additional criteria apply. The additional criteria require that information can only be used if it is not published in a form which will identify an individual, it is impracticable to obtain the individual’s consent, and it is reasonably believed that the recipient will not disclose the information.
Victoria has separate legislation which governs health information, the Health Records Act 2001. In the Territory, health information is governed by the Information Act. In order to provide robust protection of health information an additional requirement based on Victorian Health Privacy Principle 2.2(g)(iii) has been introduced into the new exception in IPP 2.1(ca).
The Victorian HPP 2.2(g)(iii) requires the use and disclosure of health information to be in accordance with guidelines issued by the commissioner. The Victorian guideline requires a research proposal to be submitted to a human research ethics committee for approval. The research proposal must establish, among other things, the necessity to collect the information, impracticability to seek consent, and that a public interest test is satisfied.
The bill also incorporates an amendment to cover a minor issued raised in the report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System released on 19 October 2010. The rest of the issues raised and recommendations made in the report regarding information sharing will need to be given further thorough consideration to ensure any amendments do not result in unintended consequences. Substantial discussions with relevant agency divisions are required to ensure that any amendments to legislation properly address the issues and provide a framework which is useful. It is important that hasty amendments are not made to legislation.
However, we felt an amendment could be made immediately to the Information Act to insert a new exception in IPP 2.1(d) to remove one of the barriers raised to the sharing of information. This amendment specifically addresses an issue raised in the report that the requirement of a serious and imminent threat undermines the serious harm inflicted by sustained and ongoing abuse which may not be perceived as immediately life threatening. The Information Act has been amended by requiring that there either be a serious threat, or an imminent threat to a child, rather than both a serious and imminent threat.
Other minor amendments of a statutory law revision nature are also included to tidy up the Information Act and bring it into line with contemporary drafting practices.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 140)
(Serial 140)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references, correcting typographical and grammatical errors, and omissions. The amendments contained in the bill do not constitute changes in government policies or programs.
This bill is the second statute law revision bill for 2010. The bill follows the general pattern of statute law revision bills in revising and correcting the law of the Northern Territory in minor respects. The bill provides for a comprehensive statute law revision of specified Justice portfolio acts and regulations including:
Bail Act;
Fences Act;
Parole of Prisoners Act;
Prisons (Correctional Services) Act; and
Sentencing Act.
These amendments are the result of a drafting review of these acts and regulations. Some of the amendments in this bill have been specifically included to update corrections legislation, such as the Parole of Prisoners Act and the Sentencing Act.
All other Justice amendments have been identified for inclusion by Parliamentary Counsel, following examination of the Northern Territory statute book. The bill amends these acts and regulations by implementing various improvements to reflect the current legislative drafting style.
The bill provides for the minor revision, correction, and clarification of selected laws of the Northern Territory. The minor amendments made to each act and the regulations are broadly similar. Some examples include:
Additionally, four non-Justice acts and regulations have been amended, including:
Care and Protection of Children Act,
Traffic Regulations; and
Overall, the bill amends these selected laws in minor respects and corrects minor errors which have been updated to reflect current drafting practice and ensure consistency across the statute book.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have flicked through the bill and am looking forward to doing the research on this one.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangements - Member for Arafura and Member for Port Darwin and Member for Wanguri and Member for Blain
Pairing Arrangements - Member for Arafura and Member for Port Darwin and Member for Wanguri and Member for Blain
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs. The first is from 10.30 am to 11 am today for the members for Arafura and Port Darwin; and the second is for the period 3 pm to 4.30 pm for the members for Wanguri and Blain. Both documents are signed by both Whips. I table those papers.
MOTION
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - That the reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, passed by the Assembly on 9 September 2008, be amended by adding the following paragraphs:
- 6. the committee shall appoint a Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee (NTCCC) to report to the Standing Committee from time to time to assist with the implementation of the Statehood Program as determined by the Standing Committee leading up to and including a Constitutional Convention.
- 7. the membership, chairs, functions, and procedures of the NTCCC shall be as determined by the Standing Committee from time to time.
8. the sitting fees of members of the NTCCC shall be as determined by the Speaker.
Madam Speaker, on your behalf as Chair of the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I advise the Assembly of the next stage of the Northern Territory Statehood Program and seek the consent of the Assembly to advance the constitutional status of the Territory through the creation of a new advisory committee.
The Statehood Steering Committee and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have, by mutual agreement pursuant to the terms of reference agreed to by this Assembly on 17 August 2004, and last amended on 12 February 2009, agree to dissolve the Statehood Steering Committee after its next meeting.
The Statehood Steering Committee has undertaken a massive job of work over five years preparing for this next stage, and is to be congratulated. Over 50 public forums were held this year. The next stage is the consolidation of the information gathered and the creation of an organising committee to deliver a democratic constitutional convention process. Territorians will be able to participate at the proposed constitutional convention and the Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee, or NTCCC, will be the vehicle which ensures that approach.
I understand membership of the committee is being finalised and you, Madam Speaker, will be in a position to announce the membership in conjunction with your standing committee and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for statehood in coming weeks.
Madam Speaker, this is, essentially, a procedural motion, but an important next step in the Territory’s constitutional development. I urge all members to support the motion.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House support the motion; it is an important step on our path to statehood. As the minister said, we have had five years of the Statehood Steering Committee and it has done a sterling job. We are moving into the next phase which is to plan for the convention and the next step towards statehood. We commend the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also rise to speak to this. I take some heart from what I have been advised; I am not sure if it was mentioned in comments by the Leader of Government Business, but we talk about a constitutional convention, and whilst I realise this is a procedural motion, I want to dwell on that for a few moments.
I suspect I am one of the few members in this House who was around in 1999 when the ill-fated convention …
Ms Purick: I was here.
Mr ELFERINK: Were you in the House?
Ms Purick: No, I was part of the convention.
Mr ELFERINK: … and, although I was around when the ill-fated referendum was held, it was held on the basis of a prior convention which proposed, for referendum, three questions rolled into one and put to the people of the Northern Territory. That question had a preamble attached to it, which was wordy, lengthy and did not gain the trust of the people who were asked to sign up to the question.
The consequence of that is the dream of people like Steve Hatton, John Bailey and several others - I was involved in the committee process at that stage - of statehood was lost. The process prior to that, through the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, headed primarily by Steve Hatton and John Bailey, was to produce a document which I once derisively referred to as the ‘green dream’. I regret making that comment because it was an options paper inviting people to talk about matters which should go into a constitutional document. I referred to it as the green dream because it was, as an options paper, exploring things outside my naturally conservative disposition which made me think the document was unnecessary.
The Constitutional Convention considered that document as well as documents proposed by Denis Burke. Shane Stone was Chief Minister and Denis Burke had a document which was something much more than I expected a constitution to look like and not entirely different to the Australian Constitution or our current constitution, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. That constitutional document, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, could probably operate as a constitution in its own right. It would require some tweaking, but would come to us in the same fashion the Australian Constitution has come to us.
We need to remember our constitution is a bill from a superior parliament, namely the Palace of Westminster, as it passed through both the Commons and the Lords to give us the Australian Constitution. Their system of governance has no constitutional structure; it is based on a series of conventions and can change radically without the will of the people. The Scottish parliament, around the 1600s or 1700s, voted itself out of existence - an example of how a non-constitutional parliament can operate. Another example is the Upper House of Queensland, now a unicameral system, which voted itself out of existence in 1923, if I recall. Where you impose constitutions it takes the will of the people to change them, which is the American basis.
However, I return to the green dream document. It was an options paper which explored things like bills of rights and constitutional arrangements. Some of the elements made me nervous then and make me nervous now; however, as an options paper it deserves to be explored. The Constitutional Convention at the time turned its attention to that document as well as the document finally passed by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention had a public trust issue in that the majority of its members were appointed not elected, and as a consequence it engendered a sense of distrust by the public.
That distrust found its focal point in the question people were asked on the ballot paper. It was defeated, albeit narrowly - about 48 to 51 - and the irony is, any document proposed by the people of the Northern Territory, albeit a conservative or radical document, means nothing because our constitutional admission to the commonwealth of states cannot occur unless the Commonwealth parliament accepts us on such terms and conditions as it sees fit. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution deals with the admission of new states.
Issues arising immediately for any federal parliament considering allowing the introduction of a new state would include the number of senators the Northern Territory would have. The current constitutional arrangement is that every jurisdiction, be it little old Tasmania or big old New South Wales, has the same number of senators. The number of senators shall be as close as possible to one half of the number of members of the House of Representatives. For every two reps there is one senator and that is spread across the country. The reason for that structure was so the small states - and Western Australia was one of the small states at that time and they were still unsure as 1901 approached if they would join the Federation - would be protected by the same number of senators as New South Wales.
Sadly, that noble concept of a States’ House was almost immediately abandoned by the operation of our political system. Perhaps the structure was somewhat nave; nevertheless that was the structure. As a consequence, a citizen of Australia living in Tasmania is far more comprehensively represented politically in our Upper House than a citizen of Australia living in Sydney, for argument’s sake. Moreover, Tasmania has another advantage in it has constitutionally protected the five House of Representative seats. The normal formula for the establishment of House of Representative seats is calculated by the Electoral Act - I could stand corrected on that; basically we say ‘x’ number of people make a seat - between 50 000 and 100 000 will give you a seat in the House of Representatives.
We saw the division of the seat of the Northern Territory into Lingiari and Solomon, and the federal parliament had to enact a law to protect those two seats because the threshold was getting perilously close. Knowing the growth of the Territory would ultimately generate that second seat, a law was enacted by the Commonwealth to protect Lingiari and Solomon and prevent amalgamation into the seat of the Northern Territory. Population growth has now reached that point and there are about 50 000 voters in each seat.
If we were to enter the Commonwealth we would seek as much representation as possible. The number of seats would not necessarily change in the House of Representatives. One of the options available to the Commonwealth would be to offer us 12 senators. If our population grows substantially there might be 13 or 14 senators per jurisdiction, which leads us to the difficult question of: will we take statehood on any terms?
The almost hostile attack on states’ rights by the High Court over the years has diminished the states. If you look at the federal creation anticipated by our founding fathers, which you can see in the debates, the role of the Commonwealth government was to be quite limited. Nowadays, the role of the Commonwealth government has become even more substantial, so much so that recently a High Court judge said, before upholding a Commonwealth argument, if they continued down this path the states would become nothing more than debating societies.
In this jurisdiction in the 1970s, self-government was something we celebrated profoundly. I remember self-government celebrations. I did not quite understand what it meant. I was in Year 8 at school but I understood it was important because it meant something. It gave us a state-like quality, and we have many state-like qualities in the way we are treated. Look at the way horizontal fiscal equalisation is applied. The Commonwealth Grants Commission treats us like a state, national agreements on all levels treat us like a state, however, we do not have the same political representation as other states or the same constitutional protections.
The passage of the Andrews Bill through the Commonwealth parliament is a fine example of the constitutional protections we do not have because of the capacity for federal parliament to play with our constitution at any time it chooses to do so. I suspect not many Territorians are aware that if the Commonwealth parliament chose to repeal the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act the room we are standing in now would make an excellent backpackers’ accommodation.
If we are admitted into the federation as the seventh state, something I hope occurs, one of the issues a constitutional convention will have to address is: will we accept it on lesser terms than the other states? If the argument underlining statehood is exclusively that of equal political and legal rights, we should be arguing for the right to have 12 senators like every other state. The question we have to struggle with is: will we allow any less to occur?
It is not my position to discuss these issues. It will be an issue for the constitutional convention this motion seeks to pursue. That convention will have to put together a constitution which will have within it certain presumptions that it will have to take to Canberra to get it to acquiesce to what is in that document should a referendum be successful. Section 121 of the Australian Constitution makes it abundantly clear it will be upon their terms how this new state is admitted to the federation, not ours.
A successful and resounding result in a constitutional referendum will make the argument for stronger state rights even stronger. Therefore, I am heartened by the fact this constitutional convention will be a fully elected one. Moreover, I hope it produces a document which is sober and temperate in what it seeks to achieve so we can assure Canberra we are not engaged in anything excessive or radical. Whilst I am no fan of bills of rights, they are not necessarily destructive and I am not worried about them one way or the other. However, the more reasonable and restrained the document presented to the people is, the more support it will receive. If we had a document supported by 80% of the population, it would give an argument in Canberra much more credibility. If 80% of the population supports a constitutional change such as the one in 1969, which saw the Commonwealth take over the capacity to make legislation for Aboriginal people, it will be a much stronger argument. For that reason, sober and temperate is the way to go with this.
The constitutional convention will see people wanting to secure all types of rights and expectations into a constitutional instrument - which is normal. In debates which occurred prior to federation, many reasons and issues were worked on for many outcomes. Off the top of my head, section 107 of the Australian Constitution went to protect states’ rights on waterways. If you look at what is happening now on the Darling Basin, the Murray River, and the Murrumbidgee, and how that constitutional section affects those water rights, you have an understanding of the argy-bargy occurring through constitutional instruments.
If you read the debates on that there was never an intention to protect irrigators’ rights; it was never expected those rivers would run out of water. It was more about the transport of material up and down the rivers - an access issue. The right to draw water was almost an afterthought. We now have a constitutional issue where, in the southern states, these rivers are heavily relied upon. The southern states are in a strong position to battle the Commonwealth over their right to access those waterways at the detriment, arguably, of the nation. You can see from that example, and other examples such as the expectation at one stage New Zealand was going to be a state and Western Australia was not, and the changes which occurred after that. It had much to do about the states’ interests and interested parties at the time.
What made the constitution ultimately palatable was it was not a radical document. It created a hybrid structure of the American system. We do not have a House of Commons; we have a House of Representatives, as does Congress. We do not have a House of Lords; we have a Senate, as does the House of Congress. We have a written constitution which does not exist in the Westminster system. Consequently, the document produced was sober enough to take to Mother England for a new nation to be formed. I am still surprised we celebrate our birthday on 26 January, commemorating an event from 1788, rather than the birthday of our nation, which was 1 January 1901.
If we can bring such a document and convince the federation, we then become part of the federation. That will be good. However, it will present Canberra with problems. If, for argument’s sake, we were to have 12 senators it would shift balance of power issues substantially in the country. Where would the extra seats in the Lower House be found to accommodate an extra 12 senators? Not in the Northern Territory. The population of the Northern Territory can only support two seats, and the House of Representatives is drawn from all jurisdictions in the country. We would have to have another 20 seats in the House of Representatives to accommodate the extra 10 senators from the Northern Territory.
There will be strong resistance to that because many southern people believe they are overrepresented, which will be to our detriment. That is something the constitutional convention …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is regrettable the member’s time has expired. If I had noticed, I would have asked for an extension. The member for Port Darwin is very knowledgeable on constitutional matters and will no doubt have a mighty input into this process.
I thank the opposition for its support. It is the way forward for the Territory and this is the next step. It will be a long road for all the reasons the member for Port Darwin outlined. He was getting to the political nub of it at the end of his speech regarding the issue of representation and how that might be viewed by people in southern states, and not just people who vote, the politicians and the political landscape of Canberra. We have to work together in a bipartisan way and with the Independents as they hold the balance of power in Canberra. The Independents in this parliament also have a mighty role to play in this process.
The member for Port Darwin outlined some of the trials and tribulations the process of statehood has had already, and some of the history. Let us not trip over history; let us not repeat history. Let us move and achieve a result for the Territory which I believe everyone wants. It was a shame it was lost last time; let us not go down that path again. Let us move with the people because that is the way they want to go. We need to listen to their concerns. We have a very diverse population in the Northern Territory, with very diverse interests, needs and concerns around statehood. It will not be an easy task, it will take time. I am heartened by the opposition’s support.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Before putting the motion, as the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I thank honourable members for their support in the House today. Much work has gone into this. I thank the Minister for Statehood and the opposition shadow for Statehood for their hard work in putting this together.
Motion agreed to.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ESL students from Darwin High School, accompanied by Ms Vida Goodvach. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 128)
Continued from 20 October 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill. I believe an amendment has been circulated and we will be going into the committee stage.
Before I discuss the contents of the bill, I want to pick up on something not pronounced in the second reading speech. It is a fine second reading speech and I have no major problem with it. However, creeping into second reading speeches are comments I consider potentially political. This bill is very mild:
- … this government’s continued commitment to tackling domestic and family violence in our community.
That is neither here nor there. In other bills coming before this House overt political comments have been made by government ministers in their second reading speeches.
Second reading speeches tend, by their nature, to have a special role. They are not just another speech. They have a critical function because not all legislative instruments, despite the best efforts of the drafter, the government department and the minister, are clear on all occasions. A good example is the Water Amendment Bill before this House on urgency. It was intended to do one thing but was unclear in its intent.
Courts can deal with that in several ways. One is to take a very literal approach: the black letter law says this is what the bill says, that is the intent of parliament and that is what we will apply. Another approach, more favoured by the courts in recent times, is the purposive approach to the interpretation of legislation which works out what the law wants to achieve. A court will never step away from what a law says; if the law says X it will not interpret the law to mean Y. However, there are times when words, by their use, contain an ambiguity and in containing an ambiguity courts are stuck with figuring out what was intended by the instrument. Courts have struggled with this issue on and off over the years.
In the 1950s and 1960s – for Hansard’s information, I am quoting from Statutory Interpretation in Australia 5th Edition by Pearce & Geddes, the Butterworth edition - there was a tendency to shy away from the use of extrinsic material and instead literally translate the instruments. I quote from Geddes:
- As to parliamentary and executive materials, the courts usually drew a distinction between discovering the purpose of an Act or the mischief with which it was intended to deal, and establishing parliament’s intention in relating to a particular provision in order to resolve an ambiguity or doubt as to meaning. The general view was that such materials might be referred to for the former, but not for the latter, purpose.
Quoting again from Geddes:
- In the Northern Territory, the last jurisdiction to introduce a statutory provision dealing with the admissibility of extrinsic materials, courts on several occasions referred to reports of parliamentary debates, particularly ministers’ second reading speeches, to attempt to discover the mischief which the legislation under consideration was intended to remedy.
I quote from CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 141 ALR 618 where Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow commented:
- … the modern approach to statutory interpretation (a) insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise, and (b) uses ‘context’ in its widest sense to include such things as the existing state of the law and the mischief which, by legitimate means such as [reference to reports of law reform bodies], one may discern the statute was intended to remedy.
They quote some cases then say:
- Instances of general words in a statute being so construed by their context are numerous. In particular, as McHugh JA pointed put in Isherwood v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd … if the apparently plain words of a provision are read in the light of the mischief which the statute was designed to overcome and of the objects of the legislation, they may wear a very different appearance. Further, inconvenience or improbability of result may assist the court in preferring to the literal meaning an alternative construction which, by the steps identified above, is reasonably open and more closely conforms to the legislative intent.
This is not pronounced in the second reading speech but has been in others, particularly by members on this side, and I am always cautious about second reading speeches because they have a different role. They are a guide to the courts which have to use the instruments we pass through this House.
The growing tendency to see political statements working their way into these speeches gives me some concern. We should not ask our courts to wade, knee deep, through the mire of political rhetoric to find the intent of the legislative instrument. The tendency is not to look at the political debate as a whole. The tendency is to turn exclusively to the second reading speech. Were the political debate as a whole the reference point for the courts, I would argue we would have a duty to provide them with more considered, well-researched debates than we do. The second reading speech is the touchstone for a court when there is doubt or uncertainty in a legislative instrument. The court deserves second reading speeches which guide them.
Having made those opening observations, I turn to the issues contained in the bill. The bill is designed to enhance the quality and operation of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. Domestic violence legislation has been around for close to 15 years, and has probably been one of the more amended acts in the history of this parliament. It predates my entry into this House.
I remember the first of these instruments, and I pause briefly to describe the world which existed before the introduction of domestic violence legislation. In that world we occupied a strange environment; we would turn up to circumstances of gross domestic violence and often be utterly disempowered to do anything. I will give an example: Many years ago, while on duty as a police officer, my partner and I visited a house in Ludmilla to see the husband, dear soul that he was, had dragged his wife, in her underwear, into the middle of the street and as we drove down the street, he grabbed her by the throat, dragged her to the ground, and was punching her about the head in an extremely aggressive and violent way. Naturally, we climbed out of the car, leapt on him, threw him in the back of our van and took the bleeding wife inside the house whilst he, in his enraged state, screamed from the back of the van the most disgusting and vile threats, kicked the van and, generally, acted as a man possessed.
We spoke to the wife, a shattered shell of a human being. Her time with this man had broken her so completely that any suggestion we offered which would in any way upset him was something she would not abide. As we pleaded with her to make a complaint against her husband, the thought of challenging him was so pummelled out of her that she just froze into a state of almost catatonia when presented with the concept. We were unable to extract any complaint from her for assault.
There was no capacity for us to do anything in relation to the domestic violence and, after thinking about it, I took the fellow back to the police station, still in custody, and I had to write in the charge sheet, ‘disorderly behaviour and objectionable words’. They are very minor offences under the Summary Offences Act; however, it was the vehicle by which I was able to keep him in custody for as long as possible, using the provisions of the Bail Act to hold him as long as we possibly could - perhaps not entirely legal but necessary in the circumstances. As I prepared the file, the prcis of facts was quite short - a single page. My notes to the prosecutor were twice as long as the prcis because of the obvious questions which would flow from the bench when this fellow was finally brought to court.
As a consequence, he went to court. I cannot recall if bail was refused or not; I recall being summoned by the prosecutor, and he said: ‘We have to explain this’. We sat in a courtroom and, in spite of my copious notes, the magistrate wanted to know why this guy was not locked up for assault. I had to tell the magistrate we could not, in a pink fit, get an assault complaint out of the victim. He was duly fined for his objectionable words and disorderly behaviour and released from the court - a wholly unsatisfying result from the public perspective. If any person witnessed what I had there would be a strong desire to throw this man in gaol for a very long time. That, naturally, did not occur.
Those are the things this domestic violence legislation sought to remedy. There were many cases before the courts during that period where homicides were reported, where women who had suffered for many years at the hands of abusive husbands had finally taken to stabbing them, or setting the caravan on fire, and were being convicted for manslaughter. Domestic violence legislation was originally introduced in an effort to deal with those issues.
As legislative instruments go through time they are finessed; they are changed with different expectations. The original domestic violence legislation dealt exclusively with the relationship between husband and wife, and de facto partners. That now has a much broader intent and is an example of how these legislative instruments have evolved.
This bill before the House deals with issues arising out of domestic violence arrangements. In many, a party, often the wife, who flees the house and seeks refuge in another place then finds themself out of a home. It is only at that point they seek a domestic violence order, and that has an impact on their tenancy arrangements. Often, the person who flees the home is still duty bound to pay the rent. This legislative instrument allows the court to interfere in those arrangements to a degree - reasonable arrangements because they enable the party involved to deal with issues of tenancy after the fact, something currently not the case.
The other component touched on by this legislative instrument is police domestic violence orders and, as the minister said in her second reading speech:
- …the bill also amends the provision in the act concerning when authorised police officers are themselves able to make DVOs, referred to as police DVOs. As currently drafted, an authorised police officer may make a police DVO if they are satisfied that: due to the urgent circumstances, it is not practicable to obtain a DVO through a court; making the DVO is necessary to ensure a person’s safety; and a DVO might reasonably have been made by the court had it been practicable to apply for one. All three of the criteria must be met.
The Attorney-General went on to say:
- Police advise there have been circumstances where it has been unclear whether or not it is not practicable to obtain a DVO through the court. For example, in one matter, police officers attended a domestic violence incident at a location 120 km by road from Darwin at 10 am on a Monday. The police considered a DVO was urgently required and was necessary to ensure a person’s safety. However, the police were unsure as to whether the distance needed to be travelled from Darwin to the court in order to obtain a court DVO fulfilled the criterion that obtaining a court DVO was not practicable. The police officers who attended the incident, and the authorised officer, were quite understandably, unsure as to whether a police DVO was appropriate.
This bill seeks to address that issue and we on this side of the House see no problem. There are practical components to policing legislative instruments which are not immediately foreseen by legislative drafters, even the police themselves. The nature of this is to bring amendments to legislation to make things more clear, or to allow the flexibility required to deal with such matters - precisely what is under consideration by this proposed amendment.
I turn to the other component, the matter of intoxicated people being taken into custody by police for the purposes of issuing a DVO. It is my understanding that currently the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act are used in an unofficial capacity to hold intoxicated people once they have been apprehended, and a DVO is issued in the morning. It is not the intention of that section - but not unlawful - and the approach taken by the Attorney-General seeks to address that issue.
Currently, when a person is arrested for the purposes of having an interim order issued by a police officer, the DVO must be served within four hours. There are times when police officers will take people into custody who are in such a state of intoxication it may well be arguable by someone in a later court dealing with the breach of a DVO offence that the person given the DVO was so drunk they could not understand the terms of the document. Therefore, police have used section 128 - not illegally - perhaps inappropriately - as the cover-all, or have taken the risk of issuing a DVO after four hours and potentially providing the person a defence for breach of the DVO.
Consequently, I presume the Attorney-General has been approached by police saying: ‘We need to fix this’. The fix is that the legislative instrument will allow for a person to be held in custody for a further two hours. This is reminiscent of the provisions of section 128 of the Police Administration Act which enabled police to hold people in custody for periods of six hours when seriously affected by alcohol or drug. Under the provisions of section 128, if a person is intoxicated and their release time is in the wee small hours of the morning, police may hold that person until they wake the next day.
This instrument allows that extension of time to occur. If, however, after the passage of those extra two hours police are still of the opinion the person is sufficiently intoxicated as to deprive them of the capacity to understand the provisions of a domestic violence order or interim order, the police may seek to hold that person for a further four hours.
At this point the issue of the individual’s health becomes a matter for consideration. Any person so intoxicated that after six hours they are still too drunk to understand the provisions of an order, becomes a person to which a health issue may be ascribed. Consequently, the Attorney-General seeks to make provision that a person may be held for up to 10 hours, however, after six hours a health inspection needs to be conducted by a practitioner.
This raises one issue of concern - I am not making my comments in reference to doctors or registered nurses per se – practitioners, for the purposes of this section, should include Aboriginal health workers. This gives me some pause for consideration. A doctor presented with a person suffering from hypoglycaemia will, in many respects, consider what is wrong with that person, because a person suffering from hypoglycaemia may give the impression of being drunk. If a person has hypoglycaemia and is thrown into a cell and left unattended for an excessive period of time, they will not be merely drunk, they will be dead. That is a difficult thing for a doctor or registered nurse to assess, particularly in the absence of any useable equipment to assess things like blood sugar levels.
During my briefing, I asked what training an Aboriginal health worker received to become a health worker. I am uncertain if that has been forwarded to my office; I have not seen a copy. As a consequence, I will be raising that issue during the committee stage of this bill.
If the training of an Aboriginal health worker is at a certification level substantially lower than a registered nurse or doctor, is there a danger we are exposing Aboriginal health workers to difficulties regarding liability? Many of the acts they operate under will indemnify them from criminal or civil liability, nevertheless, that does not deal with the stress felt by people who have to go through the coronial process and give evidence, particularly if they feel they have made a mistake.
If the knowledge of an Aboriginal health worker is not sufficiently comprehensive to make an effective assessment that someone is drunk, and in fact their only true point of reference will be their own personal experience, and the personal experience of the police officer is just as good as an Aboriginal health worker in determining a state of intoxication, or something else, of a person, if some other malady is detected by a police office or an Aboriginal health worker, health considerations of the person in custody become paramount.
Many bush nurses tend to be over-cautious. The District Medical Officer is phoned by the registered nurse or Aboriginal health worker. On the basis of that telephone conversation a determination is made by the DMO to transfer a person to a hospital, which usually involves an aeroplane. Pause briefly to think about the position the DMO is in. They receive a telephone call - second-hand information about a person’s signs and symptoms related to them by a health worker or registered nurse - and on that basis they have to make a judgment call as to whether or not a person should be evacuated to, for argument’s sake, Alice Springs from Yuendumu. The DMO will err on the side of caution and, as a result of those circumstances, this legislative instrument runs the risk of imposing a substantial financial burden either on the Health department or the police.
It is difficult to deal with because if the police, who through their own general orders seek medical advice whenever they have doubt, seek such advice, they do it for the best possible reasons. It would be difficult to say the blame for these things must rest with the police officers on duty. All that happens, from a government perspective in circumstances where a person has had an excessive time in custody, is they have to be dealt with by one department or another. Responsibility has to lie in one place or another.
If it does not lie with the police officer, it lies with a health worker. It is therefore incumbent upon the government to ensure Aboriginal health workers who have to make these determinations have the education, training and equipment necessary to make the correct determination. I would not be well pleased as minister for Health to discover there is an increased expectation and liability upon the people who work for me being shifted from another department without having the requisite budget to ensure my Aboriginal health workers could deal with this issue. Having taken the time to explain that to the Attorney-General, I signal I will be asking some questions about this during the committee stage.
Ten hours is a long period of time to hold any person in custody, essentially, without charge. Our criminal justice system is predicated on the assumption that when the state chooses to apprehend a person, that person, under normal circumstances, will be taken before a court to be dealt with according to law. It is a necessary and important component of the way we separate our powers within our democracy. The longer we hold people without charge, the more we offend the concept of liberty upon which our system is structured. To say a police officer may take a person into custody without charge and hold them for 10 hours is a matter I take seriously.
There are other examples of such circumstances. I direct members’ attention to section 128 of the Police Administration Act, where police, and the state, are allowed to take people into custody by the powers vested in them by this House. It is an extremely unusual power. Under normal circumstances, a person taken into custody would be taken before a court at the nearest available opportunity or, also by the powers invested by this House in police, if some other further investigation has to be done. Sections 130, 137 and 138 of the Police Administration Act are examples of this. This is another power of custody which becomes a longer power of custody.
I express caution in relation to giving away a power of custody of this nature. Nevertheless, having considered the implications of this and the regulations, the restraints, the checking which has been put in place, and the fact I trust our police force to do the right thing, my colleagues on this side of the House are prepared to acquiesce to this power. We understand the practical implications of custody in the Northern Territory, such as vast distances between courts. It is for this reason we allow fax and telephonic communications, fax and telephonic warrants and the issue of telephonic domestic violence orders.
Nevertheless, it is always a matter of great pause for me when the rights and liberties of people who are not charged with criminal offences are truncated for the sake of administrative convenience. This stays within the realms of reasonable, and is why it enjoys the support of this side of the House. We will always, on this side, be cautious of offences against individuals’ liberties, particularly offences inflicted by the state. I use the word ‘offences’ in that context not meaning criminal offences, but in the broader scheme of the offence against liberty a section like this represents.
All in all, this bill does not carry substantial controversy; it is a bill designed to be convenient and functional in the environment in which we live. We are not of a disposition to make things difficult. We concern ourselves with the implications this may have for Aboriginal health workers. I am well aware of the limitations police have to deal with matters pertaining to intoxication. Their judgment is often based on nothing more than experience and, of course, I am not unmindful of the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
I want to talk about the effects of coronial investigations on people. Most people see coronial investigations as trials.
Aboriginal health workers have often lived their lives in remote Aboriginal communities and do not enjoy the sophistication of having lived in a worldly environment. That does not suggest they are stupid or of limited intelligence. Rather, their lack of experience, necessitated by the environment they occupy, makes them more vulnerable to the systems around them. Many of these health workers have language skills and an understanding of the European justice system which are less than perfect. Again, this is not to diminish them; this is an observation of reality. Where this is the case, to ask them to do something without training is to expose them to a system of inquisition through a coronial inquiry which may frighten them. I do not want these people to be frightened, I do not want them to be scared; I want them to live in an environment where they do their job effectively for the community they serve.
When coronial investigations occur, particularly into deaths in custody, they normally attract public interest. Deaths in custody have traditionally seen a close public scrutiny with large reports in the newspapers. To have cameras turn up in communities and pointed at Aboriginal health workers involved in an inquisition, which they emotionally respond to as a trial, makes me express misgiving. You could imagine how people without a world view, without a high level of sophistication, might feel as they walked into what they saw as an inquisition with a camera shoved in their face. Potentially, that is what we are asking people to be exposed to should there be a death in custody as a result of the change of this legislative instrument.
Police officers, usually, are somewhat more robust. Most come from European society and are trained in giving evidence and understand an inquisitorial process. A police officer who takes all reasonable steps to look after a person in custody will never be criticised by a coronial investigation, and as long as a police officer can satisfy themselves, as the custodial officer, they have done all necessary to protect the person in their custody, they will be far more robust in their capacity to deal with the issues should a death in custody occur.
It is this differentiation upon which I base my argument and observations. The comparison between a police officer in a remote Aboriginal community and an Aboriginal health worker going through the inquisitorial process of a coronial inquiry means the emotional and profound effect of the experience will be much less for a police officer who had a person in custody than a health worker who had given a person a clean bill of health only to find the person died as a result of a complication arising from an underlying, undetected health issue. It is not only hypoglycaemia which can present itself as drunkenness - subdural haematomas can also have the same effect.
Consequently, we cautiously support this bill. We are careful on the grounds I have outlined. I look forward to the committee stage debate to receive some comfort from the Attorney-General that our support is well-founded.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill (Serial 128) as presented by the Attorney-General.
I listened with great interest to the characteristically learned and academic contribution from the member for Port Darwin, who has a law degree and was also a police officer for many years. I do not come with the same level of experience or expertise. However, in my role as an elected member of this House, which includes, very importantly, being a legislator, I am satisfied through the information received through briefings and through the expertise this government possesses in its agencies, including the Department of Justice, that this bill is solid and these changes are warranted.
I highlight the recognition the member for Port Darwin provided at the end of his speech and his concession this bill is convenient and functional and is the path we need to be taking, in spite of some reservations he had. He has flagged that he will be asking the Attorney-General for further details at the committee stage.
It is timely this bill is before the House a week after White Ribbon Day, an important annual event marking an international and very public stand to eliminate violence against women, and one which this government and, I am sure, members opposite, fully support. We showed our support in the Chamber last week by wearing the distinctive white ribbon on our lapels.
This bill is not about politics. It is about making strong laws and strengthening and, where necessary, amending existing laws to protect women and children, in particular, from violence. The Domestic and Family Violence Act commenced in July 2008, and important amendments about mandatory reporting were introduced in late 2008 and passed early in 2009.
The intention to introduce mandatory reporting laws for domestic and family violence was announced in a media release from the Chief Minister on 9 July 2008. At that time I was the preselected candidate for the electorate of Nhulunbuy and welcomed the announcement which recognised domestic violence is a community problem and needs a community response. In the same way we accept there is mandatory reporting for child abuse, those who commit domestic violence are protected when a community remains silent, which is simply unacceptable.
It was an historic occasion when the bill for mandatory reporting was debated in this House in February 2009. This jurisdiction was the first in Australia and, I believe, the world, to make the reporting of domestic and family violence mandatory. It was also an occasion when many members rose to speak, quite emotionally, also rationally and passionately, with firsthand stories of family members who had witnessed, lived with and even died at the hands of domestic violence.
As a government we recognise there is a clear and direct link between alcohol abuse in the Territory and violent assaults, including domestic violence. Introducing legislation and amendments to the Domestic and Family Violence Act alone will not fix the scourge of violence in our community. This is why the government has introduced tough reforms to put problem drinkers off tap, to stop the violence and antisocial behaviour, and why two draft exposure bills, the Smart Court Bill and the Prevention of Alcohol Related Crime and Substance and Misuse Bill, are currently in the public domain for scrutiny and comment. I thank the Attorney-General in her capacity as Minister for Alcohol Policy in pressing ahead with these crucial reforms, fully supported, I would add, by the Caucus.
In dealing with problems of violence we must look to the root causes and deal with the issue of alcohol itself. Statistics paint a stark and disturbing picture and point to the level of alcohol-fuelled crime in our community: 60% of all assaults are alcohol-related, with 60% of all domestic violence incidents being alcohol-related. Alcohol abuse was also raised in the recently released report of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory, which heard evidence from Territorians that grog is a key contributor to child abuse and neglect. This government is working hard, and in consultation with key stakeholders in the community, to address community expectations that we need to deal with alcohol; we must deal with alcohol and the domestic violence it leads to.
The bill before us today seeks to make a number of amendments to ensure the Domestic and Family Violence Act is workable legislation which closes loopholes. Moreover, the amendments seek to strengthen the act to better protect victims of domestic violence and allow police to have greater powers in relation to domestic violence orders, or DVOs, so they are positioned and empowered to better protect victims.
It is not my intention to address all these amendments because the Attorney-General provided a comprehensive overview during her second reading speech, and briefings have been offered through the Attorney-General’s Office by the Department of Justice. I took the opportunity to receive a briefing and I thank officers for their time and expertise.
Amendments to sections 22 and 23 of the act have come about as a result of stakeholder feedback from victim services, including the Domestic Violence Legal Service, the Top End Women’s Legal Service, and the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service. I thank Sue Phoo, Teena Balgi and Beth Wild for their efforts and contribution. Whilst I have not met these women, I am advised they have made an enormous contribution in seeing this bill come before us. Amendments to these sections deal with premises access orders, and enabling replacement tenancy agreements to be arranged with much greater ease.
Under the current act, the victim is disadvantaged in that when fleeing the place of residence to escape domestic violence, it becomes extremely difficult to return home. Under the current act, premises access orders can only be part of a DVO if the protected person is still living in the premises. The reality is, a person flees domestic violence first then seeks to take out a DVO. As the Attorney-General mentioned in her second reading speech, some victims are understandably fearful about taking out a DVO whilst still residing with the defendant - fearful of reprisals. A victim should be entitled to flee their home but retain the right in court to apply for orders to live in their home. No victim should be punished for fleeing domestic violence, and their lives should not be made more difficult by the fact they have left. It is incredibly unfair and unjust that someone escaping domestic violence can currently only be granted premises access orders if they remain living in the premises, and no doubt living, in some circumstances, in fear of their life.
The reality of domestic violence is that in the real world we know this is not how the chain of events usually evolves. Acts of domestic violence can erupt with little or no notice. The violence can be both physically and mentally traumatic. In a fight or flight scenario I doubt a victim has time to think about or would even be aware, in trying to return to the residence after fleeing the scene for safety, they need to have taken out a DVO and obtained a premises access order first. The amendment in section 22 ensures a premises access order can be made in relation to a protected person – the victim - after they have left the premises.
Amendments to section 23 - and this includes the committee stage amendments which have been circulated to members following stakeholder feedback from the Domestic Violence Legal Service - deal with tenancy matters. It allows the court to take into account all circumstances of both parties and make appropriate orders as to who lives in the premises and, in turn, whose name remains, is added to, or removed from the tenancy agreement. The court is not limited by who is on the tenancy agreement, or who remains in the premises. Therefore, should the protected person have no desire to remain at those premises, the amendments enable the court to have that person’s name removed from the tenancy agreement. Previously, to make these arrangements, the protected person had to go through the process set out in the Residential Tenancies Act to have their name removed from the tenancy agreement. These amendments make it possible for this to happen in court when domestic violence orders are being made.
This amendment also allows for a replacement tenancy agreement, which may benefit the protected person or, with the agreement of the protected person, the defendant.
Other key amendments in this bill have come about following issues raised by officers of the Northern Territory Police as to the workability of the act, in practical terms, with regard to police DVOs as opposed to court DVOs. Amendments to section 41 are quite sensible and will allow an authorised police officer to raise a police DVO in certain circumstances, which are now more clearly prescribed. These amendments will particularly benefit police carrying out their duties in remote areas where there is not ready access to a court and will afford better and more timely protection for victims of domestic violence.
The circumstances applying when raising a police DVO, as outlined by the Attorney-General, include, first and foremost, that the DVO is necessary to ensure a person’s safety - and there must be a degree of urgency. Second, it is not practicable in the circumstances to obtain a court DVO. Third, a DVO might reasonably have been made by the court. All three criteria must be met. Amongst members opposite we have four former police officers who have all served in remote areas. I hope they recognise the limitations within the act and welcome these amendments around police DVOs, especially for officers trying to do their jobs in remote areas.
The other amendment I wish to highlight relates to section 84 which deals with police power to remove and detain, particularly detaining intoxicated persons. Currently, a person can be detained for up to four hours. Police have raised concerns that in detaining a person in order to serve a DVO it is very difficult, or nigh on impossible, when that person is intoxicated. Under the act, police are required to - and I quote from the Attorney-General’s second reading speech:
- … explain to the person the effect of the DVO, the consequences for any breach of the DVO, and the right of the defendant to apply for a review of the DVO.
Three things associated with it. I quote further:
- This explanation, as far as is reasonably practicable, must be given in either a language or in terms which are likely to be readily understood by the
defendant.
For police this is difficult to do when, at the end of four hours, a person - the defendant - is still intoxicated and in no position to understand an explanation from police about the DVO, or anything else for that matter. To release someone at the end of four hours, still intoxicated and not cognisant of the implications of having been served a DVO and what would constitute a breach, is risky to say the least.
The amendment before the House will allow police to detain an intoxicated person for up to a maximum of 10 hours so police can give a copy of a DVO to a person in a state such that they can reasonably understand it. The broadening of police powers is clearly outlined in clause 84(5) which states a person can be detained for more than six hours provided the police officer is of the view a person is intoxicated, and this can mean under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or a combination of both; that a senior officer has been informed of the continued detention, that senior officer being at the superintendent level or above; and that information is recorded about the detention in the custody log; and finally, arrangements be made as soon as practical for a health practitioner to examine the detained person.
I acknowledge misgivings around the definition of health practitioner and the role of Aboriginal health workers in this area; as the member for Port Darwin has flagged, he will take that further during committee stage amendments.
The proposed section 84 clearly states, as a safeguard measure, if during the period of detention the person requires medical attention, they must be released into the custody of a health practitioner, and if they cease to be intoxicated before 10 hours and understand the information they receive about the DVO, are to be released.
I have not gone over all the amendments in the bill, rather what might be considered to be the key ones. Importantly, these amendments will provide better protection for victims of domestic violence and allow police to carry out their duties more efficiently and fairly to both the protected person and the defendant.
This government does not tolerate violence and is singularly committed to doing everything it can to tackle domestic violence and ensure we have workable laws which protect victims and send a strong message to perpetrators of domestic violence.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and commend it to honourable members.
Debate suspended.
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 128)
(Serial 128)
Continued from earlier this day.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the changes. The amendments have been brought by people who know the issues - the domestic, legal, and violence services have brought these matters to the government.
I thank the minister for the briefing. It is obvious from the briefings that the second reading did not quite reflect the amendment. That is why we now have the amendment to the amendments. It now makes sense, and makes it easier for people who have left the house because of a DVO and gone elsewhere. It enables them to have an access order, and from that access order they can apply for a tenancy agreement. I now understand the changes.
The definition of DVO has worried me, especially since we had the ugliest Question Time I have seen in relation to certain people being used in a political debate because of a DVO against them. The issue I have is that the word ‘violence’ to most people means you belt someone up; however, section 5 of the act says:
(a) conduct causing harm;
(c) intimidation;
(d) stalking;
(e) economic abuse;
(f) attempting or threatening to commit conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e).
The notes also mention procuring someone to commit domestic violence.
We called them restraining orders previously, and other states still do. I am not saying government needs to respond at the moment; however, in light of the terrible debate in the last sittings, when one hears a person has a DVO they immediately think that person has violently attacked someone. I am not saying these matters should not be attended to; the concept relating to these issues could be split so it more reflects what the average person thinks when an order has been placed on a person. It is worth looking at. The questions and inferences around the issue of domestic violence left a very sour taste in many people’s mouths. No one knew the details of the DVO. An outsider with no idea of the circumstances, or who saw it as a headline in the paper, would presume there was a physically violent act towards another person.
That is slightly away from the crux of this debate. The issue is about police amending DVOs, police issuing DVOs and a DVO being in place in relation to access agreements. It would be good to debate the wording at some stage. I am not trying to downsize the seriousness of the situation. I sometimes feel that people could be unfairly targeted for something they may not have done.
Nothing mentioned in section 5 of the act is nice. Intimidation, stalking, and economic abuse are not pleasant; however, I do not put them in the same bracket as conduct causing harm or damaging property, including the injury or death of an animal. That area could do with some distinction. It is an area which has concerned me for some time and I felt, after Question Time in the last sittings, it needed more attention.
I support the bill; the amendments are sensible. They make it less complicated for people in fear of returning to their home. I understand from the briefings that the government was contacted by someone in a relationship who found they had no rights because they had left their premises. The amendments today allow those rights to be restored and allow fair process to occur so a court can establish who has rights in these matters.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members who contributed to debate. I particularly thank my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who took the time and effort to receive a briefing. She brought a positive and strong dimension to the practicalities we deal with in this tough area of domestic violence. Her representation of many remote communities in Arnhem Land enables her to recognise the practicalities the police have to deal with, which has prompted many of the amendments we have before us.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for the cautious support indicated by the opposition to the amendments. I note his concerns tend to go to detaining intoxicated offenders and the use of Aboriginal health workers; I will go into that in further detail. I thank the member for Nelson for his support, he also received a briefing. In regard to the broader debate the member for Nelson wants to have, I am happy to entertain that but we need to do it from a platform of understanding where this law is at nationally and what reports have occurred. I will ensure the member for Nelson receives a copy of the Australian Law Reform Commission report. If anyone knows about the creation and movement of law in our nation, there is no more august body than the Australian Law Reform Commission in looking at legal policy. It handed down a report, Family Violence – a National Legal Response, in October of this year so it is very current and very topical.
In regard to the broader debate on the definitions and do we introduce into the legislation definitions such as ‘restraining order’ versus the existing definitions of ‘domestic violence’, I refer to page 17 of the report summary:
- The Commissions recommend, in Chapters 5 and 6, that each legislative regime should provide that family violence is violent or threatening behaviour, or any other form of behaviour, that coerces or controls a family member or causes that family member to be fearful. Such behaviour may include but is not limited to:
a) physical violence;
b) sexual assault and other sexually abusive behaviour;
c) economic abuse;
d) emotional or psychological abuse;
e) stalking;
f) kidnapping or deprivation of liberty;
g) damage to property, irrespective of whether the victim owns the property;
h) causing injury or death to an animal irrespective of whether the victim owns the animal; and
i) behaviour by the person using violence that causes a child to be exposed to the effects of behaviour referred to in (a)-(h) above;
Adopting consistent definitions of family violence across different legislative schemes allows the courts to send clear messages about what constitutes family violence.
The Commissions also recommend, in Chapter 7, that this definition be complemented in family violence legislation by a provision that explains the nature, features and dynamics of family violence, including: while anyone may be a victim of family violence, or may use family violence, it is predominantly committed by men; it can occur in all sectors of society; it can involve exploitation of power imbalances; its incidence is underreported; and it has a detrimental impact on children. In addition, family violence legislation should refer to the particular impact of family violence on: Indigenous persons; those from a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background; those from the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex communities; older persons; and people with disabilities. The Commissions recommend the adoption of a similar provision in the Family Law Act.
I checked, after hearing the member for Nelson’s thoughts during the briefing, regarding the terminology across the jurisdictions. I will table the breakdown of like legislation across jurisdictions for the member’s benefit.
Before I do that, I will refer to the jurisdictions and the DVOs, and the description of those DVOs. In the Northern Territory we have the Domestic and Family Violence Act of 2007; we have a domestic violence order …
Madam SPEAKER: Members at the back of the Chamber, please have your conversation elsewhere. Members for Stuart, Fong Lim, Nelson and Brennan! Order! Please have your conversation elsewhere. You are interfering with the parliament. Out the back, thank you!
Ms LAWRIE: In the Northern Territory, we have the police domestic violence order. In New South Wales, there is the apprehended domestic violence order, the interim apprehended domestic violence order, and the provisional order. In Victoria, the family violence intervention order, the interim order, and the family violence safety notice. In Queensland, the domestic violence order, the temporary protection order, and the violence restraining order. In Western Australia, an interim order, and a police order. In South Australia, an interim order, an interim intervention order, and a police interim intervention order. In Tasmania, a family violence order, interim family violence order, and a police issued order. In the ACT, the domestic violence order, the interim order, and the emergency order. In New Zealand, a protection order, and a temporary protection order.
We can see a consistent theme in the terminology used across the jurisdictions of Australia as well as our counterpart in New Zealand. I table that information for members.
Whilst there is support from the member for Nelson for the existing amendments which go to the practicalities and workability of the legislation to improve rights for the victims, a broader debate around the terminology of this is essential in the context of where our fellow jurisdictions are at, particularly given the Australian Law Reform Commission report which urges us to be in sync with each other to send very clear unambiguous messages to our courts in the area of this very distressing violence which occurs across our community. As the commission report said, it predominantly occurs to women and significantly affects children.
The amendments before us today address unforseen practical issues identified by the Northern Territory Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They also address issues identified by domestic legal violence services and victims of domestic violence. The bill will ensure the law continues to work to protect victims of domestic violence by clarifying the circumstances in which premises access orders can be made, replacement tenancy agreements may be created, and authorised police officers may make domestic violence orders. The bill also provides a power for the court to refuse to hear an application or stay proceeding, provides for interim variation orders, expands the police powers of detention, and clarifies sentencing provisions.
The bill clarifies the circumstances in which premises access orders can be made, replacement tenancy agreements can be created and provides a power for the court to refuse to hear an application or stay proceedings. We undertook significant consultation in relation to the bill. The amendments were identified initially by the Northern Territory Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We then went broader and consulted with relevant government agencies such as the Department of Health and Families and the Domestic and Family Violence Policy Unit. We also contacted relevant legal services in an attempt to capture any other aspects to the legislation they would want amended, and we have done that.
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; NT Legal Aid; the North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service; the Top End Women’s Legal Service; the Domestic Violence Legal Service; the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; and the Central Australian Women’s Legal Service all provided, to varying degrees, input. The Domestic Violence Legal Service captured a loophole in the access orders which has led to the committee stage amendment we have before us today. I thank them for their thorough scrutiny, analysis and work which led to that. They are very supportive as a result of us tidying up that loophole through the committee stage amendment today, and of the raft of changes before us today.
The member for Port Darwin requested further information around the qualifications of Aboriginal health workers when he received a briefing. He indicated in his response this morning he had not received that information.
Mr Elferink: I did not know if it had been sent to my office. I have not seen it.
Ms LAWRIE: I can clarify an e-mail was sent to John Elferink, Terry Mills, Francine Tomsen, on Wednesday, 1 December at 12.15 pm. It had the committee stage amendments to the Family Violence Bill. Further, I advise an e-mail was sent on Saturday, 27 November from my Justice advisor to Francine Tomsen. It detailed the Aboriginal health worker registration and the tertiary requirements and experience. Francine indicated in a return e-mail on Monday, I believe, that she had received it. We had expected staff to pass it to you. I will ensure in future you receive copies of any e-mail sent to staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s Office so we know the information has gone to you, given you were the author of the request in the first place.
It is important to go into some detail which may or may not satisfy the member opposite. This government did not take the decision lightly regarding the extension of hours. We recognised police were using the practices under the Police Administration Act to detain offenders for a longer period of time to reasonably let the intoxication wear off so they could perform their legal duty to ensure the offender was aware of the charges being laid. We know, in practice, police have been using the Police Administration Act, so it seemed reasonable to insert mirror provisions. In doing so, there was very strong consideration given to - these matters have been circulated to all government agencies, including police, and supported by all - if you detain people for longer what checks and balances can you put in place to ensure the safety of the person detained?
Regarding the comments made by the member for Port Darwin about the qualifications of, and role played by, Aboriginal health workers under the amendments, I will go to the suggestion that Aboriginal health workers are less qualified than police officers to assess the medical state of a person in custody who appears intoxicated …
Mr Elferink: I did not quite say that, but go on.
Ms LAWRIE: We received a rush of your comments to ensure we attend to the issues you raised, member for Port Darwin.
You commented about possible coronial inquests - if a person dies in custody after having been assessed by an Aboriginal health worker. Aboriginal health workers do not have a lack of experience, a lack of sophistication, or a lack of understanding of the justice system to the point where we believe they would be left frightened in any coronial inquest which might occur. Frankly, I find stereotyping of professional workers doing great work across our communities, and significantly relied upon across communities, disappointing. We recognise the justice system can be daunting for anyone appearing as a witness. However, to say Aboriginal health workers would be worse off than a police officer or any other person could be considered insulting.
The member for Port Darwin is ignoring the fact this process of assessment involves interaction between health practitioners and the police. It is one of those occasions where two people are better than one in the combined skill sets they bring to the situation. The individual is still in custody, and still the ultimate responsibility of the police.
That aside, whether the police officer is involved or not, I cannot let this pass. I will address the issue of Aboriginal health workers and the work in primary healthcare in remote Aboriginal communities they undertake. They are often recruited from their communities to enable local participation in direction and delivery of health services. We would all think that is a good thing. Aboriginal health workers also work in urban community health, in public health, and in hospitals. Aboriginal health workers are involved in specialist areas of health including renal dialysis, women’s and men’s health screening, early childhood screening and development, nutrition, mental health, alcohol and other drugs, health services management, and design.
Aboriginal health workers often use complex medical equipment, take and test samples of biological material, sometimes requiring invasive procedures, such as venipuncture. Aboriginal health workers are also authorised to administer a limited range of medications in accordance with the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, and have a significant cultural brokerage role in the provision of healthcare, enabling them to not only be healthcare providers but also facilitate care provided by other professionals. The value of Aboriginal health workers in the provision of our health services is widely recognised, is highly valued, and furthermore, a number of services provided by Aboriginal health workers are rebateable under Medicare.
An Aboriginal Health Workers Board of the Northern Territory is established by the Health Practitioners Act. The board is a statutory body responsible for ensuring the public is protected through the regulation of Aboriginal health workers registered in the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Health Workers Board ensures: all Aboriginal health workers have received educational preparation to an agreed national standard; administers the scheme of registration; monitors the standard and provision of healthcare services; monitors the competence of the health practitioners; provides guidance on clinical conduct and ethical matters; initiates investigations of complaints made against health practitioners and initiates investigations into other matters which are prescribed; accredits courses for entry as an Aboriginal health worker; and accredits educational institutions to conduct these courses.
Aboriginal health workers are registered health practitioners governed by the Health Practitioners Act, as are Territory occupational therapists and radiographers. Until the recent national uniform legislation, Territory medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, dentists, physiotherapists, psychologists, pharmacists and so forth were also registered health practitioners pursuant to the act. Aboriginal health workers must be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. To be registered as a health practitioner, an Aboriginal health worker must, at a minimum, have completed a Certificate IV in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Practice, or a Certificate III in Aboriginal Health Work Clinical Studies awarded in the Northern Territory prior to 30 June 2008, or another equivalent qualification. The certificates are nationally recognised qualifications. In the Territory, the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education conducts the Certificate IV. It is a two-year course, where students are trained in basic clinical skills and primary healthcare issues – a two-year course.
An Aboriginal health worker provides clinical treatment, support and information to individuals, families and community members in relation to health and primary healthcare outcomes. The qualification covers workers who provide a range of primary healthcare services to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander clients, including specific healthcare program advice and assistance with medication. They must also have completed the applied first aid qualification to be eligible for registration.
In response to the member for Port Darwin’s concerns - I do not believe you are right. You are downplaying the important role and training Aboriginal health workers have received. We have ensured all proposals brought before the Chamber today have received full support from police, Justice, and all relevant government agencies this bill was circulated to. I understand your caution; it is an area where, whilst we may continue debate during committee stage, we will not reach agreement. Aboriginal health workers are an enhancement to the safety of intoxicated persons and provide significant support to the police. Police are highly skilled and highly trained. Police in remote communities have a very close working relationship with clinics in those communities. To provide a role for Aboriginal health workers assisting intoxicated persons who would be detained for a longer period of time is progressive and recognises, in a practical sense, the relationship that exists on communities at the workable level they exist today.
Madam Speaker, we need to go into committee to deal with Schedule 54, which has been circulated to all members of the Chamber. Prior advice had been given to the opposition and Independents of this proposed amendment, which is simply a loophole picked up by the Women’s Legal Services in regard to premises access orders, particularly for a person who does not want to return to the premises. It gives a range of options as to whether or not the defendant and protected person will live together, or do not want to live together, and who gets access to the premises. It is a very valuable step forward.
Sometimes people’s circumstances can lead to lawmakers understanding we need to evolve, improve and change our legislation. A woman, whom I will not name in this Chamber, took the time to write to the government indicating how difficult it was for her; she did not want to return to the premises she had rented with her former partner, but was still on the lease and therefore financially bound to that rental premises.
Madam Speaker, that was the genesis of the work and consideration we put to the raft of amendments we are dealing with today. I am glad women, despite the travails they go through, sometimes stand up and attempt to ensure things have changed so women, should they be confronted with those circumstances in the future, have a better run of it. I will write to that woman and thank her for taking the time and effort to write to the Attorney-General, and indicate with the passage of this legislation she has made it much better for women who find themselves in that circumstance in the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 128) together with Schedule of Amendments No 54 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 6 read.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 54.1 which is the schedule circulated to members. This amendment invites defeat of the proposed section 23(1) in current clause 6(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow for a new proposed section 23(1) in clause 6(1) to be inserted to ensure the intent of clause 6 is met.
Clause 6 is intended to enable a replacement tenancy agreement to be made for the benefit of the defendant in circumstances where the protected person does not want to remain as a tenant of the premises. Proposed section 23(1), as currently drafted, would have the effect of requiring a protected person, who no longer wished to reside in premises where they are a tenant, to seek a premises access order which either excludes the defendant from the premises or provides conditions in which they may exit the premises in order to then obtain a replacement tenancy agreement for the benefit of the defendant. This is nonsensical and cumbersome.
The proposed amendment to section 23(1) in clause 6(1) addresses this by allowing a protected person, who no longer wishes to reside in premises where they are a tenant, to obtain a replacement tenancy agreement for the benefit of the defendant without needing to first obtain a premises access order. The current draft amendment will also have the effect of excluding a protected person who is not on the lease from obtaining a replacement tenancy agreement in their favour.
The amendment also addresses this by allowing for replacement tenancy agreements to be made where either the defendant or protected person is a tenant, or both are tenants.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not going to say much about this amendment; we will not be opposing it. I need to address several issues.
I want to place on the record whilst I appreciate the Attorney-General thinks it is her function to barb, and barb relentlessly, there was no condescension intended. I have worked with traditional people for many years, both as a police officer and as a member of parliament, and in those two functions have spent well over 10 years in the bush. I spoke from personal experience knowing some of these people fulfil the description given.
My comments were a genuine effort to ensure the minister was comfortable the correct protections were in place. They were not intended, directly or indirectly, to be stereotypical or in some way condescending. I understand the reality of this, and am not the only person to be on the record making these comments. If you look at R v Anunga, Judge Forster’s guidelines in dealing with Aboriginal prisoners are based on similar assumptions and assertions.
I wanted to place that on the record, and I hope the Attorney-General understands my intentions and motives were nothing but the highest.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 54.2. This amendment inserts a new amendment after clause 6(2) into the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to ensure the intent of clause 6 is met.
Clause 6 is intended to enable a replacement tenancy agreement to be made for the benefit of the defendant in circumstances where the protected person does not want to remain as a tenant of the premises. Proposed clause 6(3) amends section 23(3)(a)(iii) by inserting ‘or defendant’ after ‘protected person’. This ensures where a replacement tenancy agreement is being made for the benefit of the defendant, the court must be satisfied the defendant will be able to comply with the replacement tenancy agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
WATER AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 137)
(Serial 137)
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion on urgency, and I must say there was some trepidation in the House last week when the motion on urgency was brought on. You can be sceptical from time to time when legislation is brought on urgency; it does not provide the adequate time to do the research required.
We have debated this quite extensively and I could be going over old ground; however, some new things have come up and I want to put on the record my understanding of what this legislation intends, and to thank the minister and his advisors for the legal support and information we received. I will be raising several concerns regarding the urgency and the reason behind that, and clarify why some people are sceptical of urgency motions.
The Water Amendment Bill (Serial 137) was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 23 November 2010 by the minister for Environment, Hon Karl Hampton. The provisions of this bill were introduced under urgency. The purpose of this bill is to rectify an inadvertent misinterpretation of the act which would invalidate licences issued under section 74 of the act. This misrepresentation came to the attention of the department through advice provided by the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory.
The invalidation of these licences would leave businesses liable to prosecution under the Water Act, particularly for offences against section 16, Prohibition of pollution. The intention of this section is to allow a holder of a licence to intentionally pollute bodies of water by discharging waste, in specified circumstances, subject to specific conditions. Information provided to government and the opposition by the Solicitor-General suggests licences issued under section 74 of the act can only be issued to a person who holds one of the following licences: a water investigation permit under section 37; a construction permit under section 42; a licence to take or use water under section 46; a drilling licence under section 50; a bore construction permit under section 58; a licence to take groundwater under section 61; an underground waste disposal licence under section 64; and a recharge licence under section 68.
The minister has made a declaration relating to the beneficial uses, qualities, standards, criteria or objectives of water or waste under that licence, and the licence holder’s actions under the licence would otherwise prejudice the beneficial uses, etcetera, specified by the declaration. This interpretation by the Solicitor-General would invalidate waste discharge licences granted for the purpose of sewage discharge, etcetera, as none of the above criteria would apply to those companies. This would make a company liable to prosecution under section 16 of the act for allowing water to enter a body of water.
This problem is further compounded as the title of the section cannot be considered as part of the act, as explained to me by the minister and through advice I received. Sections which have not received amendments since 2006 are unable to have their titles considered as part of the legislation. As section 94 has not been amended since 1992, a licence can only be granted to the holders of the above licences in the aforementioned circumstances.
The urgency explained covers many areas we need to fix quickly due to the impending Wet Season. We have a number of mine sites, businesses, and employees who rely on their jobs continuing during the Wet Season. I can give you an example. Jabiru uranium mine, with a large tailings dam, has a storage capacity. I was shown over that mine site and was impressed with the work done to contain water on the site, as is their responsibility to protect the environment. The back-up systems, the piping, and the containment walls on the mine site impressed me. However, every Wet Season we are inundated with huge amounts of water. In that circumstance, a mine site would need to release water from the tailings dam, whether it wants to or not, because water will go over the top. So, they prefer to do it in a controlled manner. To do this they need a licence to exceed their normal licence conditions. This could not occur unless this legislation is corrected.
Second, organisations like Power and Water, until today, had a number of licences which provided for them to discharge contaminated water into our environment. There would not be a person in this House who would not want to stop that immediately; however, this is the system we have, we can fix it up over time, but until that time we need it to operate as it has done for the last 18 years. The reality is, organisations like Power and Water need licences to discharge waste water. The advice from the Solicitor-General is this could render their licences invalid, another reason this needs to be fixed on urgency. I accept that; it makes sense.
I put forward legislation yesterday after the Environment minister indicated to me a weakness in the Inquiries Act. We moved to fix that legislation, and any good government, any good opposition will support legislation found to be not doing what was intended. That legislation needs to be amended to ensure it does what was intended. That is our advice and the opposition supports it.
However, there will be several questions asked today. One question will be is there anything in this bill which affects someone’s interests in respect to licences to extract water? I am aware of an ongoing issue between landholders and government. I expressed in a briefing this morning that five years is far too long to wait for a decision from government. I appreciate government is attempting to protect water, and I am sure we will talk more in the MPI later today, however, the words the member for Nelson uses in relation to protecting our environment are ‘the precautionary principle’. Perhaps we sometimes go a little too far.
That is the question I will be putting to the minister: is there anything in this bill that in any way affects someone’s interest in respect to licences to extract water? This amendment occurs at a time when pressure has been brought on government in a court case - I cannot talk about that - where in the minds of these people pressure is brought to bear on government, an amendment is then put through on urgency and they are worried; they think this amendment will affect their business, their livelihood and perhaps the outcome of the court case.
I believe we are talking about two separate pieces of legislation. Licences to extract water are under section 60 of the Water Act. The amendments to the Water Act before the House today have nothing to do with those licence applications, or any other licence for water extraction in the Northern Territory. The amendments today are solely concerned with licences under which waste has been, is being, and will be, discharged into Territory watercourses.
Also, the validation provisions ensure waste discharge licences previously assumed to be valid, are valid. It is very clear, particularly from clause 5 of the bill which inserts a new section 111 saying the only licences validated by section 111 are those purported to be issued under section 74, which is the section under which waste discharge licences have been issued. In no way do the validation provisions of this bill affect any licence to extract water. That is where we have an issue; some people believe there is ambiguity in the legislation. I believe it is clear: 111(1) mentions section 74(1) and does not mention any other act. It is very clear.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Fong Lim has suggested an amendment to remove any ambiguity from this legislation and I look forward to that debate.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Andrew Tupper, Chair of the EPA. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill to amend the Water Act. We had debate earlier about the reasons for urgency. I am normally cautious about any bill before this parliament which skips the normal processes. From the briefings and arguments I have heard, it is important we make changes to the bill because many people rely on discharging water, such as Power and Water and our mining industry. We need to ensure the laws they operate under are correct and legal. The Solicitor-General indicated that section 74 does not operate in the manner it has been thought to since the act came into force, and during that period successive administrations have implemented section 74 on the understanding it allowed for waste discharge licences to be issued where waste is discharged to a natural water body.
I have been advised the bill seeks to restore the operation of section 74 to allow it to operate in the manner presumed since the act’s passage many years ago, and to validate those existing and past licences.
Unfortunately, in the Northern Territory we have a range of technologies similar to Roman times. We put poo into the harbour. That is what the Romans did. We chlorinate sewage so there is less effect on the environment. Some countries use processes where sewage is not discharged into the environment; it is used as fertiliser, and there are other ways sewage is treated. As long as humans live on this earth sewage will be an issue. Sewage will need to be discharged, and that will have to be licensed in the Northern Territory. We need to consider how to reduce the discharge of any substance, whether mining - we have seen what happened at Mt Todd mine when accidental discharge occurred. We need to be always attempting to do better.
This legislation is very clear. Reading from the advice given, there is no doubt this legislation is dealing with discharge licences. This bill is dealing with discharge licences not extraction licences, and I had two briefings with the minister this morning to ensure there was no misunderstanding.
The member for Fong Lim has brought forward an amendment. I would be careful with this amendment because the member for Fong Lim has been talking to a QC involved in a matter relating to extraction licences. Reading clause 74, it is not needed. Whilst the member for Fong Lim might discuss other issues, reading the clause there is no doubt we are talking about discharge licences. I will read the clause.
Mr Tollner: That is not the …
Mr WOOD: Hang on. You get your chance later. Proposed section 111, the heading is, Validation for Action before Water Amendment Act 2010:
- (1) This section applies to a document (a purported licence) granted before the commencement of this section that purports to be a licence granted under section 74(1) …
Section 74(1) is discharge licences:
- … to the extent the document is not a licence validly granted to carry out an action which would otherwise be an offence against this Act by virtue of section 73.
(2) Each of the following is declared for this Act and any other Act in relation to a purported licence:
- (a) the grant of the purported licence is, and is taken to have always been, a valid exercise of power by the Controller under section 74(1).
- (b) If the period specified in a purported licence:
(i) has not ended - the purported licence is a valid waste discharge licence and is subject to the conditions purportedly applying to it immediately before the commencement; or
- (ii) has ended - the purported licence was a valid licence under section 74 and was subject to the conditions applied to it from time to time.
It is very clear. We also have advice from the Solicitor-General, and anyone reading it would understand this has nothing to do with extractive licences. The second reading shows the intent of this bill. People might say the government is attempting to sneak something in; there is nothing to sneak in because section 74(1) and section 74 come up each time in new section 111. Reading one line you might think that; you must read the whole section. The new section 111 refers to section 74 or section 74(1) which deals with waste discharge.
I do not believe the amendment is necessary. We had two detailed discussions this morning. The member for Brennan was present; he had some questions and concerns. We all had concerns; however, the right people explained this - and I do not believe they had ulterior motives. They say there is an urgent requirement to fix a problem between section 73 and section 74 of the act. Section 74 of the act is being amended to allow those presently invalid discharge licences to become valid.
We can argue over how that happened; who introduced this legislation 17 years ago; however, we have to deal with reality. Anyone reading proposed section 111 as a whole would see no other inference could be put on it. You can see it does not relate to extractive water licences.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the bill without amendment because it does exactly what it is meant to do: fix up the anomalies in waste discharge. If there are issues about extractive water licences which come under different sections of the act, they can be discussed at another time.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to date. I will be moving an amendment to this bill because I have been nervous - I say that quite openly - about the urgency of this bill. It seems a little odd and a little coincidental that several weeks after government receives advice from a very highly-qualified and eminent QC from Sydney in relation to water extraction licences, this comes on urgency. For some reason the Solicitor-General was asked to look into this and found an anomaly which has existed for 17 years, has never given rise to any problems, but we have to act on it now.
I have listened carefully to the debate. I am no legal expert; what people say may well be true. The minister may be up-front, and I am not suggesting the minister is not a decent and honourable man. I have no reason to question the minister’s integrity; however, I become a little wary when I see so much legal advice coming from all quarters, particularly when there has been a raging debate over a long period of time in relation to water allocations in the Northern Territory.
There is a matter of public importance I hope we will get to where I intend to raise the issue of water allocation across the Territory, and how this government has been hampering the development of agricultural industries with irrational green-led decisions. I do not want to raise that during this debate, although the member for Nelson believes I am chasing some platform to do that; it is not the case. I am a little uneasy about the urgency of this bill, and several things lead me to think that. In the minister’s second reading speech he said:
- A practical effect of section 73 is to impose a standard condition on all other licences to be issued under the act, with the effect that nothing in those licences should prejudice a declared beneficial use or a water quality standard. Those other licences in the act are many and varied but include, for example, licences to extract water.
We are talking about discharge - and it is purely for discharge - yet in the minister’s second reading speech he uses the example of licences to extract water. That makes me uneasy and, being aware of community concerns about government actions in relation to extractive water permits, it all sounds a bit dodgy. For that reason, I have spoken to the eminently qualified Queen’s Counsel from New South Wales who has gone through the legislation. He tells me there are some grey areas. He is not overly alarmed; however, he says this legislation can be strengthened and made clear by the introduction of an additional six words which would remove any doubt whatsoever.
I am perturbed that the member for Nelson, having heard these arguments, having being a little confused in some areas, is now so certain he cannot, in conscience, support this amendment. That saddens me because the amendment I propose will not change this act in any way. It will not create confusion; not change the parameters of the act; not inhibit the act or stop government doing what it wants with this legislation.
It will make it clear, beyond doubt, what this is about. If we are told this legislation is about waste water that is what it should be, and people should have no problems agreeing to the insertion of six words. I am not certain when I should move this amendment, whether I do it in the committee stage - if we go to committee stage - or whether I do it now. Maybe I could have an indication as to what people think it most appropriate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice I have received, member for Fong Lim, is the minister, in closing debate, will have the opportunity to indicate to you where it is best to look at this amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: The problem is if the minister indicates the best time to do it is now, I will have already had my turn to speak.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Deputy Speaker, do I respond to the member for Fong Lim and call on it now instead of going to committee stage? Is that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to take …
Mr TOLLNER: My point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe it is the will of this side to take the matter to committee because we are quite supportive …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am seeking further advice from the Deputy Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, it may be best to do it in committee. It is a bit messy otherwise.
Mr TOLLNER: I will leave it …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could pause, member for Fong Lim, I am going to vacate the Chair and allow Madam Speaker to take the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: I will continue my comments. I will move this amendment in the committee stage. I wanted to raise concerns that this bill can leach into - pardon the pun - water extraction as well as disposal of waste water. These six words will put beyond any doubt that the legislation is about waste water and not water extraction. My advice is the areas are a little grey and there could be some disputed point on this in the future.
Madam Speaker, there is no harm in accepting this amendment. If the minister feels the amendment is detrimental to the legislation I would be keen to hear it. I am not playing politics, minister. I am seeking an answer and clarity, and it would be a shame if we could not discuss such a small, harmless amendment in a rational way.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. In wrapping up last week I spoke about understanding the mood of the Assembly when something comes to this House on urgency. It has only happened on a couple of occasions during my four years in parliament, so I understand the concerns the opposition has raised. I, and this side of the House, do not take bringing matters to this House on urgency lightly. There are the normal means of introducing legislation through parliament as part of our Westminster system, and I understand the concerns, particularly those raised by the member for Fong Lim.
When I introduced it last week, members were given a copy of the Solicitor-General’s letter. This is not unusual; however, in this case it was important we circulated that advice. We had two briefings this morning, both with the shadow opposition spokesman on the Environment, the member for Brennan, and the Independents. I thank those three members, who all spoke on this last week, and also received the advice they needed because I understand their concerns with it coming on urgency.
The member for Brennan said he had some questions, and I believe has been well briefed on this. He answered his own question on urgency. In my second reading speech I detailed why it has to be done on urgency and how we came across this legal loophole. I thank those officers in my department, particularly the legal officers, who picked up the loophole.
I will go over the three reasons why this is urgent. In my second reading speech I said discharge licences already issued to industry are now invalid. Those licences afford legal certainty to licensees and operators, and operators can make decisions based on the legal protection afforded by a licence. The validation of licences provided by the bill can quickly resolve the uncertainty created by the recent advice.
Second, waste discharge licences are a key regulatory tool. The setting of conditions enables risk to be managed and environmental impacts to be reduced. If this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months and, as the member for Brennan said in his contribution today, we are on the verge of the Wet Season. He gave examples of operations which would be under some uncertainty, such as the mining industry and the Power and Water Corporation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you mind if I acknowledge these students?
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Epenarra School, accompanied by Mr Matthew Walker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, if this amendment is not passed urgently the discharges will still occur but there will be no capacity to regulate or seek compliance with conditions for a period of approximately three months. If an incident occurs over this period there will be limited legal remedy.
Third, there are currently eight applications for licences under consideration, and new activities requiring a licence often crop up, particularly during the Wet Season.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support of this urgency motion and his questions during the briefing this morning. We have received advice from the Solicitor-General, and I thank the lawyers from my department and also Parliamentary Counsel.
The member for Nelson mentioned other concerns he has. I look forward to the MPI. I have enjoyed and learnt from this debate. We have not talked enough about water and sustainability in this parliament. When we do, it is great. If there is one environmental issue most important to the Northern Territory - whether you are in the desert in Central Australia, the Barkly, or here in saltwater country - it is water. Debates are happening on the east coast around some of the mistakes made along the Murray River and Darling River systems because of a lack of attention to water management. As minister, I do not want the same mistakes. I welcome any debate on water. It is important to the future of the Northern Territory, culturally, socially, economically, and for our environment.
The member for Nelson mentioned the broader concerns of sewage treatment and, particularly, the Larrakeyah outfall. That is a debate for another day; however, this government can stand proud having addressed some of these concerns this year. The member for Daly said the Larrakeyah outfall has been discharging raw sewage into the harbour for about 40 years. That is totally unacceptable. I am proud of this government’s actions to close the Larrakeyah outfall, the work we are doing to extend the Ludmilla outfall and improve how we treat and discharge the waste going through Ludmilla, and the work we are doing in the Leanyer/Sanderson treatment plant - the de-sludging process which happened this Dry - getting world experts from the United Kingdom and New Zealand to help us, guide us, and provide us with the best advice on how we further improve the release of sewage, and treat sewage through the Leanyer/Sanderson treatment plant.
Ultimately, places like Buffalo Creek bear the brunt of it. We see in the health of the harbour report card that the Buffalo Creek site is recording an E. That is not good enough, and I take on board comments from the member for Nelson because it is going to take a long time to improve the report card for Buffalo Creek. I thank my colleagues for paying attention to the needs of Buffalo Creek - we are doing something about it. We will talk about those issues in 2011. Today we have an important and urgent motion.
Turning to the member for Fong Lim’s concerns, I will go to the reasons for his amendment. The members for Brennan, Nelson and Macdonnell, through their briefings, are now clear this amendment has no implications for water extraction licences. It is abundantly clear the bill, which is very specific, indicates validation in respect of licences issued pursuant to section 74(1).
Second, the opposition has throughout this debate indicated its misgivings about bringing this on urgency. It wanted scrutiny; that is understandable. It is part of the Westminster system we operate within. For the member for Fong Lim to bring on this unnecessary amendment at the last moment - an hour before debate - I respect the member for Fong Lim’s contribution and reasons; however, to bring this on within one hour before we discuss this motion is unacceptable. That is another reason why I will not accept or support his amendment.
Third, our legal advice is it is unwise to include this amendment without the scrutiny of Parliamentary Counsel. Also, by specifically mentioning one type of licence, unintended inferences could be made about licences not mentioned in this urgency bill.
Madam Speaker, I have addressed most of the questions from my parliamentary colleagues about this urgency motion, and I understand we are going to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill to read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I move my amendment be accepted. It is to clause 5, proposed section 111(2), after the words ‘purported licence’ we insert: ‘(not being a water extraction licence)’.
I move that amendment because advice I have received suggests there is a grey area in this legislation. We have no issue with this legislation as it applies to waste water; however, there is a concern it can feed over into the area of water extraction licences. One way to remedy that ambiguity is to insert those six small words mentioned. If the Chamber agrees to that, I will be happy, as will many other people.
Present in the gallery is Tina MacFarlane from Mataranka, who has concerns about this which she has raised with members. It is great to see you here, Tina. This committee stuff is probably the most exciting thing parliament is involved with from time to time.
I encourage members to support this amendment to the amendment, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to respond?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, I will. I acknowledge Tina as well, a constituent of mine.
Madam Chair, licences to extract water are covered by section 60 of the Water Act. Issues regarding applications in Mataranka are made pursuant to that provision. They are currently under review pursuant to the provisions under the Water Act, and specifically relate to the refusal to grant a licence for the quantity of water applied for. Amendments to the Water Act before parliament have nothing to do with those licence applications, or with any other licence for water extraction issued in Mataranka or anywhere else in the Northern Territory.
As I said in my closing debate, there are three reasons I will not be accepting the amendment. It is abundantly clear this amendment has no implication for water extraction licences; I have just pointed out which part of the act does. Second, the opposition has indicated throughout this debate its misgivings about bringing it on urgency, as it wanted scrutiny; however, bringing this amendment on an hour before we debate it is unacceptable. Legal advice suggests it is unwise to bring this amendment without the scrutiny of Parliamentary Counsel and to mention one type of licence unintended inferences could be made about licences which are not mentioned.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, my first question in the original debate was: is there anything in this bill which affects someone’s interest in respect of a licence to extract water? I did not hear the answer; you have given it now so it is on the public record. If public opinion is that there is ambiguity, in any future court case – which could be a year down the track – not only is legislation looked at, the speech of a minister is often looked at in reaching a determination on the intent of the legislation. Hearing the minister say those words provides some comfort it will not affect extract licences.
This does not fit with the amendment but I would like to ask the minister if this exercise is the start of a wider review of licence conditions?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Brennan, the amendments on urgency today are solely concerned with licences under which waste has been, is being, and will be discharged into Territory watercourses. The validation provisions ensure the waste discharge licences which were previously assumed to be valid are valid. This is made very clear by clause 5 of the bill which inserts a new section 111.
The only licences validated by new section 111 are the ones purported to be issued under section 74, which is the section under which waste discharge licences have been issued. In no way do the validation provisions of the bill affect any licence to extract water.
Regarding your other point, member for Brennan, as I said last week we came across - and I thank my lawyers - this loophole as part of the overall review of the licensing regime in the Northern Territory. This government is keen to see the licence regime modernised to the 21st century. We made announcements earlier this year, and after the incidents in the port we are reviewing the licensing regime which currently operates. We are reforming the Environmental Assessment Act, which has not been reformed for nearly three decades. We are putting more resources into compliance officers and conducting an audit of ports across the Northern Territory. We have had challenges this year and have responded appropriately. We have introduced legislation doubling penalties for polluters and are putting in extra resources.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, minister. I might be drawing a very long bow now: if the department, under your leadership, is looking at reviewing licence conditions - we all agree there are anomalies and the licence conditions need to be strengthened and we need to protect our environment - can you see problems if we validate licences from today going back to 1992? If you tighten the conditions you may open up a legal challenge to say today, 2 December 2010, my licence was fine; I am doing the right thing, you said so because you validated my licence. We make changes and you may open yourself up to a legal challenge; it was good enough today but not good enough tomorrow.
Ms Scrymgour: You are drawing a long bow!
Mr CHANDLER: Just a question.
Mr HAMPTON: No, I do not, member for Brennan. It is about modernising the licensing regime.
Ms PURICK: There are some clarification points regarding this amendment and what the minister said in his second reading speech. Minister, you commented there were currently 20 discharge licences in place and eight in negotiation. Are those 20 discharge licences for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: They are for a variety of sites, member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK: How many of the 20 are mine sites?
Madam CHAIR: Minister, do you wish to relocate closer to your advisors?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, in case I need some advice.
Sorry, member for Goyder, are they current waste discharge licence holders?
Ms PURICK: Yes, your speech said currently 20 waste discharge licences are in place. How many of those 20 are for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Six.
Mr PURICK: Thank you, minister. With regard to the eight applications for waste discharge licences, how many are for mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Four.
Ms PURICK: Minister, with regard to the six mine site discharge licences, did you advise the mines the licences they had were invalid and you were fixing the problem?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, we received the Solicitor-General’s advice on 28 October and the department wrote to those licence holders after that advice was received.
Ms PURICK: You wrote to the mine sites?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. Given they have been operating with an illegal discharge licence, did you seek legal opinion that, through the invalidation, you may have left companies exposed to legal action. Did you seek legal opinion in regard to how they had been exposed because you were not doing your job properly?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, this legal loophole has been around since 1992; it crosses the CLP government as well. In relation to your question, options for resolution were analysed over the weeks after receiving the Solicitor-General’s advice on 28 October, in consultation with legal counsel, and options of legislative amendments identified as a preferred option a week or two ago before I took it to Cabinet. That was the process.
Ms PURICK: Minister, of the four applications for discharge of water from a mine site, given the legislation may take some time to be assented to, what advice are you giving mines if they need to discharge between now and the time this is enacted?
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, could you restate your question?
Ms PURICK: Minister, there are four applications pending for water discharge licences from mining companies. There will be a time lapse for this to be legally binding on companies, and a company may need a discharge licence in two weeks. If the act is not legal, what is going to happen to the company if it cannot discharge because it does not have a licence? What advice are you giving companies? Where does that leave them if they need to discharge?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Goyder, my advice is it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. In the event of that happening, it is highly unlikely a prosecution would occur. The important thing is this is exactly why we have brought it on urgency. We want to provide certainty to the mining industry, particularly the case you are referring to, and we want to protect the environment. That is why it has come on urgency; to provide certainty. It is taken on a case-by-case basis, but it is highly unlikely a prosecution would occur.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr CHANDLER: Minister, can you explain the legal advice regarding the retrospective aspect of this legislation? Does this act being passed today provide an iron-clad guarantee no action could be brought upon a mining company, or Power and Water which, for years, has been discharging water with an invalid licence? I understand the advice is only recent; however, it has pinpointed that for 18 years this has been happening. Does the retrospective aspect provide an iron-clad guarantee?
Mr HAMPTON: Member for Brennan, regarding the work by Parliamentary Counsel, the advice is in writing up this bill the main intent, and the reason we have it on urgency, is so those licences are valid and do what they have done since 1992 - to validate those discharge licences. That is the advice from Parliamentary Counsel and legal people in my department.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination – Interstate Study Travel Report - Member for Greatorex
Remuneration Tribunal Determination – Interstate Study Travel Report - Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the member for Greatorex’s Interstate Study Travel Report, pursuant to paragraph 3.5 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
MOTION
Note Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2010
Note Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2010
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the Chief Minister in this debate. As members would be aware, yesterday the Assembly agreed to a motion to disallow those provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination relating to Assembly members additional salary of office, and to put in place legislation so future salary of office increases are linked to the Northern Territory Public Sector wage increases. There are a range of other entitlements contained in the Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination which remain in place and will come into effect on 1 January 2011. I will briefly mention the key features of the tribunal’s determination.
First, electorate allowances have been increased by 3.1%, based on the Consumer Price Index movements from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010. A member’s electorate allowance is calculated by the Remuneration Tribunal to reflect the cost of goods and services required for a member to effectively represent their constituents, and also represent the parliament to their constituents. For this reason, an increase in electorate allowance consistent with the CPI is seen as reasonable to maintain those important services.
Regarding motor vehicle entitlements, the tribunal notes members are entitled to be provided with vehicles available through NT Fleet to NT Public Sector Executive Contract Level 4/5. Some members are provided with four-wheel drive vehicles if the roads and tracks in their electorates are unsuitable for vehicles on the Level 4/5 list. The tribunal indicates it has received requests from other members for four-wheel drive vehicles. However, the tribunal considers the current provisions are adequate for members’ needs, particularly as members who may require a four-wheel drive on an occasional basis are permitted to hire one with the approval of the Clerk of the Assembly. Nevertheless, the tribunal has indicated it will review four-wheel drive vehicle provisions based on members’ requirements at its next annual review.
Still on the topic of motor vehicles, the tribunal has included a provision in its determination that members can be provided with a vehicle above the 4/5 list provided they pay the additional cost of such vehicle to the government. This seems to be a very fair and flexible provision introduced by the tribunal.
In relation to telephones, the tribunal has increased the cap on the value of mobile phones and on data mode usage based on CPI increases.
Travel allowance rates in the tribunal’s determination have generally increased as considered reasonable by the Australian Taxation Office and the tribunal has proposed the accompanying person rate be increased based on CPI.
The tribunal has this year included a provision in its determination to enable members to salary package if they so desire. This new feature means members are able to utilise salary packaging in the same way other members of the community do. It is good to see the tribunal updating the RTD in this way.
The tribunal has also adjusted the laptop computer entitlement this year so members are now entitled to a midrange laptop computer rather than the business or standard type, which will assist members in effectively carrying out their role. I have heard some members in debate alluding to the need for an upgrade and I hope this satisfies their needs.
Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity to thank the tribunal for the work it has done in relation to its determination of MLA entitlements. I commend the report and determination to the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation – Third Progress Report
Note Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation – Third Progress Report
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the Council of Territory Cooperation’s third progress report provides details of the council’s activities from April to September this year. In those six months the council conducted 11 hearings, most being open to the public. The council conducted hearings in Santa Teresa, Alice Springs, Hermannsburg and Darwin. Site visits of SIHIP construction were conducted in Santa Teresa, and the Larapinta and Trucking Yard town camps in Alice Springs. During this period the council spoke to roughly 100 witnesses.
The CTC has an important role in examining government policies in an open and transparent way, and public meetings are an essential part of that. Equally, the CTC is receiving feedback that formal meetings are not always the best way to hear people’s concerns. In addition to the more formal meetings, as the CTC Chair I visited Daly River, or Nauiyu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa and Wadeye to meet traditional owners, inspect SIHIP construction, and talk to Victoria Daly council representatives.
The feedback from the Nauiyu communities I visited was a less formal way of being able to talk about the impact of government policies and was appreciated. There is a need to look at different ways community views can be heard, and I will be inspecting progress on the implementation of SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future.
In a similar way, earlier in November three CTC members visited Maningrida to inspect SIHIP work under way and talk to traditional owners, other community leaders and shire representatives. No formal meetings were held but notes were taken of the key matters discussed which can be included in later CTC deliberations and reports. This third progress report and its recommendations are based on the CTC’s deliberations and the priorities of the then six CTC members. Little of the original content has changed since the withdrawal of the two Country Liberal members. The report is therefore another example of collaborative work of the CTC in scrutinising and monitoring the government’s delivery of SIHIP, local government and A Working Future, in particular.
I turn now to talk about the 15 recommendations made in the report. Nine of the recommendations address ongoing concerns the CTC has with SIHIP’s delivery, houses being handed over to Territory Housing, and the management of public housing in remote communities.
Whilst in Wadeye in August, I revisited a new SIHIP-built house the CTC inspected in February this year. This was a brand new house which we had been assured was steel picket proof and built to last 40 years. The house may have been steel picket proof, but was not able to withstand a kangaroo-jack handle. The CTC is aware there are two designs being used in Wadeye, one a steel frame and one concrete. The damaged house was the steel frame house and will need extensive repairs to the interior walls. The CTC has recommended SIHIP construct houses to have the longest possible useful life and require minimal maintenance.
The CTC has previously recommended SIHIP refurbishments be delivered to the originally promised standards. In response to this, the government said SIHIP refurbishments will be supplemented through its repairs and maintenance program in a programmed way. The CTC has made a recommendation to help understand how the supplementary refurbishment work will occur and is seeking the full details of repairs and maintenance funding provided to shires. However, the real issue of what constitutes a SIHIP refurbishment remains. Evidence from a range of witnesses shows there is a growing reliance on Housing repairs and maintenance funding. Government acknowledges, in its response to a CTC recommendation and in public hearings, that there is insufficient funding to undertake all the refurbishment work which needs to be done.
The CTC believes the high administrative costs associated with alliances means refurbishments cannot be delivered to the full value, with too much of the average $75 000 being taken up with alliance administrative costs. The CTC is recommending the Australian and Northern Territory governments urgently consider transferring SIHIP refurbishment funding from alliances to shires or other local organisations to undertake refurbishments. These smaller organisations have lower administrative costs and seem to be able to undertake more work for less cost. On my trip to Daly River, Peppimenarti and Palumpa, I wondered why local shires could not do that work instead of the alliances.
The CTC has previously raised concerns about funding responsibility and the scope of SIHIP infrastructure work. The government agreed to a recommendation to publish this scope of works for infrastructure with the qualification of having to wait for the scope of works for each community to be finalised. From the information of SIHIP spreadsheets provided to the CTC, infrastructure work is under way in at least one location; therefore, the CTC is seeking that scope of works be published as agreed.
I am still at a loss as to why the infrastructure program in Tennant Creek was not removed from the SIHIP program as was other infrastructure throughout the Territory so that money being used for infrastructure could be used for housing. When the review of SIHIP occurred it was decided to take infrastructure from a different pool of money. However, I understand in Tennant Creek the infrastructure comes out of the regional pool of money. This does not make sense because it means fewer new houses can be built, and we had heard in our meeting in Tennant Creek earlier this year that overcrowding is a major issue in areas where SIHIP is refurbishing houses. As Chair, that is an area I would like to follow-up to see whether that money could be taken out of the bucket all the other communities are taking their infrastructure money from, and use it for the construction of new houses in Tennant Creek.
The CTC heard from some shires that there is an adequate service infrastructure in the new SIHIP subdivisions. The CTC also heard shires have no input to the planning of subdivisions in the shires, yet will be expected to provide the usual local government services to the new housing areas. The CTC has been told SIHIP planning requirements are as if the subdivision was being delivered in Darwin. The CTC is, therefore, recommending better consultation occur with shires on how subdivisions are planned, and wants to know what the planning processes for SIHIP subdivisions are.
I raised this issue at the local government meeting in Alice Springs last week, and asked the councils if they agreed they were not consulted adequately about the planning of subdivisions in their communities. They said, straight out, no! The concern is planning is not necessarily a responsibility of councils but councils will have to maintain roads in the subdivisions. They, at least, should have a say in the standard and design of those roads because when the subdivision is finished government will hand over that responsibility to the local council. They have a concern about that, which is raised in one of our recommendations.
In recent public hearings in Darwin, the CTC has been briefed on Remote Housing NT, the government’s approach to managing public housing in the Territory’s remote communities. This is an emerging issue for the CTC. As SIHIP houses are completed, they are transferred to Territory Housing, which then manages them as public housing.
The CTC heard evidence on the asset and tenancy management systems, and the recruitment of community housing officers to work with tenants on their rights and responsibilities as public housing tenants. This is clearly a pivotal part of establishing viable public housing in remote communities: the houses are maintained, rent is paid, and rental income is reinvested in further improving houses in communities.
During my trip to Wadeye, I was very disappointed to see the damage done to a new house. I was told the damage – this has been substantiated by witnesses to the CTC - was a case of wilful damage. In cases of wilful damage to public housing, the CTC believes the incident needs to be reported to the police. It needs to be part of the tenancy and asset management process, so the head tenants are not put in the impossible situation of having to make statements against family members. The reporting of wilful damage to public housing needs to become standard practice for all public housing in the Territory. This is going to be a major issue for NT Housing. There are two sides to the debate about improving housing conditions in remote communities; one is the physical building of those houses, and the other, which is going to be as big a challenge, is the maintaining of those houses in good condition. That is going to be no easy task.
While the CTC believes it is important to raise these issues, it is also important to acknowledge most people are very proud of their new houses. People are pleased their families are living in better homes and understand the importance of looking after the houses. The CTC has been critical, a number of members of parliament have been critical, of SIHIP. We will continue to monitor what is happening with SIHIP. If we step to one side of that, many people are happy to see new houses being built in their communities. We need to focus on whether this program is doing what it said it would - that is our job.
Many people are grateful for the new houses being built. At times there is much negative publicity - some fair. However, we should balance that with reality. Even if it is slower than we hoped, people are moving into very good houses. Some houses are 6-star efficiency - better than many houses in Darwin.
The CTC is concerned about the difficulty of finding out the cost of the SIHIP work which is part of evaluating the program’s progress. Despite repeated requests and an undertaking by the government to provide details of financial reports, the CTC has only received very basic financial information. It is the CTC’s view that the reports received to date are not the detailed financial reports the government undertook to provide. The Northern Territory Auditor-General has also commented on the lack of appropriate SIHIP performance in monitoring reports. The CTC is recommending that the government honour its commitment to provide detailed financial reports on SIHIP each quarter.
This is a difficult area because we are dealing with the alliance system. It is hard for the CTC to find out whether the projected cost of houses, refurbishments and rebuilds is correct if we cannot get figures. If you have to wait until the end of two, three, four, five years, how do we know there has not been a cost blowout? One of our concerns is government promised it would build houses at a certain cost. If no one can tell us that, how do we know things are happening as they should and the program has not gone off the rails?
The CTC understands the underlying purpose of SIHIP is to improve living conditions in Indigenous communities, and for that reason has previously recommended refurbishments be done to a standard which allows for healthy living. While the government agreed to this recommendation, the CTC has not seen any evidence it is occurring. It is also unclear how people will know if the objective of healthy homes is achieved. Meeting the SIHIP targets of building new houses and upgrading existing houses is only part of the answer. The CTC has therefore recommended the government provide details of how the outcome of delivering healthy homes will be monitored and evaluated - we saw this in Santa Teresa. I saw it recently on our trip to Maningrida and also at Palumpa - houses are only being refurbished to a certain level.
There is the issue of money, and it is perhaps possible we take the refurbishments from the alliance partners and give them to more local businesses. It is difficult for me to accept you can hand over a partly fixed house - even if it was given a coat of paint. The house on the front of the NT News at Maningrida was done with the approval of the CTC committee. They were my photographs of graffiti and it was to say you are going to hand over a house with a new kitchen, a new bathroom, but are leaving it in this state. As one writer said, people should have to clean the graffiti. I agree, but in this case we were starting again. We were giving people a refurbished house and you would think that might mean a coat of paint so the house looked reasonable.
The verandahs on those houses were also pitted. We had this problem on Nguiu where the quality of the sand means the floor can be chipped - you have a rough floor instead of a smooth floor - and dirt will get in the cracks and crevices, which does not auger well for healthy living. At Santa Teresa, the verandahs were still red soil. You went from the toilet and shower, through the verandah into the main part of the house, which does not help when you talk about healthy living. That is a concern for the CTC.
I turn now to the CTC findings on issues around local government. One thing concerning CTC members is many people in communities tell us the shire amalgamation has led to a loss of community control and a growing sense that governments are not listening to Indigenous people. There is a growing weariness of community members having to attend endless meetings; I heard that at the Local Government Association meeting. The CTC heard the MacDonnell Shire was negotiating a memorandum of understanding with government to resolve its concerns about the lack of coordination. This seems a good approach and the CTC has recommended government develops agreements with all shires to improve coordination.
The CTC heard from a number of people and organisations about the low level of local employment since local government reform. This is made worse by the use of outside contractors for SIHIP and other large projects. The change to CDEP is also contributing to the level of local employment by the shires. The CTC has anecdotal information on the loss of jobs in local government since reform. It believes it is important to receive data on the current job situation in the shires, and figures prior to local government reforms.
The CTC notes the government’s action to ensure CDEP transition funding was continued to the end of this year. The CTC is concerned no further information has been provided to resolve the longer term funding issues associated with the changes to CDEP. The CTC believes something needs to happen immediately to stop the loss of CDEP which will have a disastrous effect on Indigenous communities. The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government works with the Australian government to enable CDEP to continue. This issue was discussed at the Local Government Association meeting. Bob Beadman also discussed the issue, saying CDEP is not perfect but agrees we need to go forward rather than backward, which is what appears to be happening with the changes to CDEP.
The CTC has spoken to most shires and they consistently say their financial sustainability is the most significant concern. The lack of an appropriate level of funding for roads is perhaps the biggest financial concern for shires, and they are refusing to accept any transfer of additional roads without sufficient funding.
The CTC has previously made recommendations about the funding of local government services, and the government has said it is optimistic about getting additional funding. The CTC has recommended the government provide information on the additional funding it has identified. Again, another issue for local governments is many of the promises made during the reform process have not come to fruition.
I want to speak briefly about issues associated with township leasing as part of the CTC’s finding on the implementation of A Working Future. The CTC has made two recommendations to address the ongoing stalemate on township leasing, with no mainland community signing leases. The CTC agrees with the Northern Territory Coordinator-General: the Territory needs its own statutory leaseholding entity which can drive the township leasing process and negotiate acceptable agreements with traditional owners. The lack of township leases in all but the Tiwi Islands and Groote Eylandt means few of the A Working Future priorities can be met and no government infrastructure can be developed until leases are negotiated.
The CTC heard the first township lease over Nguiu was agreed to because traditional owners want to encourage business development in the town. However, the lease terms negotiated by the Office of Township Leasing have been found by the Commonwealth Bank as holding back business development. The CTC also heard permits are still needed in Nguiu. This does not sound much like a normal town, which is what A Working Future is all about.
The CTC has recommended this township lease not be used as a template for other leases. Township lease terms cannot include the need for permits if the towns are going to be like any other. The issue of leases is an important matter if the growth towns, and other smaller centres which are receiving funding through the SIHIP program, are to continue. One of the concerns raised by the Coordinator-General is many of our five-year intervention leases, on which most of the communities are having work done, will expire in less than two years. If the Territory government does not negotiate, or the Commonwealth does not do something, what is going to happen to the infrastructure when the leases run out? We are running out of time. If you look at the matrix used by the CTC which shows all the work done across the Territory, much of the work is about refurbishing houses, and those houses are all on five-year intervention leases. Those leases are running out. What will happen to those houses if the leases run out? Who will be responsible?
I thank all members of the CTC, including the members for Port Darwin and Katherine, whose participation makes up part of this report. I also thank the members for Arafura, Nhulunbuy and Macdonnell. I could thank the member for Fong Lim, who was on the CTC for a very short time; he was able to attend one meeting in that time.
I thank our committee secretaries, Ms Pat Hancock, secretary until 1 April; Helen Campbell, our present committee secretary; our principal research officer, Ms Jan Whitehead; research officer, Mr Simon Flavel; administrative assistants, Ms Karen Turner up to 31 August this year, Ms Alison Stirrup and Ms Kim Cowcher. They do a tremendous amount of work. I would not be standing here today reading this report without the amount of work they do. They put together our third progress report and I am very appreciative of the hard work they do.
I also place on the record my appreciation of the work Michelle does for me - I would be lost without her. Also Kim, my electorate officer, who wonders whether 2011 could be a year without stress. I do not know whether that is going to happen.
I genuinely hope the Country Liberals will reconsider their departure from the Council of Territory Cooperation. I understand why members left. It is important to understand the reason they left; they felt there should be an ability to question ministers and I can see the point; however, I reiterate the original concept of the CTC was to move it away from political rancour, which sometimes comes with questioning ministers, and go straight to departmental heads or people with direct involvement in government policies. That is what we have been trying to do.
There may be opportunities for ministers to come to CTC meetings. As Chair I have written to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister has not said no; there may be hope. It is a great opportunity for members of the opposition to question departmental heads in a way they would never be able to in a normal Westminster system. I have been in parliament for nearly 10 years and this is the first time I have seen members of the opposition directly question members of Local Government, Power and Water, members of the Police, the Department of Justice and other departmental heads, even Commonwealth departmental employees.
In the argy-bargy of politics the CTC is seen as an agreement between the Chief Minister and me. Well, I say, so what? Should it be condemned because it came out of an agreement? The CTC should be looked on as something unique, something that opens up government; an opportunity for transparency. We have meetings the press and public can attend. We are not stuck with the Estimates Committee; we can question government departments throughout the year.
It gives a unique opportunity to all members of parliament to question the government, and gives us, and the government, the opportunity to understand, in the public arena, what the government is doing, which is important. I have good people on the committee, even though it is down to three. We have the ability to second experts in certain areas to be advisors to the committee.
In the near future we will be questioning people involved in monitoring the child protection report - a good area for CTC to work in. It is a very important area; one which caused much debate in parliament, as it should. The CTC can see if government bodies are being developed to ensure the whole report on child protection is responded to.
Yes, there will be negatives. People can ask what effect we have had on government. Like any other committee, we cannot force government to take up our recommendations. We hope it will. It has agreed to on some occasions, sometimes it has noted them, sometimes it has disagreed.
I remember the case of the fence across the Cobourg Peninsula. The recommendation of the Environment committee was an opportunity lost. As the Treasurer well knows, they did not like that idea. Look at the employment it would have created - one fence, maybe no cane toads. However, we did not go that far. Regardless of the recommendation, the government does not have to accept recommendations of its committees. I hope it does in this case because we make recommendations because we believe the changes will be for the betterment of government policies and the people we are working for, especially SIHIP.
I hope people will take time to read the recommendations. I hope the government will come back with positive announcements regarding the recommendations. I hope we can discover the costs of building houses under SIHIP because, until we do, it will come under scrutiny. The CTC will continue to monitor SIHIP because that is its role.
Madam Speaker, I hope when this comes back for further debate we might have received a response from government to our report and recommendations.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Nelson for his hard work and commitment to the committee.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement - A Working Future for Indigenous Families in Remote Areas
Note Statement - A Working Future for Indigenous Families in Remote Areas
Continued from 1 December 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Lands and Planning, in continuation. I believe you have 13 minutes.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I was discussing the history book of the Country Liberals and saying how our policies are vastly different. In the early 1980s I was very much questioning the shallow policies of the government which were not focused on the whole of the Territory, or the bush. Overnight I have reflected on the late Bob McCarthy, my father, who travelled extensively in the Territory and enjoyed his times out bush. At a camp one night I was on my soapbox lecturing him about the failings of the government - not recognising the bush, not understanding the total picture of the Territory and the opportunities to be had. His advice was: ‘Well, you better do something about it’. It is a proud moment for me to stand in this House and be part of this government with a policy never seen in the Territory before, the A Working Future policy. It is an honour and privilege to stand with my parliamentary colleagues and be part of real history with the A Working Future policy.
In contrast to the Country Liberals, this Labor government understands if the Territory as a whole is to truly take advantage of the opportunities on offer, we must invest in the whole of the Territory. This year, the Territory government is delivering a record $1.8bn infrastructure program to do that. As Minister for Construction, I am proud to say this program includes significant strategic investment to support the development of remote communities and growth towns, and the lives of the Territorians who live there. Budget 2010-11 delivers $980m to infrastructure to support the A Working Future, and the Department of Construction and Infrastructure is working with agencies to deliver projects in the areas of health, education, police, sport and recreation, and housing.
I take this opportunity to commend the staff of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for their part in delivering this record infrastructure program, including new police stations, government employee housing, cyclone shelter upgrades, new children and family centres, upgrades to hospital facilities and health clinics, new school facilities and learning centres.
I shall focus my attention on the Transport portfolio. Transport and infrastructure networks enable communities, particularly those in remote areas, to access what we take for granted in the larger centres. Effective transport and infrastructure networks allow access to health and education services, and opens the doors for employment. They provide opportunities for business growth and access to goods and services. Transport and infrastructure networks facilitate social inclusion, giving individuals and communities access to and connection with other communities. In short, transport and infrastructure networks are an integral part of developing our growth towns into real towns.
As someone who spends a huge amount of time travelling around the Territory, and has lived in remote areas for decades, I fully understand the importance of the Territory’s transport networks to keep people connected. Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $331m roads program; $46m is committed to upgrading roads associated with our Territory growth towns. These projects, including the community, beef and mining roads, are across the Territory: $40m for the Central Arnhem road; $20m for the Umbakumba road; $2m for upgrades to the Sandover Highway; completion of the $6.6m upgrade for the Buntine Highway; $10m for the Moyle floodplain and Tom Turner Crossing at Wadeye.
For some communities, transport links with the rest of the Territory are not primarily by road. Many communities rely on barge transport for the delivery of goods and services, particularly in the Wet Season. Government has committed $6.2m over three years to upgrade facilities at barge landings in five of the Territory’s growth towns: Nguiu, Gapuwiyak, Ramingining, Galiwinku and Maningrida. These upgrades will improve handling facilities at the landings, including better storage of goods so freight can be uploaded at any time of the day or night, and be better protected during the Wet Season.
Across the electorate of Barkly and other remote parts of the Territory, the local airstrip is often a vital link in the chain for the delivery of health services, fresh produce, mail and other goods. The government has committed $7.5m in Budget 2010-11, building on our program of airstrip upgrades. This year, $2.5m has been allocated for upgrades to the Araluen airstrip; $2.5m for Canteen Creek; and $2.5m to upgrade the Utopia airstrip. These works follow upgrades to airstrips in Palumpa, Pigeon Hole, Lajamanu and Minjilang. The government is also offering practical assistance to shire councils to manage airstrips, with $4.5m committed over five years to support the management of airstrips, including Gapuwiyak, Milingimbi and Maningrida.
Public transport is an important service provided in towns, giving options to people who may not be able to afford or have access to private vehicles. Government has committed $3.1m to support passenger bus service trials in the Top End and the Centre over two years. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join with the member for Nhulunbuy in announcing the commencement of the first public bus service to operate in North East Arnhem land. The public bus service trial is also generating employment and training opportunities, and the Yirrkala Business Enterprise is operating this service four times a day, five days a week. I am pleased to note the service costs $5 a trip, vastly more affordable than a taxi which, until recently, was the only option community members had.
The Integrated Regional Transport Strategy is this Labor government understanding one size does not fit all in meeting the needs of the Territory. We understand we must plan for the future transport needs of the growth towns in remote communities in consultation and partnership with the people of these communities. We understand the issues of transport links and networks, whether by air, road, sea, or even rail, cannot be considered in isolation and each community presents its own challenges.
This government is planning for future growth with A Working Future for Territorians in remote areas with a strategic approach to delivering transport services in the bush. We are committed to working in partnership with communities to assess their needs, gaps in services, opinions and priorities for moving forward. We are asking people what they need from transport networks, bringing in freight and services, linking surrounding communities and linking within the community. We are asking people about bus links. We are assessing priorities for further upgrades to remote airstrips. We are assessing barge landings and identifying where future works may be needed. A substantial amount of work has already been done on the project and I look forward to the release of the final strategy in coming months.
The Territory government is responsible for about 22 000 km of more than 36 000 km of roads in the Northern Territory, and about 24% of that Territory road network is sealed. These figures represent significant challenges in transport access and development of the network and, as part of the A Working Future strategy, a baseline survey has been carried out of primary and secondary roads, aerodromes and barge landings. The survey has determined that the cost of sealing access roads, airstrips, barge landings, secondary roads and access roads to the highway within a 50 km radius of the growth towns would be $1.7bn.
This is a financial burden the Territory cannot carry alone, which is why we are continuing to lobby the federal government for funding support to upgrade our transport networks. I acknowledge the support of the Australian government and the increase in funding we have received with a federal Labor government in office. Today the funding has more than doubled to $425m over five years - an investment in the Territory delivered as a result of Labor governments working together.
An important component of building A Working Future, of creating strong towns with the same services and amenities of similar-sized towns around Australia, is the delivery of government services. Unlike many of the similar-sized towns around the country, our 20 growth towns are extremely remote from Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs. As Territorians understand, the delivery of government services into such remote locations presents challenges, including access to housing for government employees moving to live in the community. As the government continues to invest in more teachers, more police, better schools and health facilities in the bush, it is backing that up with an investment in government employee housing. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure currently has 81 dwellings under construction for the government employee housing program in 2010-11. There is an incredible amount of work going on and an incredible amount of work to be done.
Music, art displays, museums, cultural performances and theatre are all integral parts of the community’s lifeblood. The arts represent who we are as a community. They bring us together to share our heritage, culture and passions and, importantly, are a source of jobs and economic opportunity. The Territory is home to some amazing artists across all disciplines. There are about 5000 practising Indigenous artists in the Northern Territory - 5000 jobs which represent opportunities for A Working Future, opportunities for our remote communities.
This government recognises the social and economic benefits and potential of the arts and we have boosted funding by almost $2m since 2004. On a per capita basis we invest $45.31 per person for the arts, more than $12 above the national average. The targeted funding increases delivered since 2008, $250 000 to boost the Indigenous program include: $150 000 for Indigenous music touring circuit; $200 000 for remote, regional and community festivals; and $100 000 for arts projects. There is also a very intrinsic element to investment in the arts - the wellbeing of every Territorian.
It is sad there is a large prison population and we have to work on that; there has been much debate in this House around that. As part of our effort to build A Working Future for Indigenous Territorians, we are acting to reduce the imprisonment and reoffending rate. The government’s new era in Corrections is focused firmly on that goal with a stronger emphasis on education, rehabilitation and training to turn people’s lives around. A good example of that …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members for the extension of time.
I was talking about a new element in the era in Corrections, the $4.6m contract awarded for the construction of the Barkly work camp. The camp will deliver education, job and training programs with links to real jobs in an attempt to break the cycle of reoffending. Recruitment will start next year for additional community probation and parole officers to be stationed across the Territory’s regions, and we are developing partnerships with shire councils, registered training organisations and non-government organisations in remote communities to establish training and job links for offenders. We will invest in 45 additional alcohol and rehabilitation treatment beds in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to help offenders get off the grog, into treatment and back on track. Government does not want to see the same people back in gaol within two years, which is why we are investing in a new era in Corrections to break the cycle of offending and build A Working Future.
Before closing, I will touch on one of the more significant infrastructure projects completed in the last few weeks in the Barkly electorate. Earlier, I discussed the importance of transport and infrastructure networks in developing our growth towns and building A Working Future by connecting these communities to the rest of the Territory.
Anyone who has been to Borroloola in the Wet Season will know the power of the McArthur River - it can swell from a 20 m channel to a raging torrent. In the past, the community has been forced to rely on barges to cross the river in the Wet Season. This Wet Season will be different thanks to the completion of a $7m, 220 m bridge across the McArthur. This bridge exemplifies the importance of transport and infrastructure networks in delivering A Working Future. It will provide safer access for residents and visitors, and keep the community open for goods and services throughout the Wet. Residents of Borroloola will be able to attend school, go to work, attend training, attend the clinic, and it will provide safety for the community; what an incredible piece of infrastructure it is. It was wonderful to visit the construction site and witness the young locals working on it, and some are my ex-students. It is a major piece of infrastructure providing real experience, real training, and the opportunity to take that knowledge to the next construction project under this Labor government.
I am pleased to note Indigenous trainee hours for the contract in Borroloola, initially set at 96 hours, came in at more than 1340 hours. They are valuable hours and what A Working Future is all about. For these trainees and the community, the bridge is a real boost to future job and training opportunities. It will be a lasting testament to the hard work of the trainees and their emerging roles as community leaders. I am looking forward to the official opening in coming weeks, as are my parliamentary colleagues from the Henderson government.
This Labor government has a real commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. We are determined that Indigenous Territorians in our remote areas take advantage of and benefit from the many opportunities on offer in the Territory. We have begun the journey; there is much to do. The A Working Future policy provides the framework for delivering on our strong commitment to a better future for Indigenous Territorians.
I have come from Stranger’s Lounge and the kids from Epenarra School. We had the obligatory gaze over beautiful Darwin Harbour and discussed opportunities for everyone. Here is the remarkable difference in political policy. Members of this House should celebrate and learn from it - some celebrating more; others need to engage in the learning side. This policy represents the whole of the Territory. It represents equity and opportunity for everyone and, with opportunity, comes prosperity. With prosperity, people can start to experience better lifestyles, better choices, better health outcomes and better education outcomes. That is what A Working Future is all about. We are taking it to the bush and the growth towns. The kids who visited the fourth and fifth floor are at the heart of the A Working Future policy - seeing developments in infrastructure, the social, economic and cultural elements of their community, and being able to make choices.
I will reflect on the conversation we normally have when gazing out over the harbour, it could be a boat delivering cattle to Indonesia, or a rig tender in the oil and gas industry, or working in an office or shop in Darwin, or working at home in a growth town delivering health, education and the public services. However, it is an opportunity provided by this policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud, to support the minister and commend her for bringing this important statement to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it worries me that governments have various clichs to promote programs, and A Working Future is one. The Commonwealth government has clichs - slogans would be a better word. Those slogans sometimes hide the reality of the task before governments to overcome the difficulties we face, especially in the Northern Territory.
Tonight I raise specific issues. The minister mentioned the kids from Epenarra. I have been past Epenarra, to Canteen Creek and along the road past the Davenport Ranges. I was told at Epenarra Station the road from there to the Barkly Highway was not a public road. I raise this because infrastructure is the key to changing many of these communities.
It might be nice to live in the bush; however, to create industry communities have to have all-year-round access to the outside world. Alpurrurulam is an example. When it rains at Alpurrurulam there is only one way out - air. To promote industry in Alpurrurulam, especially tourism, you need all-year-round access. You have black soil plains all around, and it is difficult to see how that community can develop. Yulara, where the Indigenous Land Corporation has taken over, has all-year-round roads and an airstrip capable of landing jets. That does not mean jets should fly to Epenarra; it means if people believe they can develop these communities the infrastructure needs to be there, and that would be no mean feat for any government. The Central Arnhem Road is another example. What industries could you have at Laynhapuy Homelands? You have the arts –where will you sell that? You can sell it through the web, you can take it to Yirrkala; however, if you wanted to open it up to tourists the basic infrastructure has to go in.
When I was on Litchfield Shire I noticed that when more bitumen roads and power were put in the value of land went up, more people moved into the area, businesses started to grow and mango plantations started to sprout up, because there were better roads to deliver goods.
Infrastructure is the basic foundation if you want growth towns to be growth towns. The issue for me, which has not been debated in parliament, is the future of communities outside the growth towns? If you are not within 50 km of the growth town, what happens? How does Laynhapuy Homelands get new houses? Alpurrurulam is a great example. A community of about 1000 people but, under the SIHIP program, not due for new houses. I have not heard from either the Territory or Commonwealth government about what will happen there. Wadeye has houses; Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Nauiyu have no houses. They are not outstations and not within 50 km of Wadeye - what is their future?
Are we going to concentrate on the growth towns and put aside the realities of other small communities? A real problem which has not been debated or publicised is that people in those communities are unsure of their futures. If the smaller towns cannot grow because government policy is to put effort into the growth towns, you will leave people in a vacuum. That debate has to happen otherwise people will despair that their communities are being left out to dry. People live in those communities with their families, and there are facilities there. Alpurrurulam, Palumpa, Peppimenarti, Nauiyu all have health clinics, schools, and police stations. They have the facilities but are not regarded as growth towns. If you are not within 50 km of a growth town, what will happen?
Barkly is a good example. Growth town one, Elliott; second growth town, Borroloola.
Mr McCarthy: Ali Curung.
Mr WOOD: Three. There is much space in between. A distance of 50 km around each one of those communities leaves out Alpurrurulam and Utopia. What will happen to the other communities? Are we going to let them die because they cannot have any more houses? I raise that because the government needs to say, in its A Working Future policy, what it is going to do.
The other fundamental issue, which is also on the Notice Paper, is leases. I raised it during the CTC debate. Leases are a big issue. I did not bring it with me, but I have a very good article from the Central Land Council about the concept of leases. If we do not get the fundamental issue sorted we will have difficulties with growth towns. To lease a road or a block of land is fine; however, if they are annual leases, costing a great deal of money, you will not have a growth town. It will be regressive because someone has to pay that money. There will be less money for the road because of the high lease payment.
I am advised the traditional owners or the land council will say to a local council: ‘We want that road sealed’. They say: ‘We will get some gravel. It is going to cost you $10/m’. They say: ‘It is your road. We cannot afford that. You will have to look after it yourself or you will have to reduce the price’. There are real issues because sealing roads is not cheap. If roads are being sealed for a community and then the community is saying: ‘You will pay this extravagant amount of money for that gravel’, there are many questions about growth towns.
It has to be something which includes all people. I wonder if the government has done enough to sell the concept of growth towns to the people living in communities. Many people do not understand if we have a growth town, which is meant to be a normal town, there will no permits in that town. What does that mean to people who have lived with that system since the town was developed? I am unsure that the ideas being developed are reaching the people on the ground. I refer to those people as the lady under the mango tree; often there is discussion at the top level but not always discussion or understanding at the bottom. Government needs to talk to those people. If growth towns means normal towns and normal towns means leases, people should understand what a lease means. If it means no permits, they have to understand what that means. We have to be frank. If people do not want that will there be a growth town? Some fundamental issues need to be clarified.
Airstrips and barge landings have to be sorted out. At present, barges and airstrips come under the intervention leases. Once those intervention leases go, what happens? The Northern Land Council is telling barge companies they will pay a fee to unload freight of 75c per $100 worth of freight. You would hope the barge landing does not come under the control of the land council, rather the shire as a service to the community. I do not mind a small fee for the use of the barge landing if it is used by the shire to maintain it. If the money is going to an individual’s pocket, the community will have to pay the increased charges the Northern Land Council wants to impose. That will be the same with airstrips. Who owns the airstrips? Is it the council, traditional owners, the Commonwealth government if it is an intervention lease? Who owns the barge landings and what is the future?
There are fundamental issues we need to work out. We need frank discussion with the land councils. The land councils are putting impediments in place which makes them look like they want to be shire councils. We have set up the shire councils to provide infrastructure, basic services and essential services, and there are some impediments. I believe the Office of Township Leasing, which is the mouthpiece for the Tiwi Land Council, says the Tiwi Land Council has to pay $120 000 rent on its facilities. The Tiwi people will pay because that is the only way they will get their money.
Employment is the other thing. I mentioned in a previous debate the great opportunity to use the council as a centre for employment. I support CDEP from the point of view of arguing the Commonwealth government should retain it; however, I do not want to see it replaced with Centrelink type employment. I would rather it replaced with full employment where councils could be the main employment centre and the Commonwealth, instead of putting money into unproductive welfare, top it up and pay people a decent wage.
It must be hard for people when an ATM charges a $10 service fee every time they check their balance. People would not have too much money left if they kept checking their account. The cost of living in communities is high. People should be paid a reasonable wage - not welfare - so they recognise there is a high cost of living in some communities, and councils are in the right spot to change things around.
If the Commonwealth government could make some changes to policy and restrict welfare to those who need it, if it could supply funds for people to work, the work ethic would return. If you add opportunity to improve literacy and numeracy people can move up the scale and be seen as a mentor for younger people. Bob Beadman, and others, has mentioned if you see your father unemployed all his life and your grandfather live off welfare, why should anyone want an education or work? As the minister talked about a new era in Corrections, we need a new era in work. That is in the hands of the Commonwealth but we are dealing with the arty farty people who do not understand the reality on the ground.
We need to put infrastructure in place and fix leases. We then need jobs - people can be petrol station attendants because more people are coming into the community needing fuel. A small caf might open which will grow as more tourists visit the community. Someone might be a hairdresser; someone might start a lawn mowing business; and someone might open a car wash business. If councils have the money to pay people to work, because they will not get it on the dole, the work ethic will be there, and once we see that - it will be a long haul; we have had 30 years of welfare - we will achieve change.
You cannot look at things in isolation, you need employment, infrastructure, good houses and you need education. Some fundamental things must change - employment, infrastructure and leases all have to change.
We have spoken about a new era in Corrections. I reinforce my view that visitors are part of the new era in Corrections. I hope the minister has looked at options to allow visiting hours in a structured day during the week. A structured day is important. I would prefer a structured day where people had to go to work. There needs to be discipline in prisons, and if people do not want to do that then some of the extras prisoners receive such as watching television or playing pool should not be provided. A prison is not a holiday camp. We hope to rehabilitate and train people, and we believe they should earn their keep. I hope it is not a case of being too difficult. I hope we can have a system where unless you are sick, infirm or old you will have to work - whether it is cleaning, mowing the lawn, or going outside, which a number of people do.
I often use the example of the West Central Therapeutic Community in Ohio, where everyone worked. All day prisoners attended programs; the day was strictly run. It is a different process because prisoners are helping themselves; they monitor and encourage themselves to do better and change their lives. Minister, I hope one day you could visit the Marysville community in Ohio. It is not for everyone; however, with 20% recidivism it is not a bad system. If we are looking at reducing recidivism and giving people an opportunity, that is an option we should look at.
Madam Speaker, there is much to discuss in A Working Future. The Council of Territory Cooperation will be looking at it as well. I reiterate that there are fundamental building blocks if we want to change things. Employment, infrastructure, and sorting out the leases are some of the main things, along with what will happen to people who live outside growth towns. One house has been built at Nauiyu since 2002. It is a beautiful community and it looks after the houses. It has a long record of building good houses, and now, because it is not a growth town, it does not have more houses built. The question I ask government is: what do those people do as the kids grow up and have their own families?
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report for 2010-11
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report for 2010-11
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report for 2010-11.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report
for 2010-11
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report
for 2010-11
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, the 2010-11 Mid-Year Report provides updated information on the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook. There have been a number of significant changes in the Territory’s budget projection since the May 2010 budget, including: the effect of the 2009-10 outcome on the 2010-11 and future years as a result of the carry forward of Commonwealth funded programs; non-policy revenue reductions, notably GST revenue due to a lower pool available for distribution; lower stamp duties due to a moderating housing market; lower mining royalties as a result of the high Australian dollar; important new policy directions, particularly the response to the Growing them strong, together report; and funding for the new era in Corrections. These combined changes result in higher cash deficits than previously anticipated.
Overall, the report’s key fiscal outcomes show: change in the operating surplus over the forward estimates with deficits in the outer years; cash deficit of $425m in 2010-11, an increase of $150m since budget time, reducing to $205m by 2013-14; fiscal balance projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle, but trending toward improvement; and higher ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue due to increased cash deficits and higher superannuation liabilities.
The mid-year report also includes an update on the Territory’s economic outlook. Economic growth in the Territory is forecast to strengthen to 3.6% in 2010-11, as expected at budget time. This is a result of strong growth in LNG, alumina and manganese exports, driven by increasing demand from Asia, particularly China, as their economies continue to outperform those in Europe and North America. Increased demand for the Territory’s commodities is expected to continue to support mining production and exploration growth in coming years.
State Final Demand in the Territory is cyclical and varies in line with the investment phase of major projects. State Final Demand is forecast to increase by 1.6% in 2010-11, 1.3 percentage points more than forecast in the May 2010-11 budget. The upward revision reflects substantial data revisions by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for previous years, the inclusion of the US$1.1bn Kitan oil field development, and upward revisions to forecast growth in household consumption expenditure.
Record levels of infrastructure spending by the Territory and Commonwealth governments is forecast to almost entirely offset the continuing decline in private sector investment in 2010-11. This clearly demonstrates the value of the Henderson government’s record $1.8bn infrastructure program.
Property markets are expected to be subdued during 2010-11, reflecting the impact of increasing interest rates moderating population growth, and the increasing supply of residential land and housing, thanks to the Labor government’s accelerated land release strategy. While the annual growth in the Territory’s residential population was forecast to increase by 2.1% in the May 2010 budget, the forecast has been revised down to 1.4% due to lower levels of nett overseas migration and declining interstate migration. Lower levels of nett overseas migration reflect changes in national migration policies, which have made obtaining working visas more difficult for overseas residents. Lower nett interstate migration than originally forecast reflects a stronger than expected recovery in the national economy, which makes retaining and attracting labour to the Territory more difficult. Forecast employment growth of 2.5% and growth of the Darwin inflation rate of 3.1% remain unchanged from the 2010-11 Budget.
Returning to the fiscal outlook, the most significant effect on the 2010-11 Budget in forward years is the non-policy revenue reductions. These revenue reductions are largely due to the flow-on effect of the global financial crisis, which is affecting consumption and investment in the national economy and flowing through to the Territory’s major revenue sources. The most significant of these is the effect on the Territory’s GST revenue. In the Commonwealth 2010 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the GST pool estimates were revised down from the May 2010 budget, returning them to the 2009-10 Budget levels. Combined with an overpayment of $27m in 2009-10 that will be repaid through lower payments in 2010-11, this has resulted in a $63m reduction in 2010-11, with $36m flowing through to forward years.
In 2010-11, GST revenue is now $241m lower than that predicted before the GST. The moderating Territory housing market from the high levels experienced in recent times has resulted in a decrease in stamp duties on residential conveyances of $28m in 2010-11. Growth is still expected in future years, albeit from the lower 2010 base.
Mining royalty estimates for 2010-11 have been reduced by $41m due to the strength of the Australian dollar and miners estimates of profitability. However, estimates for all forward years remain unchanged.
On the expenditure side, the Henderson government has provided substantial ongoing funding to respond to two significant reforms. The first and most significant reform relates to the response to the Growing them strong, together report, which includes a substantial package of $130m over five years to enhance child protection services in both the government and non-government sectors of the Northern Territory. In addition, the government has committed ongoing funding of $43m over three years for the new era in Corrections, which includes a significant expansion in the alternative incarceration, to increase rehabilitation and education programs, and reduce recidivism in the Northern Territory.
When taken together, the effect of these revenue expenditure changes result in an increased cash deficit in 2010-11 by $157m to $425m, with deficit projected over the forward estimates. However, when timing differences are excluded and the improved 2009-10 outcome is taken into account, the result is a largely unchanged position across 2009-10 and 2010-11.
On an accrual basis similar to the cash outcome, the fiscal balance is also projected to remain in deficit over the economic cycle. The nett operating balance, which excludes capital spending, is also predicted to be in a deficit position from 2012-13. Nett debt is expected to decrease from that projected at budget time to $1.231bn in 2010-11 before increasing over the forward estimates. The improvement in 2010-11 is mainly due to the flow-on effect of the improved 2009-10 outcome, while the increase over the forward estimates is due to the high projected increased cash deficits. Nett debt as a percentage to revenue is estimated to be higher than predicted in May 2010; increasing to 48% by 2013-14. However, it is still projected to be below the 61% recorded in 2001-02.
Nett financial liabilities are also expected to increase over the forward estimates period from that projected in the original 2010-11 budget, to $5511m by 2013-14. This is largely as a result of the increase in the nett debt position and an increase in the Territory’s superannuation liability following actuarial revisions associated with improved mortality rates and lower benefit payments. When measured as a percentage to revenue, it is expected the ratio will increase in all forward years to 123% in 2013-14. While the ratios of nett debt and nett financial liabilities to revenue are projected to increase, both are still lower than the 2001-02 levels due to the government delivering eight consecutive cash surpluses.
In conclusion, the 2010-11 mid-year report highlights that the Territory’s economic outlook remains positive. The fiscal outlook has worsened due to non-policy revenue changes and the need to respond to critical areas of service delivery across government. Despite these challenging times, the Henderson government intends to continue its adherence to fiscal responsibility. In the short term, this will result in the budget going into deficit while we wait for private sector investment to return to pre-GFC levels. As evidenced by the eight consecutive surpluses and the budget improvement measures introduced as part of the 2010-11 budget, the Henderson government remains committed to its objectives and fiscal targets while continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the 2010-11 mid-year report to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the report and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Statehood - Update
Statehood - Update
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform and update members on an important milestone in the Northern Territory’s history.
1 January 2011 marks 100 years of being a territory. On 1 January 1911, the Northern Territory was surrendered by South Australia and became a territory of the Commonwealth. The journey began in 1902 when the South Australian government decided the Northern Territory was a nuisance. From 1788, the Territory had been part of the colony of New South Wales and in 1863 was annexed to South Australia. South Australia considered the Territory a burden due to distance and high temperatures which made the passage of people, stock and goods very difficult and costly. In 1902, South Australia began negotiations with the Commonwealth to surrender the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth. It was not until about 1908 that the Commonwealth and South Australia formulated terms of agreement for the transfer of the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister at the time, Alfred Deakin, had a long-term federalist vision of an Australian nation which included a Northern Territory under Commonwealth control in the national interests of social and economic development and defence.
So, on 1 January 1911, the Northern Territory was surrendered by South Australia and accepted by the Commonwealth. This is an extraordinary part of history and an extraordinary time for young Australians, young Territorians particularly, to understand our history, good and bad. There are things in our past that, as a Territory, we are not pleased with. There are good things we are incredibly proud of. 2011 will provide us with the opportunity to reflect on the Territory’s history and think about where we are going. We can look at a more harmonious and fair future in our status as Australians. For this reason, 2011 will be a significant year to raise the profile of Statehood and I am sure all members of the Legislative Assembly will encourage Territorians to become involved in events throughout 2011.
It is an important time for people in the Northern Territory to define who we are as a people - Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, Greek, Italian, Chinese and Asian - all together; all the different cultural values that have made the Northern Territory home with the first Australians. As Minister for Statehood, I have been travelling across the Northern Territory talking to different groups saying: ‘Look at your local area. What is your history?’ I am asking all organisations to think about what they can do at the community level to display their history over the last 100 years.
I have spoken to the Cattlemen’s Association, rodeo committees, police associations, women’s groups, local government shire councils, municipalities, all sorts of groups and individuals, to start thinking about who we are as a people of the Northern Territory. Last month I spoke to a group of community library officers from across the Northern Territory about how we can mark this milestone together. I want to work with the libraries because this is about our history. We want to encourage every section of the Northern Territory community to think about what 100 years means for us. Whether it is the fishing community, our growth towns, anyone, everyone and everywhere, the Henderson government wants us to think about where we have come and where we wish to go together as the people of the Northern Territory.
I am asking people of the Northern Territory to advise Legislative Assembly representatives what they think would be significant in recognising 100 years of the Northern Territory. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I have said to women’s groups that next year is also 100 years for women; let us look at the future for women across the Northern Territory. Let us see where we have come. On 8 March we celebrate International Women’s Day. I have called for nominations for a tribute to Northern Territory women who have contributed to our history and current day status as extraordinary women, as extraordinary leaders, and how we can celebrate their achievements and look at our young women coming through who can learn from those examples.
Similarly, I would like our young people to be part of looking at the future. They are our future and the reason behind our vision for the future. Their future, whether it is through a school essay, art work, or even a time capsule in every school across the Northern Territory, I would like them to consider where we have come and where are we going to become the seventh state in the federation. What vision does our youth have for the next 25 to 50 years? What do we want to be? Who are we? We are walking together as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Many other cultures have made the Northern Territory home. It is vital these events are developed in collaboration with Territorians living across our regions. The involvement of our shires is crucial. In addition, historians and academics have indicated their interest in organising a series of history forums to mark the Northern Territory centenary in 2011.
As Minister for Statehood, I would like to see a think tank, a series of lectures reflecting on our past and looking at our future under the title ‘A Working Future in the Seventh State in the Federation’. What will we look like; what vision do we have for the people of the Northern Territory? The Henderson government is pursuing partnerships with a range of local and national organisations to raise awareness of our history and, importantly, our constitutional inequalities: national groups like the Long Walk Foundation, which I have had conversations with; and sporting events like the AFL and Dreamtime at the G.
The centenary of the Territory is an opportunity for the Northern Territory to elevate its profile at the national level in discussions around becoming the seventh state in the federation. I have been inviting local and national organisations and businesses to join us on this journey and help take our history to the rest of the nation. Different groups will be marking this milestone in different ways, and there will be a range of events at different places at different times. However, our emphasis is not on the government or the parliament organising everything. This has to be about the people of the Northern Territory choosing to put on events within their own committees, corporations, families, and communities to reflect on our past and our future.
We have had discussions with musicians - people who can be part of the artistic scene that makes up the Northern Territory - and artists across the Northern Territory, be it in artwork or theatre, about our identity and culture as a people of the Northern Territory in the 21st century, who we are, where we are going to become the seventh state in the federation.
For us, as a government, we see Territory Day as a very big celebration. We are currently finalising significant ways we can mark the centenary milestone. We will be looking to make further announcements early in the new year about centenary events. I also anticipate, during the first sittings of parliament in February 2011, further discussion about the Northern Territory centenary and how Territorians can get involved in marking this milestone.
I call on all members of the Assembly to take part in an encouraging and productive way. This is about walking together and, as I have said in this House on many occasions, the leadership within this parliament in a bipartisan manner shows, as an example to the people of the Northern Territory, we need to do this together - to walk together, to grow together, to have constitutional equality with our fellow Australians. I look forward to people considering how we can ensure a strong future for all Territorians, young and old, on the basis of guaranteed constitutional rights.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement by the minister and acknowledge the work she has done in her term as the Minister for Statehood.
There is no doubt the Northern Territory has had a chequered history when it comes to constitutional development. It was almost as if no one wanted us at any point of time; the only time they wanted us was when we were halfway interesting - like the child no one really likes until inheriting grandpa’s fortune. Everyone then wants to love the child and be their best friend. That is a little like the Northern Territory. We are out of sight out of mind to the rest of the country, which is sad.
Successive governments have worked hard, as has industry and others, to get the Northern Territory on the map as a legitimate player in Australia’s history and development. No doubt we will continue to work hard with our southern counterparts because everyone loves to come to the Territory for a holiday and enjoy hunting, fishing, shooting, and all the things that go without saying. However, no one takes the time to understand what the Northern Territory is all about when it comes to our economy, development, challenges or our future.
Whilst with the Minerals Council I was involved in the Statehood Convention as a representative of that group, and am fully conversant with the issues which surrounded the convention and subsequent referendum. Things turned out the way they did not because of the people at the convention; it just played out that way. That was unfortunate because it probably put us back 10 or 20 years in moving forward, achieving equality and fairness, and being treated as a state.
In recent times there has been a long path in pushing the cause of statehood. Steve Hatton was Chief Minister at that time and there were displays at agricultural shows - very good displays which took the message to the people. The late Dr Alistair Heatley was on the show circuit talking to people regarding constitutional development - what statehood meant to everyday Territorians. It was good and promoted the statehood agenda. People had many questions; they still do. Things were quiet after that time, and in the last few years it has come to the forefront.
Leading up to the Statehood Steering Committee being commissioned five years ago, of which I was a member – I always wanted to be a member of it because my personal interest in achieving statehood is strong. We have been treated very shabbily by the Commonwealth over many decades, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years. I recall the Commonwealth 32 square mile acquisition act, which covered my parents’ property at the 30 Mile, where, with the stroke of a pen, the Commonwealth took 32 square miles of land for the development of Darwin. With the grant of statehood the Commonwealth decided it did not want that side of the highway and it would develop Palmerston. However, there was much pain and angst for many families who lost their properties. Yes, they were compensated; however, they did not receive appropriate compensation. People are still around today who were involved with that acquisition - Ironstone Nursery - Helmut and Joy Schimmel and their families, the McNamee family, my parents, and the late Albert Albany was another person tied up in the Commonwealth acquisition act. That was a tough time for many people in that area, and with the stroke of a pen the Commonwealth did what it wanted, as it has done on other occasions.
The Statehood Steering Committee has done a huge amount of work. It has had issues, challenges and conflicts. However, the focus has always been to move forward, and it has moved forward, albeit a little slowly in some people’s mind. The committee’s work has come to an end. A huge amount of work will be pooled in different formats and styles for use in the convention period, which will happen towards the latter part of next year.
There is no doubt there will be very serious issues as we move toward statehood. I have said that both inside and outside the Chamber. The biggest issue we will have to work through is the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. My view is it has to be patriated to the Northern Territory government, but how, in what style and with what concessions has to be determined. My view is you cannot have a large parcel of Northern Territory land controlled by the Commonwealth when you become a state. A state controls everything within its borders and land management is a state government’s right. That will be a complicated and complex negotiation. We know that; we have to work through it.
There is also the issue of uranium mining. The Commonwealth government controls that at the moment. With the grant of statehood, the opposition’s view is management and control should be vested with the Northern Territory government. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands is an area we administer - the Commonwealth controls the area, owns the area, receives benefits from it, the Territory does all the regulation and hard work. Whether we get the benefits we should is to be debated.
Some of our biggest challenges to the convention and our negotiations with the Commonwealth are our federal counterparts on all sides of parliament. From our side of the House the challenge is dealing with the Liberals and the Nationals. There is also the Labor party, the Greens and some Independents, depending on the composition of the federal parliament as we move forward. The minister and I have met with federal people and will meet with others in the future. I found those meetings useful and worthwhile, if not enlightening, as to what they think about the Northern Territory. Some were disappointing. Part of our challenge is educating them that this will not take away their right of being important in the Commonwealth running of business.
We are moving towards the convention and will set up a group of people to work towards it. Information will be available early next week. Appropriate people will be able to take us to the next chapter. During the last convention and referendum, the referendum being one step in a long staircase was never explained to people. Even friends of mine, dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, voted no at the referendum. They did not like the way it was handled. I explained it was one step in a long staircase, but that was not the way they voted. We have to explain to those people that the referendum and constitution is one step in a long staircase before we are granted statehood. That is the biggest challenge going into, and coming out of, the convention.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the challenges. Statehood will come and we have to ensure it comes sooner rather than later. I would like to see us gain statehood in my lifetime because if we do not get it right this time we will never become a state. Our biggest challenge is working together as a government. We will not agree on all issues because of our political and ideological differences. Somehow we have to find the middle ground to convince the Commonwealth we should be a state. We need to become a state for the benefit of Territorians.
________________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Port Darwin
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Port Darwin
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a document relating to pairs for the members for Arafura and Port Darwin for the rest of the evening. It is signed by the two Whips.
________________________
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Statehood for bringing on this statement. It is quite symbolic, in its own small way, that on the last day of sittings for the 2010 calendar year the last real item of debate brought on by government is a statement acknowledging 100 years of being a territory and updating us on our path to statehood. It is important to acknowledge the centenary of the Northern Territory.
As my colleague, the Minister for Statehood, has said, 2011 is an important year in the Territory’s history. It marks our 100th anniversary as an entity, the Northern Territory, and, most importantly, it marks the beginning of another journey towards eventual and complete statehood.
Factors such as our people, geography and history have melded over the last 100 years to shape this unique and beautiful place we all call home. It has given us the diversity we celebrate today, and our diversity is not something we acknowledge and celebrate in the Northern Territory, it is something we embrace. Our diversity is embraced in all its forms, and is what makes it such a wonderful and special place. I am proud to say over the last 100 years the Territory has in many ways been a pioneer in the multicultural Australia we take for granted today. That is understandable given our high Indigenous population, our proximity to Asia and our isolation. We are unique in our population mix, and it is fair to say over the years Territorians have demonstrated a unique capacity to put aside or simply ignore ethnic and social difference.
We could speculate on what caused that sense of harmony. Perhaps it was our isolation; perhaps it was an accident in history. It was probably more the fact we were isolated; we had to get on; we had to work together because there was no one else to help us, which has created the sense of inclusion in the Northern Territory. Everyone is welcome here and we all work together. In fact, in the 1900s, Darwin was described as China Town because the majority of non-Indigenous residents were of Chinese heritage. Back in the 1870s, the Chinese community outnumbered the European population in the Territory by 10 to one.
One of Australia’s greatest authors, Xavier Herbert, saw Darwin as more Asian than European. In many ways it still is. There were not only Chinese. Filipinos have had a presence in the Territory since the late 1800s. Even before the postwar immigration boom, people from countries such as Greece were making their mark on the Territory. The Haritos family came to Darwin in the days of the old Vestey’s Meatworks at Bullocky Point. The family saw an opportunity and began producing salt for the meatworks. It is from this starting point that the waves of postwar migration from Europe and Asia created our modern-day cosmopolitan lifestyle. Some of the largest communities which developed and brought strength to the broader community include Filipino, Greek, Italian, Chinese, Thai, Indian, Timorese, and many more. Today, the Territory also has a rapidly growing African and Nepalese community.
During the last 100 years, the Territory’s social and economic development has been immense. This government continues to make record commitments to infrastructure and job creation. I also acknowledge the role of the CLP government immediately following self-government for its efforts in developing vital infrastructure assets.
Today, the Territory is a different place than in 1911 when its outer limits were around Fannie Bay Gaol. In those times it was a full day trip to get to the beach area at Nightcliff and back. Alice Springs did not exist, forming later around the Telegraph Station in the late 1920s. Throughout the decades that followed, the Territory has grown to the point where Darwin today is on its way to becoming the capital of Northern Australia. That is my vision, and one I presented to our Prime Minister in Canberra several weeks ago: the future economic growth for all Australia lies in the north and Darwin should be seen as the capital of Northern Australia.
Alice Springs is one of the gems of the Australian outback, supported by Tennant Creek with its mining boom; Katherine, Australia’s most important air defence hub and also home to the significant pastoral industry; Nhulunbuy, our bauxite centre; Palmerston, one of the fastest growing cities in Australia and a great place for families; as well as the 20 new growth towns dotted around remote parts of the Territory with 150 communities alongside 300 outstations. That really is an amazing multi-cultural mix.
Our Indigenous community, which goes back some 40 000 years, has created so much of what is intrinsically special about our community in the depth of Indigenous language and culture shared by everyone. The vision to invest and grow new towns and communities around the Northern Territory and bring those communities out of isolation into the reality they are growing towns with growing communities is part of the movement to statehood.
If we look forward to why we should be recognised as a state, we can look at the contribution the Northern Territory makes to the national economy. Our economic growth is predicted at 4.8% in 2010-11, the second highest in the nation. Access also predicts the Territory to have the strongest jobs growth in the country over the next five years along with the lowest unemployment - all this growth contributes to our nation. That is why our nation should look at accepting the Northern Territory as the seventh state in the federation and give us access and equality to the same extent other Australians take for granted.
It would be remiss of me, as a Labor Chief Minister, not to mention the role of the Labor Party in the development of the Territory. I am not dismissing the role of the CLP, however, the Labor Party has been part of the Territory for the last 100 years. The first decade of our life as a Territory responsible solely to Canberra was a tumultuous one, and the Labor movement was then at the very core of the significant and political progress and change which occurred over that 100 years. It was the Labor movement that began a campaign for proper parliamentary recognition of the Territory.
Labor heroes such as Harold Nelson led the charge against the dominance of decision-making by Canberra. He and many others were gaoled for their role in street protests and demonstrations that led to the eventual ousting of Administrator Gilruth. It is interesting to note when the leading men were gaoled, the cause was taken up by women who defied authorities and held picnics outside the gaol and fed their men through the bars to protest at the actions of the authorities from down south. The atmosphere, both inside and outside the gaol, was one big party, much to the consternation of police at the time.
It was 1922 before representation was achieved, and that was taken up by Harold Nelson for many years. Later, after a short break, his son, Jock Nelson, represented us in the federal parliament until 1966. Had Arthur Caldwell won that very close 1961 election, there is no doubt Jock would have been our first minister in the federal parliament.
So, 1911 was not just a matter of change of ownership, it was a symbolic start on our journey through greater and greater constitutional maturity. In the 100 years since that time, I am proud to say the Labor Party has played a leading role in bringing about our constitutional development. It was with the backing of a strong Labor push in Canberra under the Chifley government, that the Territory was granted limited representation in the form of an appointed Legislative Council.
Later in the 1960s, people like Dick Ward, Curley Nixon, Don Bonson, Leo Castillion, Jim Gallagher, and John Waters led more and more protests and action on granting the Territory self-government. It is true to say, because of the close relationship between Gough Whitlam and Dick Ward, the Territory was granted its first fully-elected Legislative Council in 1974, and the legislative framework was put in place to pass greater responsibility to the Territory.
To his credit, Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser completed the job, and we became a self-governing Territory on 1 July 1978, a day we now celebrate with fireworks, and always will whilst I am Chief Minister. I will not be the Chief Minister who bans fireworks as part of our self-government celebrations. It was, perhaps, a great irony that whilst he granted the Territory the capacity to have its first fully-elected Legislative Council, then Prime Minister Whitlam proved so unpopular in the Territory the only non-conservative representative elected to the Council was Dawn Lawrie, mother of our Deputy Chief Minister - and she was an Independent.
I acknowledge that the Country Liberal Party, in the years since self-government, has taken a strong focus on contributing to the Territory becoming a state. It has done its part in moving the issue forward. I thank the Country Liberal Party for its bipartisan work with government and the Independents in moving towards statehood. This is more than us as political parties. We all learnt the lesson of the failed referendum; unless this movement towards statehood is led by the people of the Northern Territory with a real desire and passion to become a state, any hint of political interference or politicians attempting to hijack the agenda for a profile is going to see statehood on the back burner.
I thank the Country Liberal Party members and people who have been working on the steering committee, and on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It has been genuinely bipartisan and I am confident that will continue into the future. We want that too because statehood is important.
Many people ask what the fuss is all about and if anything is really going to change. For many people, when they wake up the next morning and we become a state, nothing material will change. What will change forever is Territorians will have the same constitutional rights and obligations as every other Australian, and that is the right, decent and fair thing to do by the Commonwealth parliament.
I acknowledge, without repeating all the issues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned around the constitutional conventions, and as we move forward, there will be issues that test us when trying to reach a unified position on certain things. However, with good will and real clarity of focus on what we want to achieve, we can put aside political ideologies, find a common ground and move forward with a constitution to put to a referendum which we can take to Canberra with a resounding vote of yes for a new state in the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for bringing this on tonight. It is going to be an exciting 2011. The minister has been working hard on what will be fun community events and opportunities for people to reflect on the last 100 years - the good and the bad over that time. It is going to be a fun year with good events, and we will move toward another step at the end of 2011.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is good to be talking about the future on the last day of the parliament in 2010.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is not very often I speak in debate. I do so tonight in my role as Chair of the Standing Committee of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and also the Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee. It is with great pleasure I speak to this motion concerning the 100th year of the Northern Territory coming under the control and administration of the Commonwealth government under Australia’s constitutional arrangements, and I thank the Minister for Statehood for bringing this statement to this House this evening.
I also take the opportunity to update the Assembly on some of the activities planned by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs next year, as the people of the Northern Territory continue the quest for our constitutional equality with all Australians. One hundred years is a long time, but history tells us the people must want to take any steps towards reform. Of the 44 attempts to amend the Australian Constitution in more than 100 years, there have been only eight occasions where the majority of electors in the majority of states have agreed with proposals brought forward. This is instructive but should not deter our discussion of our own governance and ways to do things better.
As indicated, I will shortly update the Assembly on the program which the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will undertake next year to progress this discussion, but first I would like to reflect briefly on the 100 years. Looking more closely at the decision of South Australia to surrender the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth, it is instructive to not only examine the legislation which permitted surrender and acceptance, but to also consider some of the immediate consequences for residents in the Northern Territory of South Australia as it became the Northern Territory of Australia.
A legal opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney-General dated 10 August 1911 to the Minister for Home Affairs said:
- The Territory is not entitled to representation in either House unless Parliament, by Act, expressly allows it. So long as the Territory remains unrepresented, I think that for the purposes of representation, and within the meaning of section 24 (Australian Constitution), its inhabitants are not ‘people of the Commonwealth’.
This advice is an extraordinary revelation from our perspective today. We take it for granted we are all equal Australians, but are we? The people of the Northern Territory who were eligible to be electors one year earlier as part of South Australia were, by virtue of the ability of any state to surrender territory to the Commonwealth under section 111 of the Constitution, not only disenfranchised, but indeed considered for the purpose of the Constitution and representation in the Australian parliament, to not be people of the Commonwealth.
As the Territory now has representation by virtue of acts of the Commonwealth parliament, we are of the Commonwealth for the purposes of section 24 of the Constitution. To remind members what section 24 is about, it states:
- The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.
The section continues with one more detail on proportion and quotas to determine the representation from each state which, of course, continues to exclude Territorians. Therefore, while we are all Australians, to this day we remain unequal Australians for constitutional purposes by virtue of residing in the Northern Territory.
We continue to ask: can we rest assured that because of an act of the Commonwealth parliament our electoral fortunes at the Commonwealth level will be protected? State residents have a constitutional guarantee to representation and voting at Commonwealth elections. As long as we remain a territory we remain subject to continuing second-class constitutional status. Reading the memoranda from the Australian Electoral Commission to the branches in South Australia in late 1910, it is fascinating to see them working furiously to remove people residing within the Northern Territory from the electoral roll for the division of Gray in time for a national referendum to be held in 1911.
I have some copies of documents from the National Archives of Australia. The first one is a memorandum to the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the state of South Australia from the Chief Electoral Officer. It says:
- Adverting to your communication of the 11 January 1962 of this 15th ultimo, I shall be glad to be advised of the progress which has been made in relation to the removal of names from the roll for the division of Gray in consequence of the withdrawal of the Northern Territory.
The response from the Commonwealth Electoral Office of the State of South Australia, dated 4 April 1911 says:
- I have to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 30th ultimo and have to inform you that notices of objection were posted to each elector enrolled for the subdivision within the Northern Territory prior to 12 February last, and all names were removed from the roll prior to 16 March last.
I seek leave to table those documents.
Leave granted.
Mrs AAGAARD: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. They did not want to permit ineligible voters to remain on the roll and have a say at referendum.
The records in the National Archives show a series of telegrams and letters between the main office in Melbourne and the Adelaide office and communications with the returning officers in the Northern Territory to get these people off the roll quick smart. Not all Territorians took this sitting down as a letter from Joe Bradshaw Esq of Bradshaw’s Run in Victoria River demonstrates. The letter dated 9 November 1910 was written to the then Minister for Home Affairs, King O’Malley and is also found in the National Archives. It reads as follows:
- Sir,
Re the Northern Territory.
I infer from press notices that the residents of the said Territory will be disenfranchised under the scheme of management proposed by your government.
I respectfully suggest that eithera local council be formed to assist the Administrator or that the Territory return two members of the Senate and two to the House of Representatives.
Yours faithfully,
Joe Bradshaw SM of the Northern Territory
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no record of the minister’s response; however, a fairly swift acknowledgement was despatched and dated in Melbourne on 24 November 1910. In essence, the reply is not required because history tells us Mr Bradshaw was a man ahead of his time.
Our first member of the House of Representatives had observer status only upon arrival at the Commonwealth parliament sitting in Melbourne in 1922, after a hard-won fight to allow representation in any form. It was not until 1968 that the member for the Northern Territory was able to speak and vote in debates as other members had since 1901.
A council to assist the Administrator was not established until 1947, and the President of the Council was not democratically elected until Harry Chan in 1965. Two senators were not achieved until 1975, and our second member of the House of Representatives did not arrive in Canberra until the seat of Solomon, which was first won by the current member for Fong Lim in 2001.
It is amazing to think that people were, as a matter of constitutional law, removed from the Australian electoral rolls and that the right to a Commonwealth vote within the Northern Territory disappeared 100 years ago. This is one of the many aspects of what we should be marking next year as we consider our constitutional future. As has been mentioned, the Northern Territory came under the administration of the Commonwealth on 1 January 1911, after just 10 years of being part of the state of South Australia. Negotiations to jettison the Northern Territory commenced between South Australia and the Commonwealth almost immediately after Federation.
It is instructive to read some of the documentation considering the deal to bring about this event. The provisions of the agreement are set out in Part 3 of the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1910. An exchange of correspondence between the Premier of South Australia and the Prime Minister in late 1907 demonstrates concern about who was liable to pay for the overland telegraph from Adelaide to Darwin. This was settled and it is reflected in the legislation where section 14 outlines the obligations of the Commonwealth in regard to South Australian debt.
Also of recent contemporary interest is the obligation on the Commonwealth to construct a transcontinental railway from Port Darwin to the South Australian border. We all know how long that took. It was a lesson in perseverance and statehood is another lesson in perseverance. If we continue to work together we can build the Territory as we built the railway and, if the people want, we can build statehood. As the seeds have been sown for nearly 100 years, the next step has been coming for over 30 years and it is time to move forward again.
In 1974 an elected Legislative Assembly with 19 members was established and the Northern Territory self-government act of 1978 gave us our 25 members of this Assembly, as we are known today. This Assembly received a report in 1999 which acknowledged the mistakes made during the last concerted statehood campaign in the late 1990s. Taking note of those errors, in 2004 this Assembly agreed to establish an advisory committee to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which met in Alice Springs as the Statehood Steering Committee for the first time in early 2005. Next week, the Statehood Steering Committee will conclude its work at its 27th and final meeting and early next year the standing committee will be in a position to table the standing committee’s final report and recommendations towards the next part of the program.
The Statehood Steering Committee has, this year, conducted 50 public forums in a campaign called NT 2011 Towards State 7. This year the first part of a two-year program was held to consult on the matters people wish to have considered. Next year a constitutional convention will be conducted where all the matters will be considered in detail. Next year’s program will commence with the standing committee making a symbolic, but important, courtesy visit to Canberra to meet with Commonwealth parliamentarians. These meetings are planned to inform government, opposition and independent members and senators of their key roles in determining the terms and conditions of Northern Territory statehood under section 121 of the Australian Constitution. To assist this, each Commonwealth parliamentarian will receive a copy of an information paper to be published by the Statehood Steering Committee on 1 January 2011. The Statehood Steering Committee has been working on this information paper during the course of this year and it will be a resource for Northern Territory and Commonwealth politicians to consider the matters which must be resolved to achieve statehood.
At the 26th meeting of the Statehood Steering Committee, held on 28 July 2010, the standing committee and the steering committee mutually agreed to dissolve the Statehood Steering Committee on Monday, 6 December 2010. However, the momentum commenced by the Statehood Steering Committee will continue with a new and smaller advisory committee designed solely to assist in the delivery of a democratically convened constitutional convention late next year. The Northern Territory Constitutional Convention Committee will be formed in the coming weeks and will meet as soon as practicable as the new advisory committee to the standing committee.
I thank each of the members of the Statehood Steering Committee since its inception in 2005; the two previous chairs, the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and the former member for Barkly, Elliot McAdam; the current Minister for Statehood, the member for Arnhem, who has brought forward this statement; and the former co-chair, Sue Bradley AM, and our current co-chair, Ms Fran Kilgariff. All of these people and the members of the Statehood Steering Committee have put in a huge effort over many years and I offer my thanks to them for their hard work over such a long time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, more details will be announced about next year in due course. I hope members will join me in supporting an inclusive process and will agree it is an exciting time to be a Territorian because if we do this right, we will be doing it for our children and generations to come. One hundred years is a long time to be an adolescent. Surely it is time for us to move into adulthood.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, having been born interstate and not having grown up in the Northern Territory, I feel for Northern Territorians who have had to grow up without this constitutional protection. I guess it was something I took for granted growing up in Queensland. I feel for my own children, growing up in an environment without this constitutional protection. As the Chief Minister put it today, perhaps people will not know what the real difference is, however, maybe it is something we take for granted when we have it, and it is only in the absence of it that we realise what we are missing.
The member for Port Darwin highlighted today the anomalies which go along with the Northern Territory achieving statehood. While it is a noble aspiration and it is something we should try to achieve and not let up until we do achieve it, practically, how are we going to achieve it? We will face enormous difficulties in the practicalities. As the member for Port Darwin pointed out, how can our representation in the national parliament and our own parliament be achieved with such a small population? If we do achieve statehood anytime soon, with say 200 000 or 250 000 people, we may have some 40 federal politicians and another half a dozen to a dozen Territory politicians. That is a high level of representation and is perhaps a bit of overkill. How we work through those issues is unclear.
I have some healthy cynicism about that and our potential to achieve that. Why would Canberra want to make a rod for its back? It already has six rods for its back. I wish we could go back to the time of Federation when the Territory could become part of what we know today as the Federation, have our own constitution, and could have set down our own rights back then.
How we can do that at this point of time, when the states are the bane of the existence of a centralist government? The centralist federal government likes the power it has and is constantly trying to gain more and more power from the states. We have seen that recently with a lot of tax grabs, depriving the states of some of their revenue. I wonder how we are going to do that. I have this healthy cynicism. It is a noble aspiration and I hope it comes true for all of us as Territorians at some point. But I do not know if Canberra is going to make a rod for its own back as it already has six.
There is a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. It probably will go down as one of the most defining documents of all time when people look at it in 100 or 200 years time and think back to those people who created it and the foresight they had. It is one of the most defining documents at present. If people look back on it in 100 years time they will say it was created with such foresight. The fundamental flaw in it is that the states are vested with all the power but the Commonwealth has all the money. I guess that is something they did not quite address when writing the Constitution. As I said, ever since Federation, we have seen the federal government try to wrest more and more control and power from the states.
It is something we should all strive for and hope to achieve. However, I have some healthy cynicism about how we can practically go about that, particularly about the issue of representation and the number of elected members and senators which will be required. Some say we are already over-represented in the Northern Territory and we could end up with something like 100 politicians for 200 000 people.
You cannot have a state without a functioning health system. You cannot have statehood and you cannot achieve statehood without a functioning child protection system, a functioning education system, a functioning law and order system, the ability to win the war on the alcohol issues plaguing the Territory, and infrastructure and housing. If we are going to achieve this, we need to step up to the plate and deal with these issues in a mature manner.
We have had three interventions in the last three years: the original intervention, the intervention into child abuse in the Northern Territory; SIHIP; and Montara. It does not auger well for a mature jurisdiction to be advocating statehood. It almost brings into question self-government.
I spoke yesterday at length about the system with health. Let us go back to the state’s role; the Commonwealth basically controls the purse strings but the states have all the power and responsibilities. One of the core functions of a state, or the Territory, is health. It is a fundamental role to deliver health services throughout the state or, in this case, the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, we did not see great inroads in this area under the Martin Labor government nor are we seeing them under the Henderson Labor government. It is evident when you consider that the Chief Minister so willingly signed up to the national health reform, relinquishing more of our GST to the federal government and some control of our hospitals and health system. The health system is not in some fundamental crisis, we do not need fundamental health reform. I have said on a number of occasions that we need hospital boards with clout which can make decisions on behalf of the community. That is how you deliver effective and efficient health services in a state and in the Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, this so-called health reform which this government so willingly signed up to, as did a handful of other states, is not a result of the system. I believe the system works. To me it is a result of failed administrations over decades. We are at this point because the system has been allowed to be over bureaucratised, if there is such a word - top heavy with fat cats might be a better way to explain it - and poorly managed, and we are seeing that in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. If we have any chance of demonstrating to the Commonwealth, and the rest of the country, which has to sanction our push for statehood in a referendum, then we have to demonstrate we are able to provide an efficient and effective health system because that will be, as it is now, one of our core fundamental roles.
We are not doing that. We continually have the worst hospital waiting lists in the country. I know we have an enormous utilisation of our hospitals for our population. In Royal Darwin Hospital alone we see 200 000 through the place. If you couple Tennant Creek and Alice Springs together there are about 150 000 people utilising those hospitals for a combined population of 35 000 tops. The minister is right when he says these places are very, very busy and we are a victim of our circumstances when it comes to providing effective and efficient health service delivery in our hospitals because we are under enormous pressure. But it does not auger well for a push to become a state when the minister throws his hands in the air and says: ‘It is all too hard. I do not have enough nurses and doctors and there are too many people utilising the hospitals. Please, can someone help us?’ We have to get a grip on these issues. Health is the fundamental role of a state, and indeed it is for us as a territory. We will not be able to put our hand up and ask the Commonwealth government to help us once we are a state. We would be a laughing stock. It will be: you wanted this, now you cannot do it.
It is the same with education and law and order. These are the roles of state governments and unfortunately this Territory government is not, in my mind and I believe in the opposition’s mind, doing enough to convince me that we are in a mature position to be able to advocate seriously for statehood. I firmly believe we should be aspiring to this; it is a noble aspiration. I hope we achieve it because if we can it means we have ticked many of those boxes - we have a handle on our health system, we have achieved effective and efficient health service delivery throughout the Northern Territory, people are being seen on time in our hospitals and not waiting for extraordinary lengths of time for serious cases such as categories one, two and three. Unfortunately, not enough people are being seen - well below what is expected and that is not good enough. You cannot expect to have all the trappings, prestige and protections of statehood if you cannot manage your internal affairs.
The same applies to education. We have to start ticking the boxes and we have to start getting people achieving in our classrooms.
Law and order and health are two areas I see on a daily basis which are out of control in Central Australia. This government is not winning the battle with law and order issues. It is not winning the war on drunks. It is not winning the battle on issues with infrastructure and housing. These are issues which are squarely in the purview of the state and territory governments and if we are ever to achieve such a noble thing as statehood we will have to be able to tick those boxes. Unfortunately, I do not see this government being able to achieve that in any great period of time. It has had 10 years. It is all very well to: ‘In 10 years we have recruited another 100 or so doctors’. Well good, you should have recruited more doctors just as you should have recruited more nurses. It is your job to do that. It is no good patting yourself on the back and saying: ‘I did a good job because I just did my job today’. Doing your job is what is required and if you are recruiting more doctors that is good, but that is your job.
We are not seeing real inroads. The Health minister says: ‘I do not have enough nurses and doctors. There are too many people coming through the hospital’. In the same breath, he says: ‘But, hang on, we have recruited an extra 100 doctors’. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. The Territory government cannot have its cake and eat it too. You have had 10 years to make some serious inroads. Unfortunately, in many of these respects, which go straight to the heart of statehood, we are going backwards. We are not in a strong position to convince the broader Territory community, or Australians as a whole, who have to sign off on this deal if we are to become a state.
The Territory has had three interventions in three years. The Territory has been brought into great shame over many of those interventions - the intervention into child protection which was the national response and SIHIP, which I know has not resonated in many media circles in the leafy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne but, nevertheless, it is out there and is a reality. So we are not going a long way to convince the community of the Territory and the broader community of Australia that we are in a strong position to advocate statehood and can someone please walk in with the bill to grant it to us. I believe we are a long way off, unfortunately.
In many respects, statehood has been set back quite a number of years as a result of many of the failures of the Henderson Labor government. It sounds political, and I know it is, but to me it is a reality. All you have to do is take a walk down the streets in my community of Alice Springs and you will see plenty of evidence that this government is not ticking the boxes. If you looked at yourselves and asked if you were making inroads into issues such as health, housing, and law and order, the answer would definitely be no.
The member for Goyder raised a very important point about the Land Rights Act. I think, bold as it is, there is a lot of merit in patriating the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory. It is very difficult to grow an economy when you only have access to 50% of the land.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, honourable members. Bold as it is, it would be a step in the right direction. How we go about achieving that I leave to those who are more qualified. It seems that when there is no access to 50% of the Territory’s land, we, as a Territory, and potentially a state, are required to provide services such as hospitals, schools, police stations, communities and businesses on that land. It is impossible to do and is counterproductive.
It is a very good point and I support it, in principle. I do not know how something like that could be accepted in the broader community or practically implemented. It may be something which is an ongoing debate but is something we definitely have to look at if we are serious about becoming a state. If we have a grip on our health, law and order, education, infrastructure and housing systems, we then have to look at how we free up some of the land while respecting the rights and cultural values of the traditional owners. You are going to have to strike a balance which will be no mean feat to achieve.
Uranium is another issue the member for Goyder raised. We need to have full control of our mining, and we need to ensure that not only are we able to approve or disapprove mining ventures in the Northern Territory, but also uranium mining ventures. We also need to ensure we get our fair share of the royalties generated from uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I do not believe the minerals belong to all Australians; I believe they belong to us as a state and should provide an income base for the states.
We have a long way to go with this. It is - and I will say it again - an aspirational and noble venture. It is a road we should be on, and we should be on it together. How it is going to roll out - to me it seems like a minefield of anomalies when you look at some of the situations the Northern Territory has found itself in through poor management and governance and as a victim of circumstance: left out of the initial Federation and, now, 100 years on, trying to negotiate what those states did 100 years ago in a different time and place. It is going to be very difficult.
I congratulate everyone on the Statehood Steering Committee. You have your work cut out for you. You are obviously very committed to it, minister, as are all on the committee. I do not know everyone’s names, but congratulations. It is a long road to statehood - with the emphasis on ‘long’. I try not to be too much of a cynic and I hope we, as a Territory, achieve it. I grew up in a state and I feel for those of us who have grown up here without the protections of a state. I include my son and my new child coming along in March in that basket as well.
While I am here, it would not be the statehood thing to do if I did not wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. That is what people who aspire to statehood do. They like to be polite and wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Thank you to the Assembly staff; the Clerk; the Deputy Clerk; my parliamentary colleagues; my family - my wife, Elara, son, Harvey, and the baby bump; my electorate officer, Karen, and her husband, Dennis, who have been a tremendous support; and the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office.
To all Territorians, have a wonderful Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year. I look forward to getting back in 2011, notwithstanding a couple of weeks’ break, which will be nice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement. I have flagged my concerns and some of my reservations. I am sure we will disagree on many of those, minister, nevertheless, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak to this statement but I want to do something slightly different while I speak tonight, and no, I am not doing a strip show, I am only taking the jacket off. I am sorry to Ms McCarthy, I am sure she anticipated more, but I am doing you a favour by keeping my shirt on.
Ms McCarthy: Thank you, John.
Mr ELFERINK: A book titled The Northern Territory As It Is, A Narrative of the South Australian Parliamentary Party’s Trip and Full Descriptions of the Northern Territory, its Settlements and Industries, by William J Sowden, came into my possession not so long ago. This book was published in 1882 and it speaks of a wild frontier country. Without reading the whole introduction, there are sections in the introduction worth reading, and I will also speak about other parts of the book.
- It was on the last day save one of January, 1882, that the minister, with Messrs H E Bright, L L Furner, and J H Bagster, left Port Adelaide, after their fellow-workers in the Legislative harness had bidden them a hearty goodbye. It was on the thirteenth day of April that they were welcomed back again to the colony. What they did in the meantime, the following pages reveal. What I saw of the country after the party had left they also show. If the reader who shall plod faithfully through them be not too overpowered by the relief which comes with a sense that a disagreeable task has been overcome, he will be convinced that that extreme northern country of ours, which we have called by courtesy the Northern Territory, but too often, with bitterness, our White Elephant, is a rich possession which other colonies well might envy us. And if he be not convinced of this, the fault is mine, and not the country’s.
The book goes on to describe in detail the Northern Territory in 1882. The author is an artist, a craftsman of the English language, but nevertheless takes you to the ridiculous, the sublime, and makes an account of the country in which we reside today. In his account, he writes essentially that which could have been written last week by a spin doctor on the fifth floor. I quote page 95 of this edition:
- If our own capitalists do not accept to their own advantage the commercial suggestiveness of that conclusion, they will find in distant places other men who will; they will discover that foreign money will do what they might much more easily have done. The Northern Territory will not for long be the terra incognita it has been. The newspapers are spreading its fame throughout the world, and consular authorities and government officials at Palmerston are frequently addressed from America, China, Mauritius, and other distant parts by men of capital and practical experience in plantation work, and asked for precise information about a place they have seen referred to in papers in the various countries where they live.
Isn’t it funny? I was listening carefully to the Chief Minister, and whilst the language is slightly different, the sentiment today remains precisely the same. The agony which possesses me to stand on my feet and speak in this motion today is that those people who lived in this far flung corner of the world, the White Elephant, as it was so derisively known in South Australia, had more political rights than we have today. That resonates with me.
Indeed, at the time these words were crafted, the colony to which Mr Sowden refers was actually the self-governing parliamentary colony, a country almost in its own right. There was no Canberra, there was no federation. The federation was still 19 years away, and consequently, the political rights which were enjoyed by the residents of Palmerston in 1882 - when I say Palmerston I mean Darwin now of course - were stronger and more profound than the rights we enjoy in this place today. We have things like electricity now, aeroplanes and motor vehicles. What we do not have is the same rights. If there is ever a conscious argument for statehood, surely it can be found in the pages of this book and the accounts given herein.
For anyone who enjoys the English language it is worth taking your time to read this. It has a description of a world which, in so many ways, is familiar and in so many ways is not. He refers repeatedly to sea lawyers on the trip from Adelaide to Darwin; there was no overland route at that time which was useable, they sailed up the east coast. It is only after the third time you come across this expression that you know he is referring to sharks. Apparently, not much has changed in the world.
The Darwin he describes is rough and ready and is derisive, but in an affectionate way. I quote:
- The previous day the pack horses provided for the convenience of the party arrived at Southport and the next morning the first grand muster came off by the telegraph station. Altogether, there were 22 horses in the cavalcade and the order was ‘they must only be walked’. Arab steeds are not plentiful there and our collection, though one of the best to be had for love or money, or anything else in the Northern Territory at short notice, would rather have impelled a retired bone miller to reminiscences than inspired a horse jockey to pleasure. Mr Lindsay, indefatigable as a white ant, superintended the selection, if selection you may call a purchase where there is no choice. They were knock-kneed and lame and bruised and spavined and flea bitten and, in short, everything but what they should be.
The half dozen roadsters for the party stood proudly out amongst the rest, like Hercules amongst pigmies, but even then, before we mounted, we had to seriously wrestle with the suggestion that our horses, like and other worthies, would be constantly wanting to lean up against something or to lie down and roll upon us. Our only consolation was that, with a thermometer at 97 degrees in the shade, equal to 116 degrees in Adelaide they would not have the energy enough to do either.
Clearly a man of humour and fun but also a man who, in places, writes a stark history of the place where we live He talks about Aboriginal people, and please be aware this is in the context of the 1800s and I am quoting a man who wrote at that time, but there was sympathy in his observations:
- These blacks live and die like sheep only their lot is ever more degraded and the whites degrade it. Experienced men throughout both colonies tell you that they never knew a so-called native trouble arise but a lubra was at the bottom of it and the conscientious will not take part in revenge engagements. How long is this blot on our civilisation to remain and there is just one more suggestive query, where do all the half-caste children go? They are born, the women remain with their English masters after they are born but where are the children? You can’t see a half dozen in the Northern Territory over. Why?
The suggestion is, of course, that they are killed. That paints a very ugly picture of the Northern Territory at that time but he also goes on to paint a beautiful picture in so many other ways.
It is a rough, beautiful country which he believed is nothing like the white elephant for which it is so derisively known. Ultimately, in spite of his best efforts with his pen, and I hope in spite of the best efforts of the minister of the day, the decision and the determination was taken 11 years after the Federation of this country, to cast this Territory, with all of the political rights it had, into the political wilderness. The consequence of casting this Territory into the political wilderness is that we went from enjoying full political liberty to being nothing more than the extension of a government department run from Canberra - a blow so significant that we have not to this day recovered politically.
That is what this debate is about. I seek the political rights which were available to Territorians in 1882 but I will never get them because of the nature of our Federation. That is what this debate is for, in my consciousness. That is what this is all about. I am aware that the Federal Court, through its aggressive erosion of states rights and by the exclusion of concepts such as the reserve powers of the states, has been challenging the legitimacy of the states, particularly, in more recent years. Where they were once almost free governing entities in the same nature of nation states they are being quickly reduced by the erosive capacity of an ever intrusive Commonwealth to mere debating societies, as observed in the High Court in the not so distant past.
It, nevertheless, remains an aspiration of mine to be a political equal of my Australian cousins. We are not that. Whilst the states are eroding their power, and statehood will mean less and less if this course continues, I still think it a worthy aspiration to pursue. Consequently, I throw my weight, my heart, my mind, my soul into the pursuit of this outcome and hope that by the time we become the seventh state of this fine nation, this federation of states, that statehood will still mean something.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 40 has been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to the petitioners.
- Petition No 61
Application to Establish Baniyala School
Date Presented: 12 August 2010
Presented by: Ms Anderson
Referred to: Minister for Education and Training
Date response due: 25 November 2010
Date response received: 3 December 2010
Date response presented: 3 December 2010
Response
- An application to register Baniyala Christian School was received from NT Christian School Association (NTCSA) by e-mail on 27 August 2009 together with a copy of a previously submitted application for Mapuru Christian School and a joint covering letter.
On 6 September 2009 the applicant was advised by return e-mail that as the circumstances of the applications were quite different, each would be considered separately. In addition, preliminary feedback was provided that both applications needed to include evidence of community consultations and other requirements concerning policy on a range of issues. As such, the submitted applications could not be considered as complete.
This was confirmed in a letter from the Chief Executive, DET to the Chief Executive Officer, NTCSA on 29 October 2009 when detailed written feedback was provided on the Mapuru application and also verbally when the Executive Director Strategic Policy and Performance, DET met with the Chief Executive Officer, NTCSA on 5 November 2009.
At the time of compiling this response, no additional documentation had been forthcoming from NTCSA to complete the application requirements.
With regard to the petition stating that no reply was received to a letter from Djamabawa Marawili to me on 1 June 2010 I can advise that the response was sent on 12 August 2010.
Finally, with regard to the request for DET to approve the application by 30 September 2010 so that NTCSA could take over the operation of the school on 1 January 2011, I can advise as follows.
Assessment of completed applications is undertaken by a Registration Assessment Panel comprised of nominated members of the schooling sectors. The recommendations of the panel are considered and approved by the Chief Executive, DET as the accountable officer. If the Chief Executive’s decision is not favourable, then the applicant may, in writing, apply to me, as minister, for a review of the decision. However, I am not involved in the application process itself. The appeals process is completed through the Non-Government Schools Ministerial Advisory Council.
As stated above, the application by NTCSA for Baniyala Christian School remains incomplete and would need to be re-submitted in a complete form. The application received was also based on the premise of NTCSA taking over Baniyala Homeland Learning Centre and converting it to a full status school.
Baniyala Garrangali School was formally gazetted as a stand-alone government school on 1 February 2010. This formality followed an intensive period of planning over the period 2007-08 and over $3m investment in infrastructure which was completed and handed over in December 2009.
I am advised that the Chief Executive, DET and the Chief Executive Officer, NTCSA met on 5 July 2010 to discuss the possibility of joint provisioning arrangements in relation to religious instruction. I understand these discussions were further progressed in a meeting on 27 September 2010. I also met with the Chief Executive Officer, NTCSA on 1 October 2010 to discuss relevant issues.
I am further advised that the Chief Executives of DET and NTCSA have since visited the Baniyala community. Following this, and a subsequent visit by the Chief Executive of DET, Mr Waka Mununggurr has confirmed by e-mail that the community indicated the Baniyala Garrangali School should remain a government school in 2011 and that further discussions would be held in the new year.
My department looks forward to further constructive consultations with your community on these issues.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Water for Agricultural Industries
Water for Agricultural Industries
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim.
Madam Speaker
- I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance:
The failure of government to adequately ensure the provision of water to the Northern Territory’s agricultural industries.
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members present for their support. Water in the Northern Territory and water across Australia is an incredibly important issue. Water sustains life and for that reason we should take the matter of the provision of water very seriously.
I am concerned that this government has been caught up in its alliance with the Greens, both nationally and in the Territory, to the point where the non-provision of water is harming the Territory. In particular, it is harming the growth of our agricultural industries. Two thirds of Australia’s rainfall falls on one third of Australia: the top part of Australia. But the way we are treated by this government you would swear we were in a dry, arid part of the country because people are finding it very difficult to access water.
We had a debate earlier today about water discharge licences and sitting in the gallery was a lady called Tina MacFarlane, whom I mentioned when I was speaking on that bill. The MacFarlanes own a property just outside of Mataranka called Stylo Station which is 9500 ha. They want to develop that property into a dual cattle grazing and irrigated crop property. In 1992 they had the full support of government to do that but, over the years, encouragement has died to the point where it has been replaced by a wall of obfuscation and bureaucratic indifference - a rather appalling situation.
I speak of the MacFarlanes as a case in point. I do not suggest they have a different circumstance than anyone else on the land trying to access water, but their case is interesting because as long ago as May 2005 the MacFarlanes submitted a water licence application to the department. Given the abundance of water in the underlying Tindall aquifer, it should have been granted years ago. However, it was not until August this year that the controller, for no good reason, saw fit to reject their application. Extraordinarily enough, the controller had a big regard for the volume of water which was being extracted from the aquifer when no valid licence allowing such extraction has ever been issued. When I say no valid licence, a licence is not valid unless it complies with the Water Act. To obtain a valid licence a party must meet certain requirements under the act; namely, the publication of notices calling for public comment, provision of correct forms and water management plans, and notification of that decision. None of those things have happened, yet water is being extracted from that aquifer - some 4000 ML or more - but the controller says she took that into account.
I noticed a story in the NT News on 29 November about the MacFarlanes. The story was titled ‘David takes on Goliath for water’. It was written by a journalist, Paul Toohey, who I think we all know in this place. In that story, it said the Controller of Water Resources, Ms Leeder, said:
- … the amount the MacFarlanes wanted would have unknown consequences on flows in the Roper River.
That is one of the reasons why she has rejected their application.
It is interesting to listen to government and people when they talk about water because they say they do not want to make the same mistakes in the Northern Territory that they have made down south - in particular, in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have seen the worst drought in 100 years and the impact water allocation can have on Australia’s economy. Of course, we do not want to see the same mistakes here that have been made in the Murray-Darling Basin.
For the information of the House I will explain a little about the Murray-Darling Basin. I dug up a thing called Water and the Murray-Darling Basin - A Statistical Profile, 2000-01 to 2005-06 produced by the National Water Initiative. In 2004-05, the industries, including agriculture, and households in the Murray-Darling Basin used 52% of Australia’s total water consumption. Along the Murray-Darling Basin there are some two million people who feed off that water supply. There are 61 000 farms, accounting for 39% of all farms in Australia. The water flow in the Murray-Darling Basin is about 23 000 gigalitres.
As I said, almost half of Australia’s farms are on the Murray-Darling Basin, and that is 23 000 gigalitres - remember that number because in the Roper River there are 14 000 gigalitres, over half of what is in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is just in the Roper River alone, and there certainly are not 61 000 - if you are to say about half of what is on the Murray-Darling Basin - 30 000 farms on the Roper River.
To imagine there could be 30 000 farms on the Roper River is ridiculous because to grow something you need three things. I know many people in this Chamber have done science. The member for Barkly has probably taught science at school and he could tell you what it takes to grow something; you need sun, soil, and water. We have plenty of sunlight in the Northern Territory and plenty of water but we do not have a great deal of arable soils. So our problems with farming in the Northern Territory with are not with water; they are with finding arable land, places to grow things.
When you have a look at what goes on here and the amount of water we use - I will give you a bit of an idea. The Northern Territory government hydrologist is Mr Tickell. He wrote a paper, Groundwater in the Daly Basin, in January 2009. He estimates there are 350 million megalitres of water in the Daly Basin. The volume added each year as recharge has recently been estimated to be in the order of one million megalitres of water. That is a lot of water in anyone’s language, so the obstinance and the bureaucratic indifference and obfuscation by the department in granting water licences is ridiculous.
In relation to the MacFarlanes, I have heard people say: ‘It will affect the Mataranka thermal springs if they start pumping from that aquifer’. What nonsense. This is one farm of 9500 ha. Of that 9500 ha, less than one-fifth is proposed for farming. The MacFarlanes have spent a considerable amount of money. They intend to use the latest irrigation technology. They spent a lot of money employing consultants and the like, and through the assistance of those consultants they developed land and water management plans which will implement industry best practices and bio-security measures through stringent controls on the movement of people, equipment and machinery to prevent the introduction or increase of pests and diseases. Their proposed development is consistent with the existing land use objectives of the area.
Farms in that area, if we could encourage others to grow, would provide employment opportunities, would mean additional cash flows to the local area and the attraction of supplies of machinery and equipment into the region. There can be no doubt that agricultural development in the Northern Territory of the kind the MacFarlane’s are proposing is very much in the interests of the Northern Territory. The obstructive approach adopted by the department should be deplored.
Of course the department is merely the puppet of the minister and is doing the minister’s bidding. It seems to me that the department is breaching its own law when it is issuing water licences in contravention of the act. For the controller to issue licences to people in organisations who do not advertise they want a licence and do not comply with the requirements of the act is plain wrong. There is a range of other reasons we go on with. But as I say, the department is doing the bidding of the minister and the question is: why is the minister being so difficult with families like the MacFarlanes?
I am not just talking about the Mataranka region. There are farms in Katherine which want water. There is a big fight going on with the Peanut Company of Australia which has been given a very limited water licence. There are problems all along the Douglas Daly area with people who want water licences. There is a complete ignorance and indifference to the Ord River Stage 2 project. These all present great agricultural opportunities for the Northern Territory but for some reason or other this government seems to be anti-farming, anti growing things.
I know the reason; it is because the Labor Party is in bed with the Greens. At a national level it is in coalition with the Greens. The Greens are now in government running Australia. That should be a concern for every thinking person in the Northern Territory because to shut down this sort of stuff is absolute nonsense.
I looked at a newspaper article from the NT News a couple of days ago titled ‘Call to Restrict Our Water Use’ by David Wood. In that article we have our good friend Dr Stuart Blanch from the Northern Territory Environment Centre – well, he is a good friend too, I quite like Stuart Blanch at times. But other times some of the things he comes out with are quite nutty, like in this article. We are living in Darwin; you walk out the door and it is pouring with rain, and he says:
- We need to reduce water use, particularly in the garden, to prevent wasteful practices such as housing down concrete driveways.
I call on PowerWater and the Territory government to introduce permanent restrictions.
It’s a lot cheaper than building a new dam.
Goodness me, you have to wonder - we live in a part of the country which gets two-thirds of Australia’s rainfall. For six months of the year it is pouring rain, and we have a bloke saying we must have permanent water restrictions. These are the sort of people this government, and Labor around the country, is in bed with and has done a deal with. We are starting to see what this means in Australia. First, we have a bunch of guys over the other side who want to restrict fishing …
Dr Burns: Oh, go away.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, it has never been denied, minister.
Dr Burns: You are the only ones who want to have permits.
Mr TOLLNER: It has never been denied. You want to restrict fishing.
Dr Burns: No, we love fishing.
Mr TOLLNER: You want to introduce boat registration - everything you can do to restrict fishing. I wait for the day when someone over the other side starts talking about gay marriage because that is another one of those little things you have in your agreement with the Greens. All of these things are starting to manifest themselves in parliaments around Australia. I do not care one way or the other about gay marriage, and I have to be totally honest with you, I am not a particularly good fisherman either. I know the member for Johnston loves nothing more than getting out in the dinghy and wetting a line and I do not mind it myself at times when you are catching fish, but I have never been a great fisherman. Hampering the rights of fishers probably will not affect me personally. However, when you start trying to mess around with the food security of this country by trying to stop things like agricultural development, in those very few places where we have arable land, that is completely wrong.
Whether it is Centrefarm in Central Australia, the Ord River Stage 2, the Douglas Daly region, Katherine, Mataranka or whether it is watering your garden in Darwin, people in the Northern Territory have a right to a clear and understandable policy in relation to water access. It is wrong that someone should apply for a licence in 2005 and not be given an answer until late this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what this government is doing in relation to water and our agricultural industries is deplorable.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome today’s MPI because I agree, somewhat, with my learned colleague to my left, the member for Fong Lim, in that water in the Northern Territory needs to be treated a little differently to how it is treated in other states.
We have seen reference after reference today to the Murray-Darling Basin and it would be nearly impossible to repeat that scenario in the Northern Territory. I know this government says its ultimate goal is to protect the Northern Territory from ever getting as bad as the Murray-Darling Basin, but the reality is, as the member for Fong Lim pointed out, the amount of land in the Northern Territory which is usable for crops and other product sources is not the same as in the Murray area. When you look at the water flows each year which flow out to the sea and are used for other purposes, we would be scratching the surface if we ever thought we were going to damage it through the overuse of approving a few licences in some of the areas which are suitable for irrigation.
The problem I see in many areas is that this government and I believe, to some extent, the Greens, see most of our primary producers as some kind of environmental criminals. In my understanding and experience these people would have to be some of the best environmental people you could come across because they need to sustain development and sustain their properties. They do all they can to ensure erosion and land clearing is kept to a minimum. They know the virtues of adequate wind breaks and keeping grasses and other areas which are not farmed together to stop erosion. Why are these people criticised for trying to develop the Territory, and criticised by the green movement and this government, when they have a bigger vested interest in their land than any of us because it sustains them and provides their income? They will do all they can to protect their land and ensure it is viable for many years to come.
I take great offence at many property owners being put into that box: that they must be environmental vandals because they want to clear a little land and make it valuable to produce food. Water and food are the two things we need to sustain life. Unlike some of the more arid areas of Australia, in the north, particularly where we are now, water is one thing which is pretty much assured each year. Yes, in the 25 to 27 years I have been here, we have had some drier than normal Wet Seasons. Wet Seasons come and Wet Seasons go. Every year, we have a great deal of rain. In arid areas of Australia, particularly in South Australia, they are trialling - and very successful trials - putting water back into the ground. I appreciate that is not going to work in the Northern Territory. It is no good filling an aquifer which is going to fill every year anyway. That kind of technology is not really suitable. Perhaps it is a good technology to trial in Central Australia.
In the Northern Territory we have to learn to capture water better. With a growing Darwin - and this government says it promotes growth – the day will come when we will need a new dam; we will need more than one dam.
Do not get me wrong, I am all for better management of our water resources. We can do better with the amount of water the average person uses every day in the Northern Territory. It astounds me how much water we use. What I have never been able to find out is whether our daily water usage includes just what the average Joe uses in their home every day, or does it include some of the areas in the members for Nelson and Goyder’s areas which include the horticultural industry. If it does, that does not provide an accurate picture of our water use.
Every day, when you drive around Darwin, particularly in the Wet Season, you will still see sprinkler systems operating. The councils in both Darwin and Palmerston have problems with sprinkler systems which come on in the middle of the Wet Season. There is no need for that; they can be adjusted, they can be fixed to stop that happening. There are things we can do to stop watering our roads, particularly in the Wet Season. There is no need for that unless there is some kind of technology which is building new roads from water. The reality is there are always things we can do. I do not like dripping taps at home. You put a new washer in if you can. There are practical things people can do every day to reduce their water usage. The bigger picture for Darwin is we are a growing society. If this government is true to its word that it supports growth, it is going to have to get its management of water right.
There is a well-known term - and I used it in an earlier debate today - the precautionary principle. It is well-known in the environmental world. This principle is taken to the extreme with water management in the Northern Territory with what we have as an asset under the ground and what we could capture each year with what comes from the heavens. Unlike some radical people who think we waste too much water, the truth is, as far as the planet goes, we do not waste water at all. It is not as though it can pour itself off to the moon, or Pluto, or Saturn. What fresh water we have on this planet is what we have. If water is going down the drain it is recycled. Whether it ends up in our rivers or our oceans, through evaporation it turns back into rainfall and is recycled.
As I pointed out, I do not like a dripping tap either, that kind of wasted water is always going to be something we can do a little more about, but we are in a confined world, so there is really no such thing as wasted water. What we use will come back. With that in mind, it is how we manage the water we can get hold of. In the Northern Territory, particularly in the northern areas where we have massive rainfalls every year, we should be coming up with programs which can assist not only local growth, but perhaps support our neighbours down south.
I question the relationship between the Greens in this country and Labor, because I have seen time and time again how Labor has let the Greens down. It has let them down, but they cannot go as far as supporting a conservative government. It is a very strange dichotomy. They know they get let down time and time again, whether it is the nuclear debate which is about to spark up again, nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, or any number of things where a Labor government has not fulfilled promises it made to the Greens.
We see our green movement here at odds, time and time again, with the Labor movement, and yet when it comes to an election - a chance to change and send a message to the Labor Party that it has to do better, if you want my vote, you are going to have do better – it does not change sides. The Greens continue to push their votes toward Labor and I wonder what you have to do to demonstrate that the Country Liberals in 2010 are not the previous CLP government; no offence to the previous CLP government, but that was a different era. We talk about the new era today, well, we are here with you.
Times have changed. The average person does not expect we should be ruining our environment. The average person does not expect whatever government is in charge, whether it is a conservative government or a Labor government, that we are going to intentionally harm our environment. They expect us to be charged with the responsibility to ensure we get it right.
Modern developments go out of their way to get it right. There are too many issues if things go wrong; that is where we need a very strong government with tight regulation to ensure it is done right. Not a flick and tick machine, but proper, strong regulation backed up by the resources to ensure we get it right. The mining industry, for instance, and the offshore oil and gas industry do not want to muck it up but they need guidance, and they cannot be seen to think the government of the day is a pushover. I think that is what happens in the Northern Territory. They think this government is a pushover. If you put the right controls in place, they will not see the government as a pushover and will perhaps lift their game even more.
I have spoken to many people in industry in recent times who have said they cannot afford to get it wrong today. We have the government regulations in place. We have the green movements, governments and oppositions, the media, the general public and, in most cases, we have shareholders who we are responsible for. Mistakes cost money. They do not want to make mistakes. They want to get it right, but they need to have strenuous regulations in place to ensure they do get it right.
I am not suggesting we need to over-govern in every area of industry and business. In fact, I agree that we need a smaller government not a bigger government. But we should be stronger in areas that matter, like our environment, and we should be putting in place everything we possibly can. I do not know what you need to do to build the kind of trust with the green movement that you can finally suggest that this Labor mob has not stacked up. Time and time again we keep supporting them. We keep supporting Labor governments and yet they do not do any better, in some respects than the way conservative governments were looking in the past.
How does someone change someone else’s perception? I think it comes down to integrity. What we do each day - the little things and the big things. It will only be a matter of time until the green movement in this country is going to have to shift its alliances because Labor governments are full of promises. They do many things right - I do not want to be that critical. I know governments of all persuasions do many good things in this country and around the world - however, time and time again, when we are talking about the environmental movement, it appears it continues to support Labor governments and sees conservative governments as a big risk. Perhaps that is because of past relationships. Maybe there is a level of mistrust, but how does one build trust? How does one reach out, put an olive branch out and say you have changed. People think leopards do not change their spots - all of those great analogies - but the truth is this is a different era, as the minister often says.
These are modern times and we know what the general public expects of a government in regard to our environment. We know what industry expects. We know how important our environment is and that is the focus a conservative government in the Northern Territory will have: to protect our environment.
When we talk about integrity - I was reading the latest Viewpoint magazine and Jim Wallace wrote an article about integrity. I will take an excerpt from it because it is about how one can change by the things they do. Jim Wallace is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. He left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000, after a 32-year career, which included a command in the SAS Regiment Special Forces and the Army’s mechanised brigade. In this article which is called ‘A Call to Courage and Integrity in Public Office’, under the heading ‘What is Integrity’ he says:
- A dictionary definition describes integrity as ‘the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards’. It can also refer to a state of being, complete or undivided, or of being sound or undamaged.
He goes on to say:
- I am as cautious to write on this as the next person would be, as none of us is perfect, but we each have a responsibility to ourselves and our professions to develop and maintain both integrity and courage. These two qualities must be cultivated in developing character, and they are built or eroded in the numerous small, often private, choices we make on a daily basis.
World renowned theologian and Bishop Tom Wright, in his recent book Virtue Reborn, takes us back to Shakespeare’s Hamlet for a lesson in developing good habits. Hamlet’s mother has colluded with his uncle in murdering his father and is now the queen of the usurper king. The queen has failed to act honourably, ignoring conscience and virtue for her own ends. Instead, Hamlet urges she should try to ‘assume a virtue if you have it not’ (act 3, scene 4, line160). As Wright notes, Hamlet is saying that it is not hypocritical to assume higher standards than we might naturally possess; rather it is the way virtue comes into its own. Urging his mother to abstain from the usurper king’s bed, Hamlet says: ‘
- Refrain tonight
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence; the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature,
And either curb the devil or throw him out,
With wondrous potency.
(lines 165-170)
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the basic message is that you have to make a start somewhere in developing good habits. I believe this side of the House, the conservative side, should it take government in the future, will send a clear message to the green movement in the Northern Territory that it is serious when it comes to our environment. We are serious when it comes to managing our resources, water being just one of them. But, they must be managed in a way that ensures sustainability and growth in the future.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing on this matter of public importance and his motion to propose for discussion the failure of government to adequately ensure the provision of water to the Northern Territory’s agriculture industry. We do not support that matter.
It is not appropriate for me to publicly comment on an individual licence application, therefore, I will not do so. The member for Fong Lim raised some issues in relation to the MacFarlanes on Stylo Station. As a local member, I have discussed this issue with the people concerned at length, as well as some of my predecessors in the portfolio. The matter is now subject to a review. I have convened a panel under the Water Act to consider the review and, therefore, it is not appropriate for me to comment while the matter is being considered and reviewed.
The contributions from the two members on the other side were very interesting. It seems the member for Brennan wants to have it both ways. During debates this year on the environment he and his colleague, the member for Fong Lim, have attacked green groups. They have made some outlandish comments about green groups. We know they do not really like them. I think they were called economic terrorists by the member for Fong Lim. Then the member for Brennan says: ‘We have changed our spots. We do not have the spots anymore’. Yet, he is quite clear that his approach to the environment, and water in particular, is to build dams and build a pipeline so those down south can share the valuable water resources we have in the Top End.
I just point to their plan, and the plan of the Leader of the Opposition, about dams. This is on their website. We know they want to dam the Elizabeth River, it is clearly identified there, as well as the other six dams they have identified in their land use structure. So, if the member for Brennan were to be the environment minister, it would be dams and pipelines. That is his approach to dealing with the most valuable commodity we have, the natural resource of water.
It is important to point out that we are part of COAG, the Council of Australian Governments. That is a very important body of all state and territory governments. The Chief Minister attends meetings to represent the Northern Territory. There are many important issues which they discuss and one of them is water. The National Water Initiative was agreed to by COAG in 2004. We had a Coalition government in Canberra in 2004 so this National Water Initiative was driven by a Coalition government and agreed to by other state and territory governments.
This is the national blueprint for water reform. Very much a part of that blueprint is a number of commitments under the National Water Initiative. We signed up to those commitments, as part of COAG, under the Coalition government in 2004. For the purpose of Hansard and members, I will go through those commitments which were reached by COAG in 2004 under a Coalition government: to prepare water plans with provisions for the environment; to deal with over-allocated or stressed water systems; a commitment to introduce registers of water rights and standards for water accounting; a commitment to expand the trade in water; a commitment to improve pricing for water storage and delivery; and a commitment to meet and manage urban demands.
There was much debate about this government not supporting the agriculture industry. That is part of the member for Fong Lim’s MPI. However, in line with the National Water Initiatives agreed to by COAG, the Henderson Labor government is undertaking strong water planning because we are approaching the limits of sustainability. This government will not let Territory rural industry suffer the same problems as down south; and it is not just the Murray River system which is suffering. That is why we are undertaking water planning across six regions, with more to come. These are good things for industry. They provide certainty and mean water will not run out. It is good for the environment as rivers get the water they need.
Water allocation plans are developed specifically for each water resource to ensure sustainability of the resource; protect the environment; and provide greater security for water-dependent developments such as agriculture, industry and public water supply. Water allocation plans are developed with the best science available and in full consultation with the community. As part of developing the best science, my department has projects under way to improve knowledge of groundwater. These projects include: the Darwin rural area; the Daly region; the Great Artesian Basin mound springs; and the groundwater systems of Central Australia.
Other work is being conducted to improve knowledge and establish monitoring networks of the minor aquifers of the Darwin and Katherine rural areas. Better understanding of the systems provides greater confidence in predicting water resources allocations through the planning process. This, in turn, provides industry and its financiers with a much greater ability to assess the viability of current and future developments - very important. When combined with land and soil information, this also allows areas of potential new development to be identified. This, for example, is the case for the area south of Wadeye where a moderately extensive, good yielding aquifer has been identified under land which has soils of agricultural significance. A process for developing a water allocation plan for that area is proposed to commence in 2012.
My department has also developed an initial draft report outlining suitable areas for agricultural development within a 50 km radius of the nominated 20 Territory growth towns under the A Working Future initiative. Further work is being undertaken to produce a series of maps which identify suitable water and soil detail in different areas of the Northern Territory. We are also undertaking water planning because we want agricultural developments to be sustainable. While we understand people will act to protect their interests, we are acting to protect everyone’s interests, including future generations.
Under this government, there are three water plans completed: the Katherine/Tindal, Alice Springs and Ti Tree, which has been substantially reviewed. There are also six water planning processes currently under way, or about to commence in the Northern Territory, including Mataranka/Tindal, Western Davenports, Oolloo Dolostone, the NT portion of the Great Artesian Basin, Howard East, and the Tiwi Islands. An informal process has commenced for the Berry Springs area.
An important part of our planning process is that we do it with the community through water advisory committees. For example, the water advisory committee for the Howard East aquifer will meet for the first time in mid-December. I am pleased to let the House know that the member for Nelson, a great local member who has a very strong interest in this, is part of the water advisory committee. He is well respected and I look forward to his contribution to that committee.
We are also undertaking planning in ways consistent with our national obligations. As I said, it is very important to recognise that, being part of COAG and the national blueprint which was signed in 2004.
Nothing better represents why we need to get it right than the Daly River region. The Henderson Labor government made the hard decisions to slow things down while we get the science right: state-of-the-art water modelling of house, surface and groundwater connects; more monitoring along the river; and more research around the implications of removing trees on the aquifer.
The land clearing moratorium has now been lifted. Careful resumption of land clearing is being allowed under the guidance of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and we have started the water allocation process, also under the guidance of DRMAC. The Daly is a special case which shows how our approach is required. River flows are sustained in the Dry Season by spring flows from groundwater, so when we do our water planning we need to recognise that if we allow the groundwater to be pumped too hard it will have an effect on the river.
The member for Fong Lim acknowledged the member for Johnston. I know he has enjoyed some fishing on the Daly. It is a river which is enjoyed by fishers. It also has cultural value to Indigenous people and is used for agriculture as well.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will stand here any day and say we have it right with the Daly. We have it right now and for future generations. I will finish with a quote which I came across in my electorate at the school at Pigeon Hole: ‘We did not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrowed it from our children’.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank a few people. In the short time I have been a member of parliament I have had the honour of being assisted by many people throughout this building and, indeed, throughout my electorate.
I started work on 11 October 2010, and had the honour of being greeted by Mrs Dee Davies, my Electorate Officer. She was the Electorate Officer for Jodeen Carney for many years, and I feel overwhelmed and honoured that Dee decided to remain with me. She is a consummate professional, highly knowledgeable, and works with the greatest integrity.
Later that morning, I was honoured with the presence of the Clerk, who came to see me in my office. He spent what felt like a few hours going through the details of my new job and trying to explain some of the processes, which quickly overwhelmed me. I greatly appreciate you doing that, Mr Clerk. I also appreciate the assistance I have been given by your staff.
I thank Vicki Long and her team; also the staff of Hansard. I had a wonderful orientation with Helen Allmich, who was thoroughly entertaining as well as informative. The security staff have unlocked the door to my office numerous times and helped me find my card, which I managed to lose once; I really appreciate your help. Also the Building Services, the ladies who empty my bin and make sure my office is in order. I see that as a true luxury, normally having to run around after other people in my life; it is very nice to be looked after and cared for in that way.
I have also been overwhelmed with the help given by Di Sinclair from the library, who gave me a great orientation and has been very helpful in directing me to the right part of the library and website to get information.
My new colleagues in opposition - it is has been a great honour to get to know you all. It has been an interesting time to join this team, in more ways than one. Terry Mills and his staff upstairs have been extremely helpful, not only over the last eight weeks but also during the campaign they gave me lots of advice; in particular, Alison Penfold has given me much advice, guidance and mentoring over the last few months. She has been a great friend and highly professional in her job.
The people of Araluen and Alice Springs, what can I say? I have the greatest respect for the town in which I have lived for many years now. The Alice Springs people are an extraordinary group of resilient, tough and tolerant people. I look forward to serving you as the member for Araluen. I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I join with other members of parliament in wishing everyone a very …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: … Happy Christmas, and bonhomie to the member opposite who continues to complain while I am doing my Christmas adjournment.
Sanderson Middle School is a great school in my electorate and has had two successful Under the Stars nights this year. One was a movie night; the other featured a comedian, Sean Choolburra. These nights were organised by the teachers but most of the organisation on both nights was by Mrs Davidson. I sponsored both nights through support, and I congratulate Mrs Davidson on those nights. I also sponsored the What’s Hot section of the Sanderson Middle School Yearbook. It was great that yearbook produced.
Clontarf students and coordinators were sent to a variety of sporting events through my sponsorship. They were able to meet the players at receptions and then go to the games. I had a great deal of feedback from that. I sponsored the Sanderson Middle School Teacher Talent Show again this year, with KYD Evolution dance group winning the students’ best talent; Arthur and Marina, second place; and Ebony and Jessica third. The winning teacher was Mr Andrea, aka Lady Gugu, his version of Lady Gaga. This was organised by Pauline Chova, who is great with her PCG group.
Upgrades around the school happened during the June to July holidays thanks to funding from the government. We also saw our refugee students start in Term 3. They have settled into the school well, and it goes to show that asylum seeker kids can be welcomed into a school community.
There were successful sport and swimming days and a great Harmony Day event. I congratulate the Principal, Jodie Green, on doing a great job. It is a fantastic middle school in the northern suburbs.
Merry Christmas to Karama Primary School as well. Marg Fenbury is the fantastic Principal, and she has a great team of teachers. They also had great sports and swimming days. A multipurpose room is under construction through the BER funding. There have been some fantastic NT School Sports gala days held throughout the year with several children from Karama taking part in Northern Territory sides.
The teachers at the school honoured with awards through the Dare to Lead School Award were Mrs McQueen with a NITA Award, and Ms Neil who was nominated for the Early Career Teacher of the Year Award. There was a fantastic Harmony Day event at that school as well. A very Merry Christmas to that fantastic school community.
Work has started on the new library and caretaker’s accommodation at Manunda Terrace Primary School. I donated a new fish tank with all accessories to the school and a voucher to Room 6 when they had a sad episode when someone smashed their old fish tank. I am told it now has six new fish and is a very happy class of students. They also had a great Harmony Day event. They had a very successful auction this year which was organised by the school council, and they have also done very well at the NT School Sports Gala days with several students being chosen in NT rep sides. They have had successful sport and swimming days, and I thank Sally Winch, who is there as Acting Principal, for her leadership. She is a great principal.
Malak Primary is going from strength to strength, and a Merry Christmas to that school community. They won third prize for the Parliament House Art Competition this year. They had a fantastic Harmony Day event and sports day. We have seen a fantastic upgrade to the front office, the staff room and a new room for community use, thanks to BER funding. There is a new Principal, Peter Swan, who has come from Jabiru, and has seen quite an impressive school at Malak. They had a fantastic Harmony Day event. I sponsor many events there, through sausage sizzles and the like, raising money for the school through the school council and it is great to see their good work through the Sports Gala Day as well.
Holy Family School, a twinkle in my eye, my youngest son is in Transition there. I missed his school concert due to sittings this week, but I did see him on video. He played a very good reindeer in Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer. Holy Family won first prize and the People’s Choice Award this year in the Parliament House Art Competition. They won $1200 through that, which is fantastic.
The Harmony Day event at the school was great, the sports day was so much fun, and their Principal, Marg Guit, has shown me through the fantastic new multipurpose building they have at the school, which also houses the library. They have a learning centre, and the computer labs are amazing, thanks to the federal government’s BER funding. We are very proud of the school community. I also thank Father Luis from Holy Family Parish, who, I know, nurtures the students at Holy Family School very well. The Rainbow Staff and the Early Learning Centre do a great job with the three and four year-old children. I can vouch for how fantastic that program is as my young son went through that program in the last few years.
O’Loughlin College is going from strength to strength. They have a fantastic Principal, Lester Lemke. He is an inspirational principal and he nurtures the entire student cohort. They have a middle school as well as the senior school. They had a fantastic Creative Arts Festival recently, a great sports and swimming carnival, and they have completed the upgrades to their science facilities.
I am very excited tonight because, for the first time in my life, one of my children is actually getting an end of year award. My daughter, Jhenne, is getting an end of year award at O’Loughlin College. I do not feel too bad about missing that presentation because she is in Germany, so she is not there to get the award anyway. I lost my opportunity to get up on stage and get the award on her behalf. My daughter, Bronte, is performing at the O’Loughlin College Presentation Night tonight, and I am missing that; however, I am sure she will repeat the performance at home on request.
Marrara Christian School has come into my electorate, and it is a great school community. It is a school community which can build a new home in three days; the Chief Minister saw the open inspection of the house the other day. They are doing a great job with the student cohort. That school is a credit to our community.
Malak Community Arts does a fantastic job nurturing the community, and I happily sponsor their Malak Community Newsletter.
I am also sponsoring a variety of children throughout my electorate in Northern Territory sporting sides. This year alone, I have given about 72 literacy awards to children across schools in my electorate who each receive a certificate and a $25 Casuarina voucher. I love sponsoring students who go away on educational trips, and I was a key sponsor of the Marrara Christian School trip to India this year.
I have been helping out the Milkwood Steiner School in my electorate as well, through printing their newsletter. I went to a great opening at that school this year.
I wish all these school communities a very Merry and Happy Christmas. The principals, teachers, front office staff, teacher assistants and parents who work hard on the school councils are really the heart of our communities. I love the variety of schools I have in my electorate, and they all enhance our community.
With regard to other things happening: we have a revamp of our shopping centre under way and we are a little displaced at the moment. We are shopping at Northlakes, Hibiscus or Casuarina, and are all looking forward to the New Year when we see the shopping centre redevelopment winding up.
I thank Dancing with the Stars for a great event again this year, which I put some sponsorship towards. I am patron of Nightcliff Football Club and I know we have a home game this Sunday which I am will try to go to. I sponsor night basketball in my electorate, and I thank the groups who organise the night basketball.
Kerry Wetherall, my Electorate Officer, said that I was to say she was awesome, and if there was an award big enough for all the things Kerry should be nominated for, I would be the first to nominate her and sponsor the award. She is just too awesome. Juda Jive to you, Kerry. She now owes me something.
I could not get through the year without the great team I work with - the Chief Minister and all my colleagues. We are a great team; I enjoy their company and they inspire me, each and every one of them. I thank all the staff in my office. They do a tireless amount of work ensuring I am paying attention to everything that is happening across my portfolio areas, meeting with all my key stakeholders, staying in touch with the community and, most importantly, listening to what people have to say and what actions, ambitions, and aspirations they have for government. So, thank you to all my staff. I will not mention them all by name, but there is no one in my team who is not putting in a tremendous amount of work and effort, and I value every single one of them.
Thank you to the Assembly staff for all your support throughout the year. Thank you to Hansard for putting up with our tireless, and at times I am sure, very boring debates, but at other times, very fiery debates. The Table Office does a great job, particularly supporting ministers with the legislation and helping us through that process.
I could not get by in a year without the tremendous support of Kerry, Dee, Giovanna and Lisa – Lisa, in particular, who keeps the home fire burning for me as my nanny, and takes care of my kids while I work the enormous hours I work, and travel the amount I do. My three children are awesome. I say that wholeheartedly - Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. Sometimes, when you have a workaholic, single parent, it is probably a bit tough going, but my kids love me enormously; I love them enormously, and they keep saying they are proud of me, so I guess that makes it all worthwhile.
My mum, Dawn, is an inspiration; she is a Territory icon. We underestimate what she has done for this great Territory through the decades, and she is still helping Territorians. She is helping people with disabilities in the work she does at the Darwin Community Legal Service and, as I am fond of saying, she has a 100% record of success against our government. That is a great thing, indeed. There are self-opening doors at the convention centre now that were not there before. She went there, recognised the doors did not meet disability standards, and there are now self-opening doors. I quietly refer to them as the Dawn doors. She continues to be an advocate for change, and it is great she is advocating for people with a disability. I know they value the work she is doing on a daily basis to help them. And she helps me out; she fills the gaps when I need someone to go to things like the presentation night tonight. She is there cheering my daughter on.
To my sister, Dianne, and her partner, Terry: I thank both of you very much for the tremendous support you give me throughout the year. I could not get through a year without them; they are great people. It is great to have Defence personnel in your family - Navy and Army. They argue about which is the best, of course, but they both agree they are against the RAAF. I am hoping my son looks towards the RAAF just to stir them both up. It is an insight into the life of Defence in the Territory; an insight I value tremendously.
I have dear friends who are associated with 7RAR who are going to Adelaide, and I will miss them. 7RAR guys and their families have been great members of our Darwin community. I wish them all the best, and I wish them a Merry Christmas. They are relocating over the Christmas period. With the loss of 7RAR, we will gain more troops in 25RAR. There is always, as Defence says, a nett balance out there.
To my brother, John, and his family in Abu Dhabi, they are there advocating for Emirates business class flights into the Territory, almost single-handedly. At every function they are pushing that. They keep saying there is a chance of Emirates paying attention, and I certainly hope they do. The Territory is an exciting place, we are certainly the place of opportunity, and the amount of business travel that is coming our way as a result of the major projects, is quite exciting.
To all members of the parliament, I wish you all a safe and Merry Christmas. To all of the staff of the Assembly, a very safe and Merry Christmas.
I feel privileged to be the member for Karama. As I am fond of saying, I live in the best place in the Territory. The people in Karama and Malak are great; they are hard-working, they are the great Aussie battlers. We are the most multicultural and diverse community in the Northern Territory, based on the ABS data. We are a wonderful mix of urban Indigenous and remote Indigenous all coming together, and we live in harmony. I know some people would like to paint a different picture, but we certainly live in harmony. So, thank you members and Merry Christmas.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you are a champion bloke. I do not care what anyone says about you. Thank you for the call; I will be brief.
I, too, would like to pass on my best wishes for Christmas and the festive period, particularly to my electorate officer, Helen Bateman, and her husband. Helen has always been a pillar of strength for me and supports me very well and has done for a long period of time going back to my previous life as the member for Solomon. She has been supported in the office by Pearl Ogden and Iain Forrest; both of them do a tremendous job and, like all of us in this place, we would not survive without our Electorate Officers and the people who support them.
I particularly thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, Ian and the team. You do us proud and I really appreciate your help. Also, the Hansard crew, I would be remiss not to thank Hansard. I know at times I do not speak the best, but you read Hansard and they do make sense of some things I say. In particular, I know upstairs listening to me right now is a former staffer of mine, Julianne Quinn. I particularly wish her a Merry Christmas whilst she is typing away on the computer.
There is a range of people in the electorate I should thank. Over recent months, I have been very fortunate to come into contact with a group called the Save Eaton Group; I hope they have a Merry Christmas. I know next week they are running a rally at the Ludmilla Primary School in order to shine a light on the concerns the community has in relation to the proposed demolition or removal of the houses on RAAF Base Darwin. That group has been set up to oppose that and, in some way, try to save that whole suburb.
The Ludmilla Primary School is a wonderful school, great people there, and Merry Christmas to all there.
It would be also remiss of me not to thank the Country Liberal Party. Most of us here, apart from the little bald chap on my left, have a party to thank for being in this place. I think we all agree, no matter what side of politics we are on, it is wonderful to have a party support group. I think I speak for everyone here, even the Independents: it is wonderful to have people who take an interest in public policy irrespective of their point of view. It is one of the things that makes Australia great, the fact that we love a good stoush, we love a good argument, and we can only hope that the best argument wins; I believe in most cases in this country it does. In many ways we owe that to people who belong to political parties, and people who support the people who want to get into parliamentary or public life. So, thank you very much to the people in the Country Liberals team.
To all my colleagues in this place, thank you very much for your support in the last year. You have been great, and it has been fantastic to share this year with you.
To the political opponents, I have to tell you that I do love the banter in this place. I know at times it can seem a little bit personal; please don’t take it that way. It is a battle of ideas and, ultimately, that is what it is all about. As someone said the other day, my new best friend, the little bloke here on my left, the Labor member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Oh, go away! The Independent member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … the Independent member for Nelson sometimes comes into this place and deplores the fact that there is so much politics, but the reality of it is …
Mr Wood: No, party politics - not politics.
Mr TOLLNER: The fact of the matter is, politics is a good thing. Politics is about the battle of ideas, and it is incumbent on all of us to come in here and argue as hard, loud and raucously as possible for those things we truly believe in. It would be a much worse place we lived in if we did not come in here and do exactly that.
Sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by not defending our actions in this place. After being six years in the House of Representatives, I think we could raise the level of debate a few octaves in this place. I know at times Madam Speaker, and some of the people listening on radio, do not agree with that but the reality is that that is good for democracy and we should never be ashamed of it. We should get out there and tell those people exactly what we are about and why we are doing that, because it is so important.
One of the great programs I became involved with in the Howard government was the Democracy in Schools program, where the parliament of Australia actively promoted civics in schools and an understanding of what politics is all about. The reality is it is through loud and principled debate that we have such a great democracy and we should never be ashamed of it.
Merry Christmas to my good mate, the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: Merry Christmas, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: You are the biggest let down of my life, you picked the wrong horse.
To everyone here, thank you very much. It has been a wonderful year, and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, for the wonderful gift he has given me this year - the member for Fong Lim on my right. The way he is going I think I am going to have him there for the next 12 months as well.
A little more seriously, I thank everyone in parliament, especially all the members of parliament for the work they have done during the year, whether you are opposition or government or cross benches. I remind people there are two Independents in this House, so we understand the importance of being Independent, member for Fong Lim.
I know there is a lot of argy-bargy here. I do not quite agree with my colleague on the right that everything has to be raucous and loud; sometimes empty vessels make the most sound. Sometimes you can get your argument across in a more …
Mr Tollner: Less passionate way?
Mr WOOD: No. You can be passionate, you can be logical, and you can still win the argument. As you say, member for Fong Lim, this is an important part of our democracy and we should respect it, and teach other people to respect it. Sometimes I feel that our behaviour in this parliament, and our behaviour towards the Speaker, is not the sort of behaviour we should be promoting. Regardless of the vigour with which we debate, we should honour the traditions of this House, and one of those is the rulings of the Speaker.
I thank all the staff. They do a lot of work sitting in those chairs in front of us, and out the back, listening to what some people may call dribble and others of us may think it is well thought out debate. They sit through the sittings in parliament and when parliament is finished they have other work to do.
I thank Hansard. I have said a number of times I do not know how they handle some of my speeches, but they manage to put them together in the form of a sentence with subject, verb and predicate. They manage to do that.
I also thank the cleaners and the security people; they are the people we sometimes forget. I sometimes give them a fright if I am working late in my office and they wander in to pick up the rubbish and they do not realise someone is there. They are all very nice people.
I thank my electorate. First, I am going to thank all the people who work in the schools in my electorate. I have three schools in my electorate and five schools on the boundary I share with the member for Goyder, and I like to regard all those schools as my own. I have Howard Springs Primary School; Good Shepherd Lutheran School, which is a very fast growing school in the rural area; Girraween Primary School; Humpty Doo Primary School, one of the biggest primary schools in the Territory; St Francis of Assisi; Taminmin College, the biggest high school in the Northern Territory; Bees Creek Primary School; and Litchfield Christian School.
I regard the schools as an essential part of our community. Years ago, it would be the church and the hall and that sort of thing. Tomorrow I will be going to the dance assembly at Girraween Primary School, and many of the community come to those occasions. The schools tend to be the community centres. I thank the people who make them that way: the teachers, and we have some wonderful teachers; the students, the school staff, the cleaners, and the administration staff. Many of those staff must find it hard when all the teachers go on holidays, and who is left at the school? Just the administration staff. I thank the parents and the school councillors - the school councillors do a heck of a lot of work for no money, and they keep those schools going. It is a job people do not pay enough attention to.
I thank all the sporting clubs in the rural area. There are so many rural sporting clubs I cannot go through them all tonight. I think I am involved in all of them. The only one I do not get involved in as much as I used to is the golf club. Where possible, I get around to every sporting event, and there are plenty of those in the rural area.
There are many volunteer fire brigades in the rural area and I thank them, especially this year, when we had a major fire. Our local Howard Springs Fire Brigade was one of the key groups helping to put out that fire. They were assisted by Bees Creek, Virginia, Humpty Doo, also the Palmerston Fire Brigade, and many of the Bush Fire Council fire brigades. They do a terrific amount of hard work, they protect our community, and they do it for nothing. I thank them; they are a fantastic group of people.
I thank groups of people like the Howard Springs Parks Advisory Committee. People have volunteered to be on that committee and we hope they will be able to bring the Howard Springs Nature Park up to a standard we can be proud of, which will attract visitors again and make it a park like it used to be where the community can come and enjoy themselves.
I am now a member of the Howard Springs Water Advisory Committee, and there is a group of people on that who are also volunteers. I thank those people for giving up their time for an important task. They are people who have volunteered to give their time in helping the community and helping make our rural area a better place; that is why it is so nice to live in the rural area. I know other members have the same thing in their own electorates, but that is why it is so nice to live in my area.
I thank the Old Timers. I have not been there as much this year. They always have bingo on Wednesdays and I try to go there to play for my five cents a card, and I enjoy it. I enjoy the social side of it where we have a cup of tea, or the last Wednesday of every month they have a barbecue. They are a great group of people and are really important in our society. There are plenty of other people I could thank. Unfortunately, the Council of Territory Corporation has taken a bit out of my life this year.
Before I thank my staff, I thank all the people in my electorate. I love the Nelson electorate, and I think I live in the best part. I know everyone else says that too, but I live on five acres and I am 10 minutes from the Palmerston shopping centre, five minutes from the Coolalinga shopping centre, and there is a new shopping centre going up next year. I can go back and sit on five acres and not even know there is a lot of traffic around there or there is a suburb over there in Palmerston. They are the things I enjoy.
I thank my wife, Imelda. She puts up with a lot in the sense that she never sees me. There are many times when I am in parliament we actually hardly have a word because, by the time I get home, she is asleep; and, by the time I get up, she is still asleep. I know underneath it all, she is a great supporter. I was just thinking tonight of the time when I had to give a speech here about where I should move in relation to supporting one side or the other. My family came here - grandchildren and all. They normally would not take much interest in politics at all, but they knew when the chips were down and they came and supported me. I thank my wife, Imelda, very much; my daughters: Angela, who is in Canberra; Caroline; Joanne; my grandkids, Jason, James, Wilhelmina and William; as well as Keith, my son-in-law.
I thank my electorate office staff, Kim. Kim is a wonderful person and keeps things going in my electorate office. In fact, she has to keep a train set running at the present time, because I have a couple trains running around the Christmas tree in the front of my office. Occasionally, the trains come off the track and I have to ring up and find how things are going. I call my office Little Myers.
As you know, Dawn was my Electorate Officer up to a couple of months ago when she passed away. We still miss her very much. To Sandy, who cleans, to Robyn, Michelle, the person who has allowed me to continue through thick and thin in this job - I thank her very much from the bottom of my heart. Without them, I would not be here today. I also thank one other person who comes into my office, Joy Beck. She is a volunteer tax help lady, and she does a fantastic amount of work for people.
A couple of people who passed away this year who were good friends of mine: Mike Doyle and Pam Crellin. I miss them very much.
My thoughts are with all people in the Nelson electorate; with all the members of parliament here today; with all the people in the Assembly. I hope you all have a Happy Christmas and a safe New Year. Perhaps a motto we should think about: Christmas is about peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I give thanks to a heap of people who have helped me and our government through 2010. It has certainly been a year of challenges in the Northern Territory but, in many ways, it has been a great year. We faced some challenges, but we also achieved a heck of a lot. None of that is possible without all of these people.
To my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues, thank you for your hard work this year. We are a great team; we are a united team; we enjoy each other’s company; we work hard and we work well together. You are a great, committed, and passionate bunch of people with great ideas for the Territory, and it is a privilege to work with each and every one of you.
We have a progressive policy vision and reform package which is transforming the Northern Territory into a better place. It is an exciting time to be in Northern Territory politics. We can all look back on this year and, in the main, be very proud of our achievements. It has been a significant year with its challenges but, overall, the Territory is certainly moving in the right direction. I hope all my colleagues have a safe, restful and happy festive season; you have certainly earned it. More importantly, your families have earned it as well; they are going to be looking forward to having you back for a little while.
To all my parliamentary colleagues, I wish you and your families a safe and happy festive season. To all the Assembly staff – Mr McNeill and all your staff – thank you for your hard work. It cannot be easy listening to us day and night; much of the time it is not the greatest level of debate in the world. Thank you for putting up with us all.
We should not forget all the other staff in Parliament House - our security team, our cleaners, our drivers, the staff in Speaker’s Corner, and all the Hansard staff. This is a tremendous workplace, and you all play your part. I thank you very much and wish you all a Merry Christmas.
To the CEOs of my department, Mike Burgess, and Police Commissioner, John McRoberts, two very dedicated people who work extremely hard. I thank you both for your advice and your support throughout the year. It is a pleasure and a privilege to work with you.
To our hard-working public servants across the Northern Territory, all 17 000-odd of you, I thank each and every one of you for the hard work you do. Quite often, sometimes even in this parliament, our public service takes a pretty unwarranted caning. But the Territory is moving in the right direction, in the large part due to the great work of our public service in implementing government policy. Sometimes there is criticism, and quite often it is very much justified, but we are all learning and implementing recommendations from reports as they come along the way. So, to all of our public servants, thank you for your great work on behalf of all Territorians.
In particular at this time of the year, I thank all the Police, Fire and Emergency Services staff, our doctors, nurses and health workers, and all the people who work in our hospitals over Christmas and New Year, and people who work in Corrections. Most of these people give up time with their families over the Christmas and New Year period that would interrupt their duties. I thank you for your continued dedication, and your families for being so understanding.
To my ministerial staff in my office, I am not going to name you, you know who you are. Thank you for all your hard work this year. They are a wonderful bunch of people to work with. We work really hard and we put in long hours, but we also manage to have a fair bit of fun as well. It is a happy workplace. It is an amazing bunch of people I work with on a day-to-day basis. We have achieved much this year. To each and every one of you, you have all played a part in that. I look forward to working with you all again in 2011. Enjoy the break.
Thank you to the Casuarina Branch of the Labor Party, a fantastic bunch of people. I appreciate the support given to me by members of the branch. I know my colleagues, the members for Johnston and Casuarina, echo that sentiment. We are only here because of the party and the people who work for us. My thanks to each and every one of you; you are an amazing bunch of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to the people in the Wanguri electorate - we all claim to have the best electorate and I claim to live and work in the best electorate; they are an amazing bunch of people. There is nothing I enjoy more than getting home and putting on the shorts and t-shirt, getting up and down the street and across to Hibiscus, and being part of the local community. You are a wonderful bunch of people, and I look forward to continuing to represent you next year. I really enjoy the time in the electorate office, the time knocking on doors, and the time going to the school communities. Representing your electorate is a great part of political life and I absolutely love it.
As Chief Minister, I would love to be able to spend more time in my electorate, but whilst I am not there, my electorate officer, Jenny, does a great job keeping everything under control and making sure my constituents are looked after. Jenny came to work with me after my former electorate officer, Morgan, moved to Townsville to be with her family, and Jenny is doing an amazing job. She is a lovely person and we have a lot of fun together. Thank you, Jenny, for all your support this year. I hope you have a happy and relaxing festive season.
Of course, I could not do this job without the love and support of my family: my wife Stacey, my boys Alasdair and Liam, and my daughter, Isobel, the rock of my life. They put up with so much, particularly at this time of night, quarter past nine on Thursday night, I should be home with the kids, but here we are still at work. You are beautiful people, and I am really looking forward to spending time with you over Christmas.
Finally, if there is anyone listening to this or watching it on the Internet - I cannot believe anyone is, but if you are, Merry Christmas to you, and a Merry Christmas to all Territorians. I hope everyone has a safe Happy New Year. Drive safely on our roads. It is going to be fantastic next year – 2011.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk of the Palmerston Middle School presentation ceremony which the member for Brennan and I went to today. As some might have noticed, we popped into Question Time four minutes late. Unfortunately, the presentations ran a little bit over time. I would particularly like to mention the community awards winners, because our young people from our schools are those who become part of our community, now and into the future.
The first award is the Australia Day Council Student Citizen Award. Today it was presented by Katrina Fong Lim, Executive Director, Australia Day Council, to a young lady, Christine Gardiner.
The Rotary Community Service Award, presented by Mr Paul Asprey on behalf of Rotary Darwin North - an association I have had involvement with for about seven years now - was to Madeline Thomas. The Palmerston City Mayoral Citizenship Award was sponsored by the Palmerston City Mayor, Robert Macleod, and presented by Mr Chin, representing the Deputy Mayor, to Teaghan DaRocha.
The Year 7 Leadership Awards, sponsored by me as the member for Drysdale, for the aspiring young leaders in Year 7 - the two winners were Darrian Whitehurst and DJ O’Shea. Congratulations to both those winners of the Year 7 Leadership Awards. The Year 8 Leadership Awards were presented by the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler, to Kinji Munkara-Murray and Kaleb Matthews. Congratulations to the Year 8 Leadership Award winners.
The Year 9 Leadership Awards were presented by the member for Brennan, Mr Peter Chandler, and sponsored by the member for Blain and Leader of the Opposition, Mr Terry Mills, to Luci Susanto and Joshua Gibson. Well done to those winners of the community awards. They are going to be great citizens, and it is fantastic to see those people rewarded for what they have achieved this year.
Palmerston High School will go through a massive change next year with alterations to the middle schools and upper schools, and with the Rosebery School coming on board. We talked to teachers extensively today and they are looking forward to it. They are also considering that next year, as teachers, they go back to the beginning - the member for Barkly will remember this. Every year you grow and develop students and you see the fruits at the end of that year. The next year you start again with a new variety and you grow those people to become new citizens and new people. I presume that is very rewarding. Well done to those teachers.
They have a new challenge. Over the last four-odd years the Palmerston High School has evolved through different phases, and I see this as a long-term change. They will be able to embrace and enjoy a little more space than they have had in the last couple of years. They will have fewer children but more facilities for those children to enjoy because of those who have moved to Rosebery. We knock each other from left to right on this floor, but when children are involved it is fantastic to see the opportunities for them to expand, float with their wings, and really enjoy themselves.
This is the last sitting for the year. I wish everyone, as I did earlier this week, the best and merriest of Christmases. Enjoy your family, because they are the special part we get to enjoy. We do not spend a great deal of time with them. To my daughter, Jasmine, living in New Zealand, Merry Christmas, darling. Her mother and I, although we are separated, have a special little present for her as next year she is going to do some more school camps. So, we have a special present which will enable her to do that better, and she is really excited by it. She is a smart little cookie - some would say a lot smarter than her father - but she is a lovely young lady who recently turned 10 years old. I wish her the best Christmas.
Those on both sides of the Chamber, enjoy yourselves with your families. To my electorate of Drysdale, thank you for your support this year. It has not been the easiest year for me personally, with family issues, but thank you very much for what is also possibly not the best year for you guys. Let us hope 2011 is a fantastic year for all
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I adjourn on a wonderful parliamentary year, the year of 2010. What a year it has been. A year of planning, designing, developing and delivering in the portfolios of Lands and Planning, Construction and Infrastructure, Transport, Correctional Services, and Arts and Museums.
I begin by thanking my Labor Caucus colleagues for being a professional team of elected community members united in ideology and ambition for delivering positive outcomes for the Territory. Not only are they an incredible team, they are a very interesting team. When I think about it, it is not just because we are government; it is because of the incredible diversity of people not only in ages, experiences, and backgrounds, but people who represent the real culture of the Territory. I know I am biased, but they inspire me, and it is a fabulous team to work with. I have worked with some good teams in my time, but this is a robust team, a challenging team, and a team that digs in and delivers.
To my Cabinet colleagues, I thank you for your guidance, mentoring and inspiration in my role as a minister in the Northern Territory government - which is the highest level of operation you can get in government. It is truly inspiring to be a member of such a team and a very privileged position in terms of the elite decision-making that goes on as a member of that team.
To the Chief Minister: well done, boss. I have had some good bosses in my time, and you certainly make that cut. You carry an incredible load on your shoulders in the Northern Territory, and you lead by example.
To the government advisory staff known as ‘the fifth floor’, thank you guys, once again, another year of inspirational work with you. You represent the Territory in all walks of life and ages; you are an exciting bunch, and I thank you. Have a good Christmas, have a great New Year, and I look forward to working with you again in 2011.
To the department staff, the Department of Lands and Planning, including the Transport mob, whom I have been with the longest; to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, a new department, but a very much emerging department; to the Department of Justice, and to Corrections and Community Corrections; to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, thank you to all those wonderful people. I have endeavoured to do my best to get around to meet as many as possible. The CEOs have been great to work with; the high-level opportunity to work with great people, and I really enjoy the work we do together; the level of democracy we have, the level of frankness, the level of robust debate and, of course, the level of delivery.
To Madam Speaker; to Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Nhulunbuy; to Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Arafura; and to Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Fannie Bay - thank you very much. I was reminded recently by the Parliamentary Education team that none of this would happen without two things: one is the mace; and the other is the Speaker. You guys do an incredible job - the long hours, the dedication and the adjudication which sometimes is very challenging, but thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, as the leader of that very special team, thank you. Have a wonderful Christmas with your family, and a very peaceful and restful New Year. We look forward to seeing you back in the Chair in 2011.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff; another year of learning for me - what an incredible bunch of people you are. I learned a lot when I saw you take this show on the road last year to Alice Springs, and I believe the planning is under way to take it on the road again. You do an incredible job and you represent Territorians who are a part of the real democratic processes and a real part of keeping all the political aspects on track.
A special mention of the Department of the Chief Minister’s staff. The drivers - Garry, Bill, John, Ben, George, Gowan and Rocky. I really enjoy your company, guys. You are very much a great indicator of the community. I really appreciate the discussions we have when you drive me around, take me to functions, drop me off, pick me up, and take me to the airport. I get to throw ideas out, and you give good comment on it. You are great guys, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your families.
To the parliamentary office staff, that is my family at work. In our office there is a very clear shared vision that you are most welcome to come, but you can only leave if you gain a promotion. It is great to celebrate all the further professional achievements of people who have been in that wonderful office in Suite 1 on the fifth floor of Parliament House. Karlee Dalton has gone to bigger and better things, including starting a family. Best wishes to you and Rob and that new baby coming. Paula Timson, DLO for DCI; Susan Williams, DLO for DCI; Janette Howard, DLO for Corrections; Leigh Jenner - what can we say about you, Leigh? Gone on to bigger and better things, a Ministerial Assistant, now a manager in the public sector – a great young woman. Good work, Leigh, I look forward to catching up soon. Carly Waite came and looked after us as an Acting Ministerial Assistant; Tarsh Parmenter, an Acting Ministerial Assistant who looked after us; and Bethaney Maley, Ministerial Advisor for Corrections and Media who went off to start a family. The last time I saw Bethaney she was doing very well with her new family.
The current staff in 2010: Rebecca McAlear, Personal Assistant. Haven’t we seen some development in that kid this year? She is a really high-class Territory kid who makes me laugh; and she certainly inspires us. Well done, Rebecca. Natalie Dinsdale is new in the office. Welcome, Natalie, and we look forward to working with you – a Ministerial Assistant who jumped in, part of the family, big smile every day, and enjoying the work. Rebecca Cass is a lady with a lot of class and a lot of experience - Ministerial Advisor for Corrections. I thought we would lose her; I reckoned she would be drafted back into the nerve centre, but she stuck it out with us and we are certainly happy that she did. Great experience, great inspiration.
One of the old troopers on the floor, Wolf Loenneker, is Ministerial Advisor for Lands and Planning and the Darwin Port Corporation - what a trooper, what a wealth of knowledge. Not only do we work Wolf to the bone, but so does everyone else in government. He is one very popular person in our team. Alan James is on board as a Ministerial Advisor for the Arts and Museums - what a talented guy. He is well connected, and gives me great advice - Darwin born and bred, knows the place back to front, and is certainly a very creative character. Penny Lyons, DLO for DCI, is new and is enjoying her work; I can see the personal development happening there. She is definitely here for a good reason. Stuart Knowles is a DLO for Transport. What an Aussie, what a beauty! I really like Stuart. He is like a son, and he teaches me so much and can never do enough for you. He is not frightened of taking on anything
Edwin Edlund, Media Advisor - thank you Edwin, once again. You look after me so well, and I am looking forward to continuing to work with you. The young father of them all, Brett Brogan, Senior Advisor. Thank you, Brett. It is about time you had a kid; you and your wife should start your family soon. You certainly look after that team of people up there, Brett, and I appreciate it, mate. It has been a huge year and you have inspired me and taken me on a journey of my life.
Nancy Cowan is the Barkly electorate officer. Thank you, Nancy. What a wonderful opportunity; you walked in the door and I walked out the back door and said: ‘Just hold the fort, Nancy’. You have done an incredible job, and I look forward to more of it.
To the Barkly Sub-Branch of the Australian Labor Party, to all our new members, welcome to the journey - this is politics. To the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, thank you for sharing me with the rest of the Territory. There are some great opportunities coming our way.
To the McCarthy family, Dawn, my wife, the political animal of the Northern Territory; to Robert, Abbi and Reece in Cobar; to Thomas and Maria; to Joey in Canberra; to Jan and Cecilia; to Judy and Tim, and Hannah, Ella and Daniel - you guys are incredible. You are all Territorians. The most recent recruit is Dr Lynne McCarthy. You all keep me sane; you are great indicators of good policy - I throw it out there, you throw it back. You are true McCarthys.
Everyone here, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and what a year it has been!
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a really hard act to follow - the passion, I love it. That is one thing I love about the Labor Party.
I acknowledge my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. We have had a fantastic year. As the Chief Minister said, it is great to be part of a strong and united team kicking goals for the Northern Territory. I particularly acknowledge my bush colleagues. We all put up with the same issues in many ways; we share many issues in our electorates. We know how hard it is, particularly my bush colleagues in Cabinet, to maintain a level of service that our constituents deserve and ask from us. To my Caucus colleagues, I thank you all for your support and your advice in 2010; particularly the Chief Minister - he is a fantastic leader. I thank him for the Community Cabinet we had at Yuendumu this year, and also for coming to Lajamanu and Kalkarindji this year to talk about our government’s vision of A Working Future.
To my staff on the fifth floor - I know the opposition is critical of the fifth floor, because they do such a fantastic job. To my staff: Kieran Phillips, my Senior Advisor, is a fantastic asset to this government. He has guided me in many ways since I have been a minister for the last two-and-a-half years, and it is great to have Kieran on my side and providing fantastic advice.
To Martin, to Sheau-quim, and to Kenny Vowles, who is well-known to many people. Kenny is a fantastic person to be around, he is such fun. He is well-known and well loved by everyone no matter where he goes in the Territory, whether it is Alice Springs or around Darwin. Kenny, thank you for your support this year, particularly with Sport and Recreation. I know the Strike cricket team are really disappointed that you are not going to be coaching them next year at the Australian Country Cricket Championships.
Andrew Buick deserves a special mention. We know the challenges we have had this year with the environment, and I believe Andrew Buick is the best advisor on the fifth floor. There might be some disagreement there, but the advice, the experience in his briefings with opposition members or parliamentary colleagues on my side of the House, he has it all. Andrew, I know we have had a big day today, I thank you, and I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas. Spend plenty of time with them because you have had a fantastic year.
To Vanessa, and to my new PA, Condillo, welcome aboard, I look forward to working with you both in 2011. Being a minister based in Alice Springs the ministerial staff fly between Darwin and Alice Springs on many occasions and Vanessa is always on my back about the ministerials. I certainly appreciate it and I need that pushing along the way.
To those who have left my ministerial staff this year: Sue Shearer, Kirk Whelan and James Hook, all were very valuable staff members, and I appreciated the efforts you put in during your time working for me. Jade Carroll has had a baby this year, and I am looking forward to her coming back next year. I do not know if there is something about my office, it must be something in the air up there because many of the female staff members who work in my office somehow fall pregnant. So Condillo and Sheau-quim, I hope it does not happen to you! I have a great team and they have provided much support to me this year. I thank you very much, and wish you and your families a very Merry Christmas.
To other staff in Parliament House, particularly to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, and the staff in the Chamber who, during the sitting days are certainly on the ball, thank you very much for your support and advice. To Madam Speaker, the staff in Hansard, and to the Legislative Assembly staff, not only during sittings, but in my electorate office, I thank you for your advice, your support, and your service.
To the security staff in Parliament House, to the cleaners, thank you very much for your services this year. To the drivers: Garry, George, John, Bill, Ben and Gowan, thank you for your services as well.
Turning to my portfolios, to the public service, thank them sincerely for their work efforts this year. The department of the Environment has had enormous challenges this year, and I particularly thank Jim Grant, my CEO, for his advice and work over the past 12 months.
A special mention should go to the Aquatic Health team, Julia Fortune and the staff who have done fantastic work under enormous pressure, particularly in regard to the beach closures we have had this year. To the Aquatic Health team, thank you very much for that work.
The croc team, Tommy Nichols and his crew, work under enormous pressure and do a fantastic job. They deserve a special mention.
To Steve Rossingh and the team at the Sports House, Sport and Recreation, thank you for the fantastic job you do. There have been many highlights in Sport and Rec: Des Abbott and Joel Carroll winning gold at the Commonwealth Games is a fantastic achievement for two young Territory lads, cousins, who are living a dream and playing on the world stage. Jake Tunny was crowned world champion this year at the BMX World Championships in Germany, and for a 12-year-old he is looking at bigger and brighter things. Our superfish, Tammy Afuhaamango, won five gold, one bronze, set two personal world records and three relay records at the Down Syndrome International Swimming Championships in Taiwan. Well done, Tammy. The NT Cricket team, Strike Team, won the Australian Country Championships earlier this year, a fantastic effort. Our ten-pin bowlers with a disability brought home an amazing 53 medals, including 15 gold, at the Australian Disability Championships in Perth.
To Tony Frawley and the AFLNT staff, thank you very much for your efforts. Andrew Ramsey at NT Cricket has done an excellent job; and thank you to Paul Elliott who takes very strong control of football in Central Australia. He has done a fantastic job there, particularly in making the African population of Alice Springs feel welcome through soccer.
Grant Hammon, as Sports NT President, we have worked closely with this year, particularly with the Hidden Valley, and events like the V8s and the award winning Superbike Championships.
The biggest highlight for me in sport was Collingwood winning the Grand Final. Sorry, Chief Minister, maybe next year.
Turning to my electorate, I sincerely thank the people of Stuart. I have the largest electorate in the Northern Territory; I keep telling people it is the size of Germany. It is a diverse and very large electorate. I pay special thanks to the schools. I probably do not have time to go through all of those schools but I acknowledge Kayla Williker, from Manyallaluk School, who won the Christmas card competition I ran this year through the Stuart electorate office. Congratulations to her, and all the kids at Manyallaluk. I hope to be there in a couple of weeks.
The schools are the hearts of our communities. Thanks to all the principals, teachers and staff, and a special thank you to all the teacher assistants, the local Indigenous workers who keep our language and culture strong and, importantly, pass it on to the kids. They are invaluable to those teachers and to the staff at those schools.
Thanks to my electorate officers. As my colleague, the member for Barkly, said, being a bush member in Cabinet is a tough gig; it is not often we can get out in our electorates as much as we would like, and we rely on our electorate officers. So to Vicky Trindle in the Alice Springs office, and Gavin, and the girls, thank you for your support and your work; enjoy a good Christmas break with the family. To Jo Nichol in Katherine, to Sam and Dylan, thank you very much for your support as well. I know you do a fantastic job in the Katherine part of my electorate.
Finally to my family, to Rebecca and the boys, Josh, Curtly and Jamie - for a bloke coming from the Gap in Alice Springs I am really living my dream. I treasure every day I am in this House. It is a special thing to be a member of parliament in the Northern Territory, but it would not be possible without the support of Rebecca and my three sons, whom I love dearly. They have had their highlights for the year and I am sure there will be bigger things happening next year. My father Robert, my sisters, Pauline and Vanya, and my brother, Vaughan, thank you very much for being there. Finally, to my Aunty Daisy, who has cancer and is in hospital in Alice Springs, I wish you all the very best, and I will see you next week.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to my constituents in Arnhem. When I think of the incredible men and women who make up the many communities of Arnhem, it is a privilege to represent them in this House, not only as the member for Arnhem, but also in Cabinet as a minister of the Northern Territory government.
To the people of Millingimbi, have a safe and Merry Christmas. There are so many families who have worked closely with me and supported me through the year, knowing I have to travel across the Northern Territory. To the people of Ramo, in particular the school students; to Corrie who has retired from the school in Ramingining, thank you for your support and the work you have done in a passionate and dedicated way for the students of Ramingining over the years. You have worked in many places across the Northern Territory and been an inspiration to so many, myself included, when I first met you whilst a student in Alice Springs. It will be good to go to Ramingining tomorrow to celebrate with the students, especially those who will be graduating.
Across to Groote Eylandt, a sincere thank you to the Anindilyakwa Land Council; it is wonderful working with you. What you are doing on Groote Eylandt is inspirational. To Walter Amagula, Tony Wurramarrba, Joas Lalara, and Thomas Amagula and the other team members on the Anindilyakwa Land Council, well done for inspiring the people of Groote Eylandt through the many complexities you deal with, and in paving the way for the regional partnership program on Groote with SIHIP, and the incredible work being done in Umbakumba, Angurugu and on Bickerton. Well done, and I appreciate the support and mentoring from the women’s council we have set up on Groote Eylandt with support from the ALC.
To the many people in Alyangula who have been incredibly supportive through some very difficult issues this year - 2011 will be a much better year. To the workers at GEMCO, challenges there for sure; again, I can see the progress on Groote Eylandt is only occurring because of the continued effort of every single person on the island to ensure you find a common goal and a way forward. That inspires me, not only as your member of parliament, but as a minister in the Northern Territory government. I look at the many reforms I have carriage of across the Northern Territory trying to inspire other Aboriginal communities to do the best they can and learn from examples such as Groote in employment, progress of the land council, the vision in tourism with Dugong Beach Resort, the housing and employment occurring for local Indigenous people and the push for Indigenous people to have a choice, to be able to live where they wish with an income made available through jobs such as those at GEMCO.
Last week we opened facilities at the school at Numbulwar - an inspiring place. I congratulate the staff, the police unit, Craig and Rebecca, who I was talking to last week about the need for a safe house at Numbulwar. It is going to be a priority for me in the New Year. The safety of women and children across the Northern Territory is an area I am passionate about. I am pleased to see the combined efforts of the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments have ensured families in remote regions are feeling safer knowing there is a solid police presence, something which has been difficult in the past. I thank the people of Numbulwar for their work for the Roper Gulf Shire. I see what is occurring in Numbulwar and in Ngukurr under your leadership and guidance. The challenges will continue. Members of the Roper Gulf Shire who represent those communities are passionate in wanting to find a way forward, and ensuring these growth towns have a solid future for generations to come.
I thank the families at Ngukurr. Ngukurr is leading the way in the Future Forums, and the Yugul Mangi Council wants to establish and determine its future. It has been an inspiration in the region - especially since the opening of the Ngukurr oval - knowing they have grabbed the opportunity with both hands and recognising there will always be challenges. I admire the strength of the people of the Ngukurr region. With the Wet Season coming, we have some physical challenges when we see the Roper and Wilton Rivers rise. As the local member, I will be watching that closely to ensure we do not have any problems with food access in the region. I am determined to improve road transport in that area and, hopefully, one day to have a fantastic bridge for the Roper and Wilton Rivers to allow year-round traffic in and out of Katherine.
To the people of Bulman, I am thinking of you all. Thank you for your support. We have seen solid improvement in the Bulman area. I am always encouraged by the determination of the people to do things better, and to create a solid future for the young people coming through. Tourism has been a bright light for many families in regard to their homelands and outstations. I am very conscious government will focus on the Central Arnhem Road knowing Bulman is in the centre - between Nhulunbuy and Katherine - and recognise there are solid opportunities for the people of Bulman in growth to that region. I look forward to working through those challenges and opportunities in 2011, and wish everyone at Bulman and Weemol a very happy and safe Christmas.
We will be watching the Wilton River. It is good to know there has been improvements to road access at Mainoru. There are challenges in the Wet Season. It does not matter how many bridges you build, sometimes they still go under.
I say a very personal thank you to my staff in the ministerial office - to John Tobin who works with me at Local Government, to Andrew Blakey who travels with me as we work on tourism across the Northern Territory, and aviation in particular. My drive to ensure solid aviation access into and out of the Northern Territory has left many people a little exhausted. I appreciate the hard work of my staff.
To Tanya and Eddy, you are absolutely amazing. People come into my ministerial office and see you there warmly welcoming, organising my diary, reminding me of what is important - ensuring I have family time. Thank you so much to the both of you; it is wonderful to work with you. To Ursula, who has come on board as my media PR, you are fantastic. It is wonderful to work with you and see the way you look at things and the way things should be done. It is great to know you can have a solid conversation with staff and be guided in a direction which is the best representation for the people of the Northern Territory.
To Lucy, you are a terrific girl and it is wonderful to have you on board. I know you have had a tough time this past month. I admire your courage and persistence in wanting to pursue things in the areas of women’s policy and statehood. Next year is going to be terrific - 100 years for the Northern Territory, and I look forward to working with Lucy in that area.
To Peter, you keep the team together. I am forever travelling and someone has to keep the gang together, and I thank you so much. You are a fantastic right hand man and I sincerely wish you and your family all the best over Christmas. To Charles in my electorate, we have been working together five-and-a-half years and I thank you for that. To you and your family, have a happy and safe Christmas, and I hope we can have more road trips before it gets too wet. It is great to hit the roads into Arnhem and hang out with you and your gang as we check out how people are going on the outstations and communities across Arnhem Land.
I pay tribute to my agency under the leadership of Ken Davies. Ken, it is fantastic working with you. We have enormous challenges in front of us. We are the agency with the biggest reforms across the Northern Territory in regional economic development, the A Working Future policy and SIHIP, which I know you share under the leadership of my colleague, Chris Burns. We have Futures Forums next year, which I believe will be a significant step forward for our 20 growth towns, and also the outstation policy. Ken, to you and the team in Local Government, in the office of Indigenous Policy and in Regional Development, I sincerely wish all my staff, through Ken, a very happy and safe Christmas. Thank you for your tireless efforts with these incredible reforms we have carriage of across the Northern Territory. I am excited about 2011, and I know we will see these reforms through in a way which benefits the people of the Northern Territory.
To the Office of Women’s Policy, Janette Galton, under your leadership next year is going to be terrific - 100 years for the celebration of women. I look forward to that and the many new plans we have in that area.
To the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority staff, it was wonderful to open the new premises in Mitchell Street yesterday. To the team in Alice Springs and the Darwin office, thank you for the work you do under the leadership of Ben Scambary.
I also say a very, very big thank you to my Cabinet and Caucus colleagues. Without a doubt, it is a very tough job being a minister in the Northern Territory government. We believe in the reforms and policies we bring to this House. It is exciting, as Minister for Statehood, to know in 2011 that we have some terrific opportunities not only in the Northern Territory but on the national stage, to look at who we are as people of the Northern Territory, where are we going, and how we define ourselves as people of the Northern Territory in becoming the seventh state in the federation.
Listening to colleagues in this House, there are challenges - life is like that. The important thing about challenges, or any problems and issues we face, whether in our own life or as a collective, as a team, as a government or as a parliament, is we learn to work it out together and, in the words of the member for Goyder, find the common ground which brings us together as people of the Northern Territory.
I thank the Statehood Steering Committee team. I pay tribute to the Deputy Clerk, Michael Tatham, for his incredible work over the years with the committee, and now as Deputy Clerk. I also say thanks to Madam Speaker and Fran Kilgariff for the work they have done on the committee, and will continue to do into 2011.
To my Caucus colleagues, thank you for your terrific support and the encouragement you give every step of the way. We all have our ups and downs; however, as a team we have learned how to bring out the best in each other, support each other when things are tough, and recognise we are walking this road together leading the Northern Territory. I commend the Chief Minister and, in the words of the member for Barkly, we have a fantastic leader in Paul Henderson. He has been through an incredible amount in this term of government. Next year will be a wonderful year for everyone.
On a personal front, I thank my family. It is tough on families; they are there, rock solid. To my people in the Borroloola and Gulf region, always the smiles, always the phone calls of support and assistance, and the patience and understanding, knowing they rarely see me. Having to travel across the Territory, interstate and overseas, as exciting as it may sound, is incredibly exhausting and I am looking forward to having time off in January. Until then the work goes on; the show goes on.
To the team in the Labor Party, to the Labor faithful across the Northern Territory, for your belief in us as a team, thank you; a very safe and happy Christmas to each and every one of you and your families.
To staff on the fifth floor, a happy and safe Christmas to you all. To members of the Legislative Assembly, to the staff, to you guys in the Table Office, to Gaddy, Annette and Steve, the Clerk, Ian, thank you so much for the work you do and for putting up with the long hours and long speeches in the House. Thank you, wishing you all a very happy and safe Christmas.
To the Hansard team, we cannot do it without you. Thank you for the work you do. Thank you for your persistence in ensuring names are spelled right. It is a job we know is so important; perhaps you do not get the recognition you deserve. I sincerely wish each and every one of you a very safe and happy Christmas.
To the staff in Parliament House, security, the cleaners, Speakers Corner caf and, of course, our wonderful drivers, thank you so much. When I get off a plane and know you are there after travelling for so long it is great to see your smiles and to know what has been happening in Darwin in my absence. I wish each and every one of you a very happy and safe Christmas.
To all members of the House, a very happy and safe time with your families. It is an incredible place and it is humbling to be a member of parliament. People often ask me if I still enjoy what I do. I say: ‘I love what I do, warts and all’, because it is an incredible honour to be a member of parliament and stand in the Northern Territory Assembly representing the people of Arnhem Land in whatever capacity. Any member in this House, being a representative of your constituents should make you very thankful.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will echo many words which have been spoken in this Chamber tonight. I agree with the previous member that it is an honour to represent the people of an electorate, irrespective of which side of politics you represent. It is a privilege to come here to benefit the people you represent. I am sure that, even with the argy-bargy which happens in this Chamber, all people are here for the very best of reasons and we all fight for the benefit of our constituents.
On that note, I sincerely thank the people of Sanderson who had the confidence to put me in this House to represent their interests. I sincerely hope this year I have worked hard, both in the parliament and the electorate, to meet their expectations.
I thank our schools, in particular Jodie Green and her team at Sanderson Middle School; Sue Fisher and her team at Wulagi Primary School; the team at Wagaman Primary School led by Michele Cody; and Kerry at Anula Primary School who has recently joined the team. There is a great team at that school doing a fabulous job. Given that the youth of our community make up 18% of our population and 100% of our future, it is imperative those people receive all the support they can get. I would like to recognise their efforts. You cannot pay someone enough to be a teacher in our schools. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, having been a teacher yourself you understand what I am talking about.
To the school councils who keep the engines running, a sincere thank you for the job you do. It is one of those thankless jobs behind the scenes. Rest assured that people in the community know who you are. Those who cannot be there to do the job appreciate those who give up their time to do it. To the people in the shopping centres in my electorate who have supported fundraising for schools and community groups, for your ongoing support in relation to gifts for raffles, financial support for school sports days and things, a sincere thank you.
Thank you to the Legislative Assembly staff and, in particular, the Clerk who over many years has done a fabulous job, assisted ably by a number of well qualified staff, in particular Vicky Long; Mary-Anne Almond, who is always there to support us; Corinna Murray, who finds fabulous ways to get you to and from places; Deirdra Fitzgerald, for her advice on Human Resources; the Hansard staff, who provide quick turnaround on requests for rush jobs; and to the IT staff who keep our computers running - they do a fabulous job. It is challenging these days, because nothing is ever quick enough.
To my electorate officer, Renee Bandes, who joined us recently and has had an incredible learning curve, thank you very much. Renee is a young lady dedicated to her tasks and to learning and gaining more knowledge from wherever she can to do her job better. I wish her and George a very merry and happy Christmas and a great holiday.
To the temporary staff who look after us and help through the year, a great thank you. I particularly mention a volunteer staff member who sits outside my office virtually on a daily basis selling raffle tickets and raising money for all sorts of worthy causes, John Moyle. Many people know John. Thousands of people go through Northlakes Shopping Centre each week, and John is well known to people who frequent the shopping centre. What many people might not know is he is about 30 days short of 92. He is still sprightly, still raising money. He always has a good word to say, a smile, a spring in his step, and is as sharp as a tack. John, on behalf of me, my family, the branch, and the Sanderson electorate, thank you for what you do. I am sure your family is proud of you because you are still giving to the community after years in Apex and other things; giving so much to your community. Thanks very much. Next Anzac Day I am taking John to Gallipoli to realise a lifelong dream to attend the Anzac Day service. I look forward to doing that with you, John.
The North Darwin branch of the Country Liberals is a fantastic branch. They support me; they have for years. I cannot thank them enough for what they do in the community, and for the opportunity given to me in preselection and, of course, the ongoing support on a daily and monthly basis.
To my daughter Kristy and my sons, Adam and Damien, I cannot express how proud I am of you and the support you give me. Although I spend many hours working now, that love and support is ongoing and I cannot thank you enough and tell you how proud I am of the people you are. This brings me to my rock, my greatest fan and supporter, my partner, Linda Fazldeen. Without her I doubt I would be standing here. I thank you, Linda, for your ongoing love and support and the commitment you have, not only to me, but to us and our family.
I wanted to thank people individually, however, there is another matter I would like to speak briefly about and that is the unfortunate passing of a great Territorian, a great Australian, Neil Conway, a highly decorated World War II bomber pilot who spent many years in the Territory. He is probably one of the oldest Territorians, having lived here for years.
I have some notes I picked up today. He passed away on Tuesday, and I wanted to use this last opportunity for the year to recognise his contribution, not only to his country, but to the Northern Territory. This was written by Neil in 2007. I place it on the public record for his children, his grandchildren and future generations to understand the commitment this man made to his country. It says:
- I was born in Perth, Western Australia, on 17 December 1921. My father was a World War I Australian Imperial Forces returned soldier, wounded in the trenches of France, and I was named after an uncle, a lieutenant in the Light Horse who served at Gallipoli and was later killed in action at Palestine. I am at least a third generation Australian. I was raised on a soldiers’ settlement wheat farm in a marginal area of Western Australia during the Depression years. I obtained a scholarship to attend a high school, finishing in 1939.
I commenced work with the Department of Works and, shortly afterwards, joined the RAAF as air crew. I was selected as a pilot after coming top of the initial course, and obtained my wings in Western Australia. I was then posted to England where, after further training, I obtained a rare grading of ‘exceptional’ heavy bomber pilot. I was posted to No 76 Squadron RAAF, flying Halifaxes, a four-engine heavy night bomber.
In 76 Squadron, my crew and I carried out over 40 operational missions across Germany and occupied Europe. I believe we were the first crew to complete 40 heavy bomber missions over Europe; the normal quota being 30. We were hit by flack and had combats with enemy night fighters on a number of occasions. However, despite the attrition rate being two out of three, my entire crew and I were fortunate to survive all missions, including all those which necessitated crash landings.
My bomb aimer and I volunteered for a second tour of operations, but were posted back to Australia to convert to Liberator bombers for the war in the Pacific, but this finished before I commenced flying.
At the war’s end, I was transferred to the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve and recommenced work with the Department of Works, and also commenced a small air charter business between Perth and Rottnest Island. I requested a transfer of the Department of Works to Darwin and arrived there in 1949. I was later transferred to the Department of Civil Aviation, Air Traffic Control, Darwin.
In 1951, with two other instructors, I formed the Darwin Aero Club and commenced flying instruction in Darwin. Almost immediately, the other two instructors left and I carried on alone for a further two years as chief flying instructor, sole instructor, as well as manager. During this period, many pilots were trained, some now flying as airline captains.
Although most of this work was voluntary and took up a lot of my time, I considered it well worthwhile, the Darwin Aero Club having its origins in this initial club. Also during this period, as a member of the RAAF Reserve, I flew second pilot on Lincoln Bombers stationed in Darwin on search and rescue missions and on general reconnaissance work.
In 1954, in conjunction with Ralph Thompson, a former Top End MMA pilot, we formed the Northern Territory’s first, and for some time, only air charter company, North Australia Aviation Services Pty Ltd. During this period, I pioneered many new areas and was the first to land on numerous bush airstrips assessing their suitability for the owners of stations and for the Department of Civil Aviation. My partner having left the company, I was regarded as the most experienced bush pilot on commercial operations in the Top End.
My main customers were the newly founded uranium mining industry in the Northern Territory, the pastoral industry, and remote Aboriginal settlements in conjunction with the Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory Administration. For the mining industry I provided spares, urgent equipment, food and personal transport to isolated camps to enable them to continue. I also carried out low-level scintometer searches for uranium finding several occurrences, some of which were worked. On one of these occasions, I crashed near Cloncurry in outback Queensland and, with a broken back, broken ribs and severe lacerations I walked 30 miles at night to obtain help for the injured geophysicists.
For the Aboriginal communities at the time I provided their only link with the outside world, bringing in food and supplies and introducing Aboriginal people to the benefits of air travel to the extent that they used me to bring their football players to Darwin for regular games. My service also provided quick and ready access for welfare branch personnel on the very necessary visits to the communities. I am still well known in Aboriginal communities and had many friends among them.
In 1959, there was a slump in the mining industry, so I sold the aircraft and joined the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research establishment at Lucas Heights, Sydney. I attended university part-time and obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree, majoring in Analytical Chemistry and Radiation Chemistry, after which I commenced a Masters Degree. In 1971, at the first opportunity, I returned to the Northern Territory to assist in the Alligator Rivers Region fact finding study, and I have remained here ever since. The work carried out in this study was extensively used by the government and mining companies during the Fox Uranium Inquiry. I then carried out environmental studies and rehabilitation measures at Rum Jungle, and have great satisfaction in seeing the work now being carried out by the Northern Territory government.
From time to time, I assisted glider and parachute clubs by flying the tow aircraft for gliders and transport aircraft for the parachutists.
In 1955, I married Betty, a serving member of the Royal Australian Navy and later had two children. I taught my son, also named Neil, to fly, and he now flies B747 jumbo jets for Qantas, flying frequently between Australia and America. My daughter, Elizabeth, works in communications and still lives in Darwin.
During my wartime flying experiences, I was always apprehensive about surviving and bringing my crew home safely, but considered that I was making a valuable contribution to the war effort on behalf of my country.
Except for a short period when I was working for the Atomic Energy Commission in Sydney, I have lived in the Northern Territory since 1949. In the early period, I considered I had a made a contribution to general aviation, Aboriginal communities, pilot training, and mining exploration in the Northern Territory, and in later years, a contribution towards the scientific and balanced environmental aspects of uranium mining and exploration, and the rehabilitation of old mine sites.
That was written on 6 June 2007. There are a few additional notes which I will quickly go through.
Neil was one of the last surviving World War II veterans in the Northern Territory, and one of the longest residents. In many ways, his passing has marked the end of an era.
In 2005, Neil was awarded the French Legion of Honour. He is believed to be the only Territorian recipient of this medal. He has a 1939-49 Star; a France and Germany Star; the Defence Medal; the War Medal 1939-45; the Australian Service Medal 1939-45; and the Returned from Active Service Badge. He relinquished his pilot’s licence in 1989, with a total of approximately 4200 flying hours over 47 years. He was an active community member, and member of many associations, including the Darwin RSL Sub-Branch Incorporated since 1949, including two years as Treasurer. He is an honorary member of the RAAF Officer’s Mess Darwin, and a member of the Australia America Association.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. The aircraft Neil flew was called the Euphemistic. Its official call sign was U for Uncle. The amazing thing about this man is he flew 40 missions over Germany and Europe in horrific conditions, and had the same crew on mission 1 as on mission 40 - he did not lose one person. It was through the unorthodox methods Neil told me about - I am sure the statute of limitations has expired, especially now Neil has passed - I can now say he used to fly home in some of the most unorthodox ways. He would fly home at 300 feet when the others were at 17 000 feet, and said it is the only way he survived 40 missions with the same crew. He did not follow the path home and found himself flying over the D-Day invasion at about 300 feet and in serious trouble. He came home flying at treetop level, and flew over an airfield in France occupied by Germans at the time. The lights were on, everyone was home having a great time, not expecting bombers to be there. It was lit up full of German fighters and he simply said to the crew: ‘Do you think we should have a go at this?’ They all said yes. They had a full load of ammunition, banked it over, did a couple of circles and single-handedly destroyed an entire airfield with countless squadrons of fighters. He did not own up to it because he would have been in serious trouble. No one knew who did it. It was not until years after the war he confessed to a few of his flying colleagues that it was him.
There are numerous stories about this fantastic Australian who gave so much for his country. He kept these seven people alive and, 26 years ago, had a 40-year reunion. They were all still alive to tell the tale - one of the very few crews. The sad thing about the aircraft Euphemistic is two missions after Neil handed it over to a new crew it was shot down and the entire crew lost their lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I salute a great Australian.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016